On a humorous note though, is a 'circumcision pole' something Rabbis practice on? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ben, FR i would hardly call 5-10% "good medical evidence" and that is against ONE strain of the virus which most if not all the people on this thread are highly unlikly to ever come into contact with no matter how much unprotected sex they have. Against the strain they ARE likly to encounter it offers no protection at all And on HPV (and yes before you say it i know herpies is HPV) and herpies could you quote studies on its efficacy in relation to that because i havent seen a single one. Actually one study i saw on STDs generally suggested that because of the lack of a mucus membrane after circumsion that you are more at risk of STD transmission generally.
Hi Asguard--- Instead of making up references (eg ``...one study I saw...''), why don't you go ahead and link the article? As I recall, you and Tiassa were working on some guidelines for citing things? Maybe we should practice what we preach? Academic integrity and so forth? Either way, if you'd read the links I posted back on page two, you'd find that: As always, I've tried to provide several different news sources which support my points. I really wish you'd at least click on the links that I posted.
Yes, but it does not make the claim that ALL women without a clitoris are able to climax. I have first-hand testimony from some women who have never been able to climax EXCEPT from their clitoris. This does not mean that if they had no clitoris they might not find a way, but taken together these two pieces of data raise a challenge to your assertion that cannot be easily dismissed. I find the argument utterly repulsive that it is okay to alter a woman's sex organs in order to reduce her sexual desire. Without asking I can promise you that the women I know would be even angrier about it, shouting additional obscenities about "time to rid the earth of all those phallocratic religions." It's what we do to domestic animals when we don't want them to reproduce. American women do not EVER again want to be treated like animals, not even like our most beloved animals, dogs and cats! How do you suppose the men in your culture would react if you told them, "We've got this wonderful new way to reduce your chances of contracting an STD. It's a surgical procedure that will reduce your desire to have sex so often and with so many different partners, and in so many unusual situations!" Do you think you would get out of that meeting alive? I can't imagine what country you live in, but in America we celebrate sexuality. The days of repressing it are far behind us, except among children, and even that is changing. So to say that repressing female sexuality is a valid argument for clitoridectomy would get you killed twice in America.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I haven't seen any stats on this outside of Africa. I wonder if anyone outside of Africa has even thought to gather the data. But the preliminary reports from Africa indicated that it lowered the chance of a man being infected by something like a factor of ten. That's more than enough to change the vector from a public health issue (a runaway epidemic comparable to the Black Plague) to a personal health issue (if you value your life then please practice "safe sex" but it's your choice). Last I heard it was primarily being done to adult men with their own consent. To inhibit female sexuality is a concept that is foreign to our culture. To equate it to "safe sex" is something that would get you booed off the stage as a relic from the Middle Ages, when women were regarded as subordinate to men and had very few rights. You seem to have a problem with women who are libertine in their sexuality. That is not an attitude that will gain you respect in Western culture. That is probably even more true In Europe than in America, where some of our fundamentalist Christians still live in the 15th century. That is a rather personal remark to inject into a public discussion. I thought you were just making a rude joke. If it was serious then it is even ruder, and I would strongly advise you to clean up your act. Well you guys also have your own forms of humor that none of us understand. I love Wallace & Gromit, but why is Mister Bean supposed to be funny?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know if the stats have changed since I did my research paper on circumcision and STI transmission, but opponents of the circumcision/HIV correlation said that the results just don't add up. Putting researcher and cultural biases aside, the results don't really show up anywhere else. When the survey was done, in America (while the numbers are declining with each year since the mid 80s) about 75% of men were circumcised yet the HIV/AIDS rate in the US was higher than any other developed country (I believe it still is). While in [can't remember which countries, I'll look it up when I get a better internet connection] in Europe where less than 20% of men are circumcised, the sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS rate was exceedingly low in comparison to the US. The same goes for many Asian countries as well. If the correlation between low sexually transmitted HIV rates and circumcision were as strong as the study suggests then it makes almost no sense that the US with high circumcision rate would also have a high rate of sexually transmitted HIV and other developed countries with a low rate of circumcision having a low rate of sexually transmitted HIV, shouldn't they be reversed? [sorry about the lack of references and hard numbers. This was from memory. When I get out my research paper I'll post all of them]
The effect is most pronounced in the transmission of HIV from women to circumcised or uncircumcised men, as per the study I linked on page two. There is no benefit for men who engage with anal sex with other men, or for women in this regard. I'm sorry---can you point me to somewhere in this thread where this has been argued? Absolutely no one (to my knowledge) has claimed that ``circumcision beats proper condom usage''. Of course, abstinence beats proper condom usage. So to carry your argument to it's logical conclusion, you should be a big fan of abstinence-only education...
If evolution resulted in foreskin, it seems reasonable that it'd be better to have it than not to have it.
That I understand, but cutting someone's body goes way too far. I would rather be celibate than have something hacked off of me.
There have also been concerns raised about an episiotomy during childbirth. Some say its FGM and many weren't done til childbirth moved to hospital. No kidding!!! Usually women tore or hemorrhaged. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You can find something bad about anything if you want to. http://www.boystoo.com/fgmmgm/episiotomies.htm And Asguard, Like Herc Rock said, you might have better luck with people if you try to inform people instead of attacking them and telling them to prove you wrong or flaming them. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446281&postcount=38
You have a point there. Why not cut off your breast ahead of time so that you will not get Cancer....
And "neutral" is even a questionable way of putting it I would go so far as to say they can't. "Female circumcision" is a politically "neutral" synonym for "female genital mutilation", which is a politically aggressive and somewhat apt term for "clitoridectomy".
you never had to Orleander. That said, waxing is much much much nicer mmmm mmmm good Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
would you do it to your unconcenting child however? Not one person on this thread has argued against the rights of a concenting adult to have this done, in fact in the thread about FGM i argued against the ACT which banned a concenting adults right to even get a pearcing in her vagina (though stupid drafting an the liberal parties belife that it can dictate ethics). If an adult wants to do whatever they want, if they want to castrate themselves or have themselves stiched up they should be alowed to if they are capable of understanding the conquenses of there actions and of acting in there own best interests (the definition required for medical copitance). However your NOT arguing that concenting adults should be alowed to do it, your arguing that it should be inflicted on non-concenting babies. Further more either you or shorty went on to state "why would any adult male want to have this done", doesnt this sort of give a hint that if an adult wouldnt chose this then you shouldnt do it to a baby?
