These "studies" have been highly criticized and discredited because of their methodological problems. For example, they did not complete their study. They just stopped as soon as they got the data they were looking for.
And even if it was true its still insignificant protection. Condoms and other prophylactics provide real, measurable, protection whereas circumcision does not.
And where did you mother learn it from? Did she perform the study or did she hear it from someone else? Where does the trail lead? To an actual study or to fraud/lie/imagination?
OMFG....say it isn't so, a "scientific study" that manipulated data to come up with the results they were looking for????? IMPOSSIBLE :lamo
I've been trying to tell Tucker the same damn thing in another thread. apparently he thinks "scientific studies" are infallible.
Then get your mother to tell us the name of the study she "saw" so we can all verify it. Otherwise we will all assume you (or your mother) is a liar.She saw it happen.
No studies are infallible. But if they have been through peer review or there are multiple studies on the same subject then that greatly reduces the chance of error.
A study by scientists that hasn't been reviewed or reproduced is always suspect.
I find it funny that two groups can do basically the same study and come up with virtually diametrically opposed results. seen it happen all to often, hence my general distrust of polls and studies.
In areas of sociology and other "soft sciences" that wouldn't be surprising. In areas like physics, math, chemistry, biology that would be surprising.
Have any examples?
Then get your mother to tell us the name of the study she "saw" so we can all verify it. Otherwise we will all assume you (or your mother) is a liar.
Which conflicting studies?look at all the conflicting studies on homosexuality
Which two studies on AGW are the same but produce different conclusions? And please cite studies from a legitimate and respected scientific journal.look at all the conflicting studies on AGW
Was it Dr. Kutchacockoff who did the deed? :lamoThe ones who are against it usually try to make the point that it's painful. It may be, but the ones it was done to don't remember it. I don't.
It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.
Personal experience. My father wasn't cut.
:lol:
And why should we believe anything you say, let alone the half-baked theories your family has developed based on anecdotal evidence?
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.
Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.
Because after my parents divorced, she never came down with the infections again.
I never experienced any of the things you listed.
I never experienced any of the things you listed.
Well if you were circ'ed, yes, you did. You definitely experected 4-6. You may have experienced #1 and #3 (we will never know, since you will never know how you may have been if you hadn't been circ'ed and thus you can't tell us what the difference was, but we know through control studies that they occur).
But even if that were true, that doesn't make it ok to subject infants to that risk.
Nope. I have feeling there and I'm a lot cleaner there than I would have been had I not been circumcised, plus I don't have a foreskin that has to be constantly pulled back when I do my business.
These "studies" have been highly criticized and discredited because of their methodological problems. For example, they did not complete their study. They just stopped as soon as they got the data they were looking for.
And even if it was true its still insignificant protection. Condoms and other prophylactics provide real, measurable, protection whereas circumcision does not.
There is no way you couldn't have exerpienced 4-6. You definitely, definitely did. Like I said, you have nothing to compare it against. But it was definitely non-consensual, and anatomically it's just a fact that the foreskin has a ton of nerve endings in it. The body is good at compensating to a degree, but that doesn't make it less true.
You also have a really weird idea about how much "effort" having a foreskin is. Guess what: cut guys can have gross dicks just as easily as uncut guys, and it takes a fraction of a second to clean under the foreskin.
Some women have to do the same thing, if they have a larger clitoral hood. Shall we cut it off?
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.
Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.
Circumcision on a woman takes away her sexual desire. That's why the Muslims do it, to stop unfaithfulness. That's not the case with a man. I still enjoy sex with my wife and she likes the fact that I'm circumcised. She thinks uncircumcised men are disgusting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?