Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
you're full of crap.
But keep posting your nonsense. I am fairly certain putting down men is the only way you think you can get in women's pants.
mutilation is mutilation. I am not surprised apes like you cannot comprehend this.
do you think the discussion would be handled in the same way?
My response to the findings is: so what? Now they (once circumcised) can go out and have unsafe sex?
If you wear a condom like you are supposed to in the first place it doesn't matter if under the latex there is a foreskin or a scar where it used to be - it is covered and that is what counts.
As for circumcision of infants I think this holds true: No one has the right to cut off a normal healthy part of another persons body without their consent. I think the majority of the advanced western world believes this to be true. So if adult African men want to go under the knife - all I can say is Good Luck!
When they say circumcision cuts HIV by 50% in Uganda, what they don't tell you is that they'd have to circumcise 56 men to prevent one transmission per year. (In the US, with its lower HIV incidence, the number - other things being equal - would be 380!)
The circumcised men (but not the control group) had to abstain from sex after their operations. Cutting the experiment short makes the effectiveness seem higher. (The men could have themselves circumcised at any time, so there was no ethical reason they had to cut it short. What's ethically dubious is not telling them when they tested positive.)
Each new experiment has a lower effectiveness, as they correct for more confounders. Not so long ago they were claiming 8-fold reduction. When they've corrected for everything, what will be left?
More at http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
is this whole circumcision prevents aids thing just a scam to try to transform the culture into a more prudish "godly" one by making sex less appealing (since the price of admission is getting part of your dick cut off, or be labeled as unclean) not to mention the reduction in sensation. I smell a fundie "abortion causes breast cancer" style scam. Think maybe "some people" are a little less sceptical of this situation than would normally be the case because it involves males.
There is no difference between male genital mutilation and female circumcision. Male genital mutilation began as practice of religous sacrifice - you are offering up the part of your body with the highest number of nerve endings per unit area to God to symbolize your faith. You are sacrificing sexual pleasure. Take away the foreskin and you take away a great deal of sensation. Adult men who have had their genitals mutilated this way report that sex is much less enjoyable (an infant mutilated at birth would have no basis of comparison).
How is this different from female circumcision?
More generally, it doesn't pass the reality test - how can it be that a healthy male body is better off by cutting off part of it? You are second guessing evolution to think that a few thousand years of religous practice can do a better job of knowing what's best for the male body than hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. If lack of a foreskin greatly reduced the risk of being infected by deadly STDs then surely in a couple of hundred thousand years of screwing and evolving (and being exposed to no doubt many HIV like viruses throughout the course of human evolution) we would have lost the foreskin already. Now some religous nuts hold cultural sway over us for the last few thousand years and in modern times man hating women egging them on want to normalize a practice they decry in their sisters! This is hypocracy.
Here is the reason that so many cut men are against routine neonatal circumcision, and why so many cut men cannot see the consequences.
The male and female prepuce contains specialized prepucial frenular delta nerves that trigger sexual arrousal when pulled or stroked. Known as the "Gee string" in males and the "G" spot in females, these nerves can be severed in newborn males to cause sexual dysfunctions to surface after puberty, including erectile dysfunction, suicidal depression, and delayed PTSD's surfacing after puberty as paranoid delussional schizophrenia.
Some circumcisers leave these nerves intact so as not to cause dysfunctions. These men cannot understand why others expereance dysfunction because they are not able to look at their frenulum statice in fear of being labled homosexuals.
When doctors cause sexual dysfunction in newborns(iatrogenic eugenics) this will greatly decrease the spread of HIV, but they cannot impliment their strategy unless they can convince people that the prepuce is a design flaw by Mother Nature.
In Africa hetero sexuals practice dry sex that causes micro rips in the male and female prepuce allowing entrance to HIV( just like Hep. C, directly into the blood).
During research as to how HIV enters our blood, we discovered our epidurmal Langerhan's anti viral cells concentrated in the prepuce that allow entrance to HIV and kill it with langerin proteins. Since most of us are not pathologist, all they had to do is leave the last bit of information out to convince people with religious convictions that they observe Abrahamic law.
To every action, there is an equal or oppisite reaction. If a parent sacrifices his sons prepuce, the son will grow up to sacrifice his son's prepuce, or the oppisite, murder/suicide.
The function of the prepuce is to protect, with Langerhan's cells, and to enhance reproduction desire with Meissner's corpuscles, specialized nerve endings conected to the frenar nerves. Be causious on who is presenting this misinformation to cause mass circumcision.
The function of homosexuality is to prevent rape of females, and over population by hetero sexual religions.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
