Bells
Staff member
Which is exactly what my link discussed.You mean the study that was debunked here?:
When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
Basically, the period of the study of circumcised men included the time when they got the operation and recovered from surgery. In other words, they weren't having sex at all! Also, these men received post-surgery sex advice as well as condoms.
The studies were also all cut short, they were given prime medical care, not just to have the circumcision, but also afterwards, and as you just advised, were given condoms to use. The link I gave also discussed the fact that these men were given such good care because of the study being conducted and that such level of care is not normally available in the countries where these studies were conducted.
It also discussed how HIV is spread by men now rushing to be circumcised in African countries, because of the results of these studies, and contracting HIV from the procedure, since they do not have the ability and capacity to properly sterilise everything and it also did not take into consideration other means by which people contract HIV. But the worst thing is that the studies also clearly showed that women were now most at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS because of this...
Then it probably stands to reason that to discuss or compare the men's penis and using that as a point of contention about difficulty integrating in German society is a bit of a stretch.. Since you know, men rarely whip it out and compare when they first meet each other, just to compare and to see if they will speak to the other or allow them to enter society based on the state of the other's foreskin or lack there-of..GeoffP said:I don't know about circumcision vs. non-circumcision, but I can certainly tell you that people do take it amiss in Germany when you walk around with your penis out.
I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't view the penis as a defining factor in integration.
It clearly points out why we should remain cautious about relying on the flawed studies to openly declare that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV. It was quite an interesting read. Their point is that more research needs to be done before such a declaration is made and that proper studies need to be conducted, since the 3 studies everyone is relying on was not complete and tempered by the fact that the men who took part in it received above normal medical care during the course of the study and that the normal population in those African countries are unable to access even close to that level of care.iceaura said:If it similarly invalidates the already dubious conclusions of the authors, sure. Does it, in that case?
You do realise that many women want to have the hood of their clitoris removed for increased sexual sensation and it is illegal, don't you?Again with this - when reason fails?
You might as well compare pulling healthy wisdom teeth with pulling all 32 healthy teeth. They are both mutilations, so they are the same thing? - if you're being silly.
The point is that you can only say this if you do not view the male foreskin as being as important as the female clitoris. In short, you are more concerned in preserving the sexual bits of the woman than that of the man.
And it is inherently sexist.
One could say the same about those who make statements that the male foreskin is "a germ nursery and infection target" when it is clearly not, when such rhetoric is based on lack of knowledge or understanding about personal hygeine and basing such beliefs on flawed and incomplete studies conducted in African countries and attempting to apply it to modern Western countries.Or possibly because they are bizarrely inflamed and overwrought rhetorical garbage, from people who should know better.
If you can't make the case for banning circumcision without that kind of bs, you haven't got one.
Even more surprising is the rhetorical garbage that comes with the belief that Germans in Cologne are somehow abnormal and bad because they wish to ensure the bodily integrity of children and allowing those children to make the decision for themselves when they are able to.
Because the court ruling in Cologne is not banning circumcision, it is just saying that boys be allowed to decide for themselves when they are able to make such a decision about their own bodies.
And you are basing your opinion on flawed and incomplete studies."Minute" being in the eye of the beholder. We look for evidence of sober judgment - a lack of overheated bluster and ridiculous exaggerations, for example. And an absence of guesswork and convenient speculation obscured in Fox News style reference language -
The men who took part in those studies were given condoms and then the findings were that circumcisions reduced the spread of HIV and then the studies were ended early, and no follow up on those men and and their sexual practices after they were not getting free condoms from the study. This is what you are basing your beliefs on. This is the evidence you are looking at and basing your opinions on. I would say that would be more "Fox News style".. Incomplete and flawed..
You have never heard of FGM?Removal of the hood of the clitoris only is not a common cultural practice, and I've never heard of it being discussed or treated with repulsion. Do you in fact know of any such culture? Even one, let alone "many"?
The WHO estimates that 100–140 million women and girls around the world have experienced the procedure, including 92 million in Africa.
--------------------------------------------------------
The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy);
--------------------------------------------------------
Around 85 percent of women experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]
--------------------------------------------------------
The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy);
--------------------------------------------------------
Around 85 percent of women experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]
I mean sure, we can assume it does not exist in any culture?:shrug:
Amnesty International estimates that over 130 million women worldwide have been affected by some form of FGM, with over three million girls at risk every year.[3] It is mainly practised in 28 African countries, in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Ethiopia on the east coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south.[4] Egypt passed a law banning FGM in 2008.[5]
In the Arabian peninsula, Types I and II FGM are usually performed, often referred to as "Sunna circumcision,"[6][7] especially among Afro-Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation). The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia[8], southern Jordan[9], and northern Iraq (Kurdistan).[10][11] In the Iraqi village of Hasira, a study found that 60 percent of the females reported having undergone FGM.[10] There is also circumstantial evidence to suggest that FGM is practised in Syria.[12] In Oman, a few communities still practice it, though experts believe the number is small and declining annually. In the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, it is practiced mainly among foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley. A 2009 study suggested that FGM had virtually disappeared among the Negev Bedouin.[13]
The practice can also be found among a few ethnic groups in South America.[4] In Indonesia, it is common in several districts; almost all are Type I or Type IV. Sometimes the procedures are merely symbolic, and no actual cutting is done.
In the Arabian peninsula, Types I and II FGM are usually performed, often referred to as "Sunna circumcision,"[6][7] especially among Afro-Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation). The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia[8], southern Jordan[9], and northern Iraq (Kurdistan).[10][11] In the Iraqi village of Hasira, a study found that 60 percent of the females reported having undergone FGM.[10] There is also circumstantial evidence to suggest that FGM is practised in Syria.[12] In Oman, a few communities still practice it, though experts believe the number is small and declining annually. In the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, it is practiced mainly among foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley. A 2009 study suggested that FGM had virtually disappeared among the Negev Bedouin.[13]
The practice can also be found among a few ethnic groups in South America.[4] In Indonesia, it is common in several districts; almost all are Type I or Type IV. Sometimes the procedures are merely symbolic, and no actual cutting is done.