Bending the Third Rail
Because We Should, We Can, We Do
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Off With Their Heads!
I can't believe this.

Broadsheet, a chic blog written in Salon, has a piece written by a woman discussing a recent study that shows that men who are circumcised have a slightly lower rate of HIV. The study is quite controversial, but let's leave that aside for a moment. At one point, the writer says this:
And, of course, circumcision is a controversial topic -- almost any time we mention the practice, furious debates erupt over circumcision's cultural history and how it differs, if at all, from female genital mutilation. From our perspective, the practices have very distinct religious, medical and cultural histories. Male circumcision typically does not destroy sexual function -- it isn't designed to stamp out a man's sexual pleasure or identity. The same cannot be said for female circumcision, which, more often than not, is more accurately described as mutilation.
This is simply false. Circumcision, aside from being brutally done without anesthetic, removes an organ vital for sexual pleasure. Study after study have shown that foreskins play an important role in sexual pleasure.

Perhaps this author wouldn't mind losing a breast to tradition? After all, women don't have to breast feed anymore and besides, who needs two? Or how about this. We could really reduce the spread of HIV if we simply cut off men's penis's altogether! Leave a small opening and, voila', no AIDS.

I never thought in this day n' age I would see someone write something this ignorant.