A reply to the recent study that tried to correlate male circumcision to urinary tract infections (UITs). Dr. Christopher Guest shows that that recent study fails to provide evidence regarding intact children and the risk of UTIs. The doctor also makes the valid point that urinary tract infections are better treated with antibiotics instead of invasive surgery like circumcision.
Betty responds to a guy who hopes sex gets better as he continues his foreskin restoration. He is hoping that as he regrows his foreskin, he will be better able to pleasure his partner. He is concerned about his fast and furious thrusting that he employs during sex. Betty says that his thrusting style was likely learned at a young age. He can retrain himself.
That is also my experience. As I restored my foreskin, I relearned how to thrust. I now use short thrusts and full penetration. We both like that much better than when I vigorously thrust with my broomstick of a penis before I started restoring.
The blogger very astutely asks how freedom of religion allows someone to remove body parts from another person who does not give consent? If a parent tattoos a child, they are considered criminals. But cutting off part of a baby boy’s sex organ is OK?
How can “freedom of religion” possibly be construed to extend so far that it allows religious people to remove parts of other people’s bodies without their consent and for no medical reason? Tattooing results in even less impairment than removal of the foreskin, yet parents who apply tattoos to their children have often faced charges. Are we to believe that the mere fact that some people might believe something as part of their religion is enough to make this completely acceptable? And if so, what are the limits to this?
Banning the circumcision of children does not have the impact that most religious people claim. Those who feel that circumcision is important to their practice of religion are free to have a circumcision. They just cannot impose body modifications on others, particularly children. The author also points out that the HIV and STD argument does not carry any weight because children do not get HIV or STDs from sex.
An African man questions the male circumcision campaign being waged in Africa. He notes that current information shows that there are more cases of HIV among circumcised men than intact men for Zimbabwe. This evidence contradicts the circumcision studies used by advocates.
The author questions the current male circumcision campaign in Africa. He notes that the circumcision campaign appears to be driven by outside forces. Also, less invasive measures are available than the drastic amputation of part of the man’s sex organ through circumcision.
A discussion of ethics and the recent German ruling making male infant circumcision illegal. Male infant circumcision is unethical. The fact that it has been practiced for a long time is no argument for continuing to cut baby boy’s sex organs. Most other harmful practices that have a long history have been abandoned as we become more enlightened.
Further investigation causes blogger to reconsider the efficacy of male circumcision for HIV. He quotes that the male circumcision studies are “Poorly conducted experiments with dubious results presented in an outrageously misleading fashion.”
Another critique of the trials used to support the male circumcision campaign in Africa. The trials are flawed and use relative percentages as opposed to absolute percentages as a tactic to support the conclusions they desire, but did not necessarily obtain from the studies. The study, although canceled early, showed that women who had circumcised partners were infected 50% more than women who had intact partners. For those women who had sex with circumcised partners shortly after their circumcision, the women’s HIV infection rate was 300% greater.
Another critique of the trials used to support the male circumcision campaign in Africa. The trials are flawed and use relative percentages as opposed to absolute percentages as a tactic to support the conclusions they desire, but did not necessarily obtain from the studies.
The recent court ruling that circumcising a child is illegal is a just decision. As German law makes clear, inflicting bodily harm on anyone else is prohibited without exceptions. There is no exception for religious reasons or “the right of conscience.” Your liberty is limited to yourself.
A critique of a recent Huffington Post - Canada article that declared male infant circumcision as not being mutilation. She is wrong.
If an adult were to be held down without consent and had part of his penis removed, no one would question that he was mutilated. It is no different if the person being cut is an infant or child. Circumcision is a body modification that mutilates the sex organ of the male.
In light of recent story on NPR, Jeff writes again about the flaws in the studies advocating the circumcision campaign in Africa. Sadly, the circumcision agenda is robbing Africans of their sexual heritage by applying Western values to an African problem (and by using flawed science to do so).
A report of the recent news that infant circumcision has a high complication rate in the United Kingdom. In one hospical alone in London 11 baby boys needed to be re-admitted to the hospital’s pediatric intensive care unit for serious, life-threatening complications following their circumcision.
Countries that do not routinely circumcise their baby boys have a very low rate of male circumcision among older boys and adults. If a baby boy is left whole and intact, he will likely not need to be circumcised later.
Infant circumcision is based entirely upon sexism. Infant circumcision is the forcible removal of a portion of the sex organs of a child. For girls, it is illegal. For boys, it is considered acceptable. Sounds sexist to me.
A mom tells why she left her son whole and intact. No circumcision for her son. Although there are advocates to both sides of the circumcision question, looking at the evidence objectively informed her that male infant circumcision is not worth it.
A couple decides to leave their son intact by foregoing infant circumcision. They learned that there is not enough health-related evidence to support male infant circumcision. They also learned how infant circumcisions are performed and no way were they going to submit their precious baby to such a painful surgery.