Hm....well there was the one study in Africa, but that wasn't the only one. That's just the only one that is making the news lately. Circumcision does lessen probability of many kinds of infections. That is how it became the norm in many western countries, whether or not it was ultimately a good thing. It's one of the main reasons it is a thousands of year old tradition in many societies.
About Africa, one thing I wonder about is if religion social class has been taken into consideration. If circumcised men there contract HIV less frequently, might it be at least partly because they also adhere to a muslim code of sexual ethics as opposed another system, or are from a higher socio-economic background? In anycase, the prevailing notion in Africa is, that anything that can be done, to slow the spread of AIDS is worth taking into consideration.
About polarizing rehtoric: If some members won't concede to be reasonable and moderate in their choice of wording, all I can say is that it does very little for their argument to be though radical, extreme, and reactionary.
Mutilate, simply means to deprive of a limb, or to cripple in people, or disfigurement by the destruction of an essential part. In things, it means to disfigure by damaging irreperably. We need to be careful how we use this term. It is a very strongly. We no longer refer to people as "cripples" for example even if they do have less than the apportioned number of limbs, simply because the term is offensive. Mutilated can be likewise offensive, as I mentioned in my earlier post, when used to refer to a circumcised penis. In short, you're being a jerk, so check yourself.
You may feel that your penis is mutilated, because it is deprived of what you view as an essential part. Most of us, even those against infant circumcision don't though. Others would say that the circumcised is not "damaged " in a way that significantly affects it's function, or irreperably for that matter. Furthermore the penis itself, (and the man as a whole) are not in anyway, crippled, disfigured, imperfect or missing. Saying mutilated, in that light, is at best a gross exageration, and what's more, insulting. Even using the term "mutilated foreskin" would be a very great strech of the word as it is used today.
I value how you feel about your penis, but please show some respect about how others feel about theirs.
Perhaps you wish to end infant circumcision, and you feel that the only way parents will not want to have their son's circumcised, is if they view their own circumicision as a mutilation, a loss, a tragedey, or a horror. Is this the only that parents will want to break from the social norm, or a generations old tradition? I'm not sure. There is a venerable old saying, that you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar though. My advice to you is, following the example of many pro-foreskin resources, focus on the positive of being uncircumcised. Show how uncircumcised is "normal", normal too. It may prove a more effective strategy to disarm, than to counter attack with the same predjudice, fear, and insults you are working against. After this rationally allay arguments of it being "dirty" unusual, "wierd" ect, and be reasonable in admitting that there are pros and cons on both sides. In the end respect the parents raising their son, as they see fit, just as you would wish them to do for you.
About gays....If there are boards about this, where there is an about even gay/straight ration....there aren't still nearly as many gay men in the world to begin with though....neither are there a proportionate number of gay men with children to straight men with children, for whom this issue is of primary concern. That is what struck me about this.
Best wishes.
Matt
Matt