From today's Observer:
"[Alex] Renton's article says male circumcision can reduce the chances of HIV transmission by 60% and lower the incidence of many STDs. Women with circumcised partners are four times less likely to get cervical cancer. So why does the NHS not recommend it?" Rebecca McEwan, Edinburgh
Well, Rebecca, there might be several reasons for that:
1) not all male babies will want to stick their cocks into your vagina. I know this may come as a shock, but some of those babies will grow up to be gay. So the idea that they should have their genitalia mutilated in order to protect you from a non-existent health risk strikes me as a tad self-centred, no?
2) the evidence for the efficacy of circumcision (as a prophylactic for HIV) is at best shaky. The US has a higher incidence of male circumcision than almost anywhere else in the Western world, and yet it also has the highest rates of HIV among those same countries.
[Emphasis All Mine.]
Click on Normal for Norfolk: A self-centred moron writes.... for the rest of the reasons illustrated with images of intact penises in varying states of arousal [NSFW].
