Study: Circumcision might increase HIV infection in female partners

This article brings up all kinds of stuff. Well, it's written with the assumption that the pro-circ position is "pro-male". Horsecow. It is not the least pro-male. Second, it then goes on to say that it is better for women to not have sex with a circumcised partner if he has any open wounds on his penis. Well, it's better for anyone to not have sex with open wounds on his or her privvy parts, isn't it? It also falls into the common-bloody-sense dept. to avoid intercourse when one has open wounds on one's genitalia. But some people it seems can't be swayed. I also must ask if those women who got HIV from their partners didn't already know he had HIV (and wouldn't he have been or should have been tested for HIV before getting circumcised?), or had HIV already? HIV can lay undetected for some time.

This article can be added to the swirl of half-science and hearsay study work around circumcision as well as HIV prevention. It all comes down to this: the debate is whether it is a good idea to circumcise male infants, boys, men for whatever reasons. The answer is that it is wrong, period, to inflict any surgical operation that isn't necessary (and circumcision is wholly unnecessary) except for the well-being of the patient, and only with his legal and informed consent-- no one else can make that decision. Unless he has some very rare medical problem, there is no morally defensible reason for circumcising an infant-- I don't care if it's part of custom. I don't care if it's part of a government mandate for whatever reason. I don't care if it's part of a religion. I don't care if it's done for "moral reasons" of whatever kind. Inflicted, involuntary circumcision is WRONG, an incontrovertible violation of a person's fundamental human rights.

Debate, cite, preach, accuse, all you like. There is just no escaping the reality of it.

Feminists claim that circumcising women is all about sexual oppression when it happens, but we're constantly told that circumcising men is a hygiene issue. (To be fair, some kinds of female circumcision are more destructive and dangerous, both because of how it's performed and the degree to which the genitals are mutilated).

But that doesn't change the reason why genital mutilation is performed non-consensually on infant males in the west. Circumcising men is about sexual oppression, too. Slaves aren't supposed to enjoy sex, because sex and pleasure are what gives someone a sense of power - that's why a society invariably chops the pleasurable bits off of its slaves. In parts of Africa, it's little girls. In the west, it's little boys. Same practice, same reasons. The laughable attempts to dress up the sexual oppression of males in western culture using AIDS as an excuse are just that, laughable.

If that isn't enough to convince you, consider the fact that male sexuality is invariably portrayed as evil, perverted and dirty if it's discussed at all in our misandric media.

So whose sexuality is really being oppressed?

It's amazing how so many of these parents who have their sons mutilated are so reluctant to commit themselves to paying for their sons' reversal surgery should they request it. I've spoken with several parents who had their sons mutilated and when I ask them if they're willing to fork out the cash to have their sons' mutilation surgically reversed, they balk at the notion.

Make no mistake about it, mommies and daddies: If you had your sons mutilated, and circumcision IS mutilation, then you're morally obligated to pay the entire cost of his surgical (or non-surgical, if that's what he chooses) restoration. In fact, he has not only the right to ask it, but to demand it. So you'd better had a helluva lot of money saved up, because it's gonna cost you out the yin-yang.

----------

"[John Galt] raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." -Atlas Shrugged

Generally, everywhere girls are mutilated, boys are too.

It's absolutely astounding that in this so-called "modern world" people are not getting the picture resp. the fact that genital mutilation reduces sexual pleasure, regardless of gender. Even though this is quite easy to grasp imho.
We really need to inform more people. Somehow, the anti-circ organizations are not getting through at all. Their explanations are probably too complicated for the attention span of most people.
I have long thought about an easy explanation and I think I have one, but I need it checked by a doctor.

Very well. That line should read:

"In parts of Africa, it's little boys and little girls. In the west, it's little boys."

It doesn't change a thing about my argument.

After checking some facts, it seems that you are correct in that boys are equally likely to be mutilated in African cultures that practice FGM. It's sadly reassuring (as tragic as the whole practice of genital mutilation is), to know that males and females are mistreated equally someplace on Earth.

The fact that genital mutilation is practiced on both boys and girls in Africa, but ONLY on boys in the West still supports my theory, which is that we mutilate genitals to enslave and punish those we mutilate. Adults and elders do this to BOTH men and women in Africa, yet they only do it to men here. Men are the slaves in western society, and therefore only men are mutilated here.