Continuing with the series, here’s a look at what bloggers are saying. I will excerpt some relevant passages, since blogs allow for commentary instead of the “reporting” offered by news media.
First, from Queerty:
The studies have yet to delve into the dark world of anal sex. Reseachers [sic] from John Hopkins University are currently looking into a relationship between the controversial female circumcision and viral exposure.
Want to guess how well that study will go over if the data supports a preventative effect for female circumcision? If the effect is the same and no one supports changing the Female Genital Mutilation Act to let parents circumcise their daughters, everyone now promoting circumcision of male infants as an HIV preventative is at best a hypocrite. Of course, they’re already hypocrites if they believe male circumcision should be legal and female circumcision should be illegal. HIV makes no difference.
Next, Tzvee.blogspot.com offers an interesting title:
NIH: Bris Milah may prevent HIV
Technically, I guess it’s correct. Who knows, maybe infant circumcision does protect against HIV. But that’s not what the study investigated. Theorizing as much, and I’m being quite generous in accepting that the title is meant as a theory rather than a summation of the article, isn’t accurate to the NIH’s news release concerning adult circumcision.
Next, this blogger believes circumcision is wonderful:
The New York Times reports today that the National Institutes of Health is convinced: circumcision works, and they are now formally recommending the procedure. This is powerful and important news.
Let’s get to snippin’.
He had himself circumcised at 37. As I’ve said before, he’s an adult. Good for him if that’s the best choice for him. I wouldn’t have had done that to myself, but I didn’t get the choice. He did. One of our positions makes sense for infants, and it isn’t his.
Next, from a technology forum, this is a typical, absurd justification for infant circumcision:
As far as this research goes, its a bit surprising to me as well. I was under the same assumption as you perris that the foreskin acts as a natural barrier. While I don’t think its cruel to circumcise your child, I do think its unnecessary. There are lots of people however that are uncomfortable with it, and thus make fun of it, so if you want to spare your child some grief in life you might want to have the procedure performed when they are born.
Cut your children because other people are uncomfortable with the foreskin? That’s dumb and unethical. The commenter claims to be intact, for what it’s worth.
Next, Dan Savage posts this at The Stranger:
I don’t know how much longer anti-circumcision activists can hold out against headlines like this:
I left this comment:
Holding out? I’m anti-circumcision, but I’m not threatened by headlines like this. Okay, that’s partly true. I am threatened by that headline because it’s incomplete. It should include the word adult before circumcision. That’s the problem.
Denying the science would be stupid and unproductive, specifically because it’s not the issue. Applying this science to sexually-inactive infants and children is. Any adult man who feels that safe sex isn’t sufficient can have himself circumcised and I won’t care. When parents decide that it isn’t sufficient for their children, that’s when we move into the irrational and unethical. Their job is to educate their children, not cut them because it’s easier. It’s also not effective, because unsafe sex will catch up with them, circumcised or not.
Essentially, this announcement is compatible with his body, his rights.
Finally, just because I like the title, this entry from a foe of infant circumcision: Fucking shit & bollox!. Exactly.