[lbo-talk] on circumcision

shag carpet bomb shag at cleandraws.com
Sun Sep 2 17:12:02 PDT 2012


this joker is a fucking asshole who apparently almost murdered his wife in a drugged depression, covered it up and lied all over the internet about his activities with underage youth - or some crazy shit - but this post and the links to which he points give you a taste of the debate which is, basically, men using feminism as the pivot-babe for their circle jerk: <http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/11/circumcised-at-37-a-personal-story-and-a-rebuke-to-the-mras/>http://www.hugoschwyzer<http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/11/circumcised-at-37-a-personal-story-and-a-rebuke-to-the-mras/>.net/2006/10/11/circumcised-at-37-a-personal-story-and-a-rebuke-to-the-mras/

bill: <http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision-causes-life-long-harm.html>http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision-causes-life-long-harm.html

there's a lot more just search on "men's rights movement" circumcision ptsd

At 12:02 PM 9/2/2012, Andy wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> > The "medical case" is that the "marginal benefit" of nonconsensual penile
> > excision consists of a lessened probability of contracting AIDS during each
> > episode of unprotected sex with an HIV-positive African prostitute. There
> > are no others. In view of the fact that it is inconceivable such a
> > ridiculously "marginal" issue would lead the Official Health Authorities to
> > even take up the subject were it not of such overwhelming importance to
> > Islamic and Judaic Orthodoxy, "disdain for religion" could not be more
> > appropriate.
>
>The positions of the CDC and WHO as I understand them were based on
>evidence of lessened risk of HIV transmission to men in the absence of
>a condom. The goal in this case of these agencies is harm reduction
>where the social environment discourages condom use. I doubt whether
>the woman is a prostitute makes much difference. Some find the role
>of prostitutes in these findings significant for unexplained reasons.
>Perhaps their disreputable presence is supposed to invalidate the
>findings?
>
>The AAP (not APA, sorry) position is based on more than that:
>
>http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx
>
><quote>
>
>Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer
>health benefits to the procedure than had previously been
>demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the
>scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include
>lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus
>and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over
>a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners,
>and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of
>life.
>
><unquote>
>
>References are at the AAP site.
>
>It is an interesting question whether the practice would be considered
>at all without its origin in religious tradition. But the origins of
>the practice have no bearing on whether it has any net benefit.
>
>
>--
>Andy
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list