CDC's "Fact Sheet on Circumcision"

This is getting unbelievably ridiculous. What on earth is so hard to understand about the fact that this mutilation reduces sexual pleasure, a fact that was already known in the middle ages (Maimonides, Book of the Perplexed) and probably before?

This is so much BS it is hard to take. The African studies had serious design flaws including treating the circumcised and uncircumcised groups in a very different manner. Guess what? The group that was circumcised were taught how to use condoms! The uncircumcised group were not. Duh. There's more but that is enough on its own to scuttle any credibility for those studies.

This is just another branch of male disposability. If it were found that female circumcision had some health benefits would we encourage ALL GIRLS to be circumcised at birth? Hell no. But the boys? Hey, cut em.

edited to add a link to a good discussion of the issue of circumcision research claims.

Circumcision is one of those topics that people will create facts to support or to fight it.
The "chop off your nose to prevent it from bleeding oneday" arguments are popular amongst pro-circumcision groups.

You are correct if you believe that circumcision results are affected by educational aspects during the circumcision trial on HIV. In this quote there are 5 references from South Africa MRC that education about sex and AIDS goes hand and hand together with the circumcision efforts. I am a South African and we need to understand that these xhosa boys who make up the largest Aids and circumcision population commonly believe that raping a virgin will cure them. So it doesn't take much of education to make a massive difference. In a particular group that is studied.

Also they encourage a procedure that killed 250 boys in South Africa, not to mention the amount of HIV infection from dirty knives and other mutilations and amputations of male genitals. if it would have been girls, it would have been outlawd foresure. if its boys. Women like Rachel Jewkes look for reason to promote it.

Also Rachel Jewkes who are known for women’s studies and feminist related contributions out of the MRC is not shy about the ideal to use male circumcision as a gender transformation tool. There are a few news references to the same thing, here is one with 5 references to educational aspects.

From
http://www.aegis.com/news/IRIN/2007/IR070728.html
Africa: Mass male circumcision - what will it mean for women?

“According to Masombuka,

"(1) They tell them to be faithful to a girl, and to marry that girl, and not to go 'jolling' [sleeping] around."

Rachel Jewkes, who heads the gender and health unit of South Africa's Medical Research Council, believes that efforts to introduce male circumcision as an HIV intervention should borrow from traditional approaches that view the procedure as part of a

(2)"transformative process".
"If we see it purely as a medical intervention, it'll be a mistake; it's a social intervention," said Jewkes. "I think culture is very flexible and to the extent that circumcision has been associated with manhood, I think that gives it enormous potential for equating it with better manhood."
By "better manhood" Jewkes means men who are

(3)more sexually responsible, and more willing to view women as equals. She sees male circumcision programmes as a valuable opportunity to

(4)engage men in discussions about safer sex as well as gender equity.

"The critical thing is that male engagement in HIV prevention must not stop at the surgical knife, but that circumcision programmes must be accompanied by

(5)gender-transformative approaches to HIV prevention," she stressed.
What role for women?
Although public health experts have paid lip service to the idea of involving women in efforts to roll out national male circumcision programmes, details of what form such involvement would take are sketchy. “