This is the second time William Saletan has written a pro-circumcision article on Slate in the face of contradictory evidence. The last time, he wrote how parents "lovingly" circumcised their children while minimizing the pain, danger and lack of utility of the practice. Many analysts have criticized the African Aids studies for their shortcomings (and further, the results of these studies have not been reproduced in other cultures). In this case, Saletan reports a single tiny study that compared only two points on the surface of the penis and made absolutely no reference to foreskin tissue that had been removed; oddly, the author (nor the study under discussion) took any note of Robert Van Howe's very recent and much larger study of the exact same subject, printed in the British Journal of Urology. Van Howe studied 19 points on the penis (including the foreskin) and found the 5 most sensitive points ALL on the parts that get removed. For Slate to print a tiny inadequate study and completely ignore more complete research indicates sloppy reporting at best - or at worst, an attempt to manipulate public opinion to support their predetermined conclusions... I suggest anyone thinking about circumcising a child remember that it is his body and it should be his decision, as an adult, to determine how he should be without coercion or misinformation. Anyone happy with their infant circumcision is welcome to their beliefs, but consider that there is no right to force this mutilation on the body of anyone else.