Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Glory · 10-30-2002, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:


Ahem. 45 year old man here. And the information you provide is right on the money. However, even though response slows in the older man, and (IMHO) older women are more responsive, there is (IMHO) still a gap - as a generalisation, your mileage may vary of course. The gap may be narrower (thanks be to the Sex Gods), but it's still there.

There are sex gods? Finally! Deities I can get behind!

Glory

Arrowman · 10-30-2002, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glory:
There are sex gods? Finally! Deities I can get behind!

In front would be better, thank you.

Arrowman
Praise be unto Him

Glory · 10-30-2002, 05:30 PM

I'm flexible.

Glory

Arrowman · 10-30-2002, 09:33 PM

* whimper *

Ted Hoffman · 10-30-2002, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glory:
I'm flexible.

Glory

Ut · 10-31-2002, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Male circumcision reduces the risk and incidence of penile cancers, cervical cancers

Of course, it is more probable that you'll die during your circumcision than you or your partner will die of either of these cancers.

Quote:

HIV

Condoms anyone? The study you posted on the previous thread was made in rural Uganda. The sexual practices there are quite different from those in the First World.

Quote:

These benefits are lost if circumcision is performed in adulthood.

The foreskin is lost if circumcision is performed anytime.

If you want to see sample rebuttals to medical "research" that is used to promote circumcision, see:

<a href="http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer-cervNEJM.html" target="_blank">Refutation of NEJM study 2002 on circumcision, HPV and cervical cancer</a>

<a href="http://www.circumstitions.com/Langerhans.html" target="_blank">Whether a proposition is true or false, never mind, the conclusion is always "Cut! Cut! Cut!"</a>

<a href="http://www.circumstitions.com/Short-HIV.html" target="_blank">Rebuttal of study on circumcision effects on HIV</a>

Rick, let me ask a simple question. If the benefits of circumcision are so compelling, how come the medical doctors of Eastern Canada, Europe, Japan and Latin America almost universally look down on it? How come the medical associations of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom have all reversed their position on circumcision in the latest decades and are now against routine infant circumcision? See their statements <a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/" target="_blank">here</a>.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: utbabya ]

Ut · 10-31-2002, 03:23 AM

On the claim that circumcision reduces the risk of STD, see the following study: <a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/" target="_blank">Circumcision in the United States</a>

In particular, note the following paragraph:

Quote:

Several instructive features of the data presented in Table 2 deserve attention. First, circumcision status does not appear to lower the likelihood of contracting an STD. Rather, the opposite pattern holds. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime. While these differences are not statistically significant, they do not lend support to the thesis that circumcision helps prevent the contraction of STDs. Indeed, for chlamydia, the difference between circumcised men and uncircumcised men is quite large. While 26 of 1033 circumcised men had contracted chlamydia in their lifetime, non of the 353 uncircumcised men reported having had it.

Ut · 10-31-2002, 06:30 AM

Megusic,

I have found a very interesting article on FGM and MGM which explores the religious, social, medical, sexual and political implications of these practices.

<a href="http://www.lpj.org/Nonviolence/Sami/articles/eng-articles/myth.htm" target="_blank">Male and female circumcision: the myth of the difference</a>

Primal · 11-01-2002, 02:19 PM

I think the matter of degree makes all the difference. A male for example who is circumcised can still enjoy sex, a female may not be able to.

It's kind of like the difference between allowing your teenager to get a piercing vs allowing them to chop of their noses.

Not that I think highly of male circumcision, but to say that severity does not matter ignores some pretty blatant facts/differences.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 11-03-2002, 03:44 PM

Circumcision in America has very few benefits. For most of them, it prevents a disease that can be cured without circumcision.
As a result, circumcision is nowhere close to a medically necessary procedure.
It is unethical to perform an unnecessary medical procedure that mutilates their body on someone unable to give consent.
Why do people still circumcise their children?
I'm sure we could find "benefits" for FGM as well. I'll bet there's a lower rape rate with those women if their genitalia is sewn together. Yet FGM is horrifying and MGM is not. well, to me, routine infant circumcision is horrifying, although to a lesser degree than FGM.

-B

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-30-2002, 05:30 PM	#63
Glory Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: b Posts: 673	I'm flexible. Glory

10-30-2002, 09:33 PM	#64
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	* whimper *

10-31-2002, 06:30 AM	#68
Ut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 828	Megusic, I have found a very interesting article on FGM and MGM which explores the religious, social, medical, sexual and political implications of these practices. <a href="http://www.lpj.org/Nonviolence/Sami/articles/eng-articles/myth.htm" target="_blank">Male and female circumcision: the myth of the difference</a>

11-01-2002, 02:19 PM	#69
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	I think the matter of degree makes all the difference. A male for example who is circumcised can still enjoy sex, a female may not be able to. It's kind of like the difference between allowing your teenager to get a piercing vs allowing them to chop of their noses. Not that I think highly of male circumcision, but to say that severity does not matter ignores some pretty blatant facts/differences.

11-03-2002, 03:44 PM	#70
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	Circumcision in America has very few benefits. For most of them, it prevents a disease that can be cured without circumcision. As a result, circumcision is nowhere close to a medically necessary procedure. It is unethical to perform an unnecessary medical procedure that mutilates their body on someone unable to give consent. Why do people still circumcise their children? I'm sure we could find "benefits" for FGM as well. I'll bet there's a lower rape rate with those women if their genitalia is sewn together. Yet FGM is horrifying and MGM is not. well, to me, routine infant circumcision is horrifying, although to a lesser degree than FGM. -B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.