The Collegian’s presentation on sexual facts and issues was

interesting. But discussion of unplanned pregnancies and Sexually

Transmitted Diseases missed a startling fact: the United States’

incidence of both is far, far higher than that of other comparable

countries. And the acceptance and usage of condoms, the only method

of birth control that can also reduce the spread of STDs, is far,

far lower here. STDs and unwanted pregnancies have high personal

and social costs in both dollars and changed lives.

What’s so different here as compared to these other nations? A

major difference is the mass medical circumcision of males

practiced here, which removes the mobile, sliding/gliding and most

highly sensitive nerve tissue of the penis, a practice rare in

Western Europe, Japan and Canada. This significantly reduces and

dulls a circumcised man’s sensitivity and response. Perhaps

circumcised men consciously or unconsciously avoid putting a layer

of latex over a penis whose responsiveness has been so damaged.

Some men do find that larger-sized condoms, which fit tightly on

the penis shaft and loosely over the glans, a kind of temporary

foreskin, do feel better.

The present generation of men ages 17 to 25 were born when the

U.S. rate of circumcision peaked at 85 to 90 percent, after

steadily rising for over 125 years since U.S. mass medical

circumcision began. The rate has dropped to 50 to 60 percent

nationally now, but that still means over a million medical

circumcisions annually at a cost of more than $300 million.

Hopefully the circumcision rate will continue to drop and with it

the rate of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Chester McQueary

National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources

Center-Colorado

I have been keeping up somewhat with the recent controversy over

gay marriage, and one thing that has occurred to me is that I have

not heard one argument for the banning of gay marriages that is

backed by serious, tangible evidence and/or logical thinking.

So far the extent of their “arguments” seem to be able to be

summed up in two sentences: “God doesn’t like it” and “It’s just

not right.” The former argument obviously holds no ground at all

because not everyone believes in God anyway, and who can say

exactly what He’s thinking at the moment without directly asking

Him? After all the Bible was written a long time ago, and maybe

God’s opinion has changed a little in the past few thousand

years.

The latter argument just has no logical support. It doesn’t make

sense to randomly declare something wrong without a specific reason

why. I would also like to add that I firmly believe in equal rights

for every one, and I don’t think the Constitution should be used to

take rights away from specific groups of people.

Al Watson

Freshman, mechanical engineering

This is in response to Aaron Pinkser’s Feb. 27 column about the

“Passion” movie.

“Passion” details what Jesus endured for us. Many people say

“Jesus died on the cross” without fully understanding what this

involved. “Passion” reveals what a Roman crucifixion entailed; it

portrays the brutality of everything God incarnate voluntarily

suffered so we might have life.

The violence of this era explains the gore. Director Mel Gibson

wished to be meticulously accurate to the history of the times and

the New Testament accounts. This era was bloody and cruel and

“Passion” did an excellent job of accurately portraying the

violence surrounding Christ’s death.

Division between believers and non-believers is historically

accurate. These divisions are abundantly clear in the New

Testament. Christ discusses a time when He will separate people who

believed in Him from people who didn’t (Matthew 25:31-46). Christ

said He came to bring division, not peace (Luke 12:51). He knew His

message and who He claimed to be-God-was inherently divisive (Luke

21:67-71, John 10:30-33, 14:6).

Jesus didn’t die a fairy-tale death. It was brutal, cruel and

excruciatingly painful. The life on which people focus was a life

lived out in perfection for the sole purpose of dying to save

mankind. It was a divinely-appointed moment and I wish those who

foster hatred toward certain others would realize this. Had they

been there during that day, they too would have been shouting

“Crucify! Crucify!” I know I would have; my need for forgiveness

demonstrates this clearly.

Carissa Kuehn

Senior, biology and zoology