It's certainly curious that the terms "erogenous" and "frenar band" are nowhere to be found in this article. For the record, the frenar band happens to be the primary erogenous zone of the male body, and it is located in the foreskin. One would think that parents would want to know whether they're amputating something that could well prove precious to their son. Furthermore there is evidence that circumcision significantly increases male->female HIV transmission rates due to increased vaginal friction, as corroborated by a comparison of US and EU HIV and circ rates. This one-sided censorship and propaganda campaign is in keeping with decades of medical disinformation regarding circumcision. Is medicine capable of acting ethically on this issue?
Contraindications
9 July 2010
It's certainly curious that the terms "erogenous" and "frenar band" are nowhere to be found in this article. For the record, the frenar band happens to be the primary erogenous zone of the male body, and it is located in the foreskin. One would think that parents would want to know whether they're amputating something that could well prove precious to their son. Furthermore there is evidence that circumcision significantly increases male->female HIV transmission rates due to increased vaginal friction, as corroborated by a comparison of US and EU HIV and circ rates. This one-sided censorship and propaganda campaign is in keeping with decades of medical disinformation regarding circumcision. Is medicine capable of acting ethically on this issue?
Competing interests
none