NY Times article - how to counter these arguments/findings? - Page 2

[eepster]

I haven't read all the PP, but have a simple answer.

The differences in infection rate between the two groups was very slight, and can very easily be explained by the simple fact that:

Men who have just had painful surgery on their genitals are very likely to

abstain from sex for a couple of months at least.
After all, How long it was before you wanted to DTD after you gave birth?

[kiara7]

:

[NettleTea]

Originally Posted by eepster

I haven't read all the PP, but have a simple answer.

The differences in infection rate between the two groups was very slight, and can very easily be explained by the simple fact that:

Men who have just had painful surgery on their genitals are very likely to

abstain from sex for a couple of months at least.
After all, How long it was before you wanted to DTD after you gave birth?

[zinemama]

Bitch, Ph.D has a satirical response to this study:

"I immediately expect an outcry from every righteous, god-fearing person in the country, and all their Republican leaders, that we halt circumcision of male infants immediately. We simply can not encourage young boys, teenagers and men, to be promiscuous sluts by reducing the likelihood that they will get infected as a result of having that sex."

More at http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/

[latinalonestar]

I am sure you could make a study to conclude that female circ reduces a female's risk of getting herpes and hpv. You have less genitals to come in contact with the your partner, you have a lower risk of catching something. But would we support those studies? No.

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by latinalonestar

I am sure you could make a study to conclude that female circ reduces a female's risk of getting herpes and hpv. You have less genitals to come in contact with the your partner, you have a lower risk of catching something. But would we support those studies? No.

This is what I've been saying for ages. The pro circs dismiss any similarity between female circ and male circ because female circ does not have benefits - but how will we know if it does or not? No one is funding studies to see if actually does because we don't want to encourage the practice. Male circ on the other hand....

[123]

Actually there has been a study showing FGM decreases HIV risk. http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

But no newspapers are insinuating that we circ' all our daughters. Although in the original Africa studies the authors made positive references to FMG.

I can feel my blood pressure rising just thinking about this stuff. I'm going to go hug my kids. I hope the world's not too messed up by the time they grow up.

[melanie_rabbitbarn]

Originally Posted by Grylliade

So the ideal here is to just assume that your sons are going to be promiscuous?

Yeah, I hate this. It's his choice whether or not to be promiscuous. It should be his choice whether or not to be circumcised. 'Cause if he's like my husband who chose to be chaste until marriage, then the circumcision is mutilation for naught.

Of course, we all know it is for no reason anyway...

[BlessedMommy2006]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

All those poor European men must live in terror just waiting for their foreskins to jump out and kill them!

Don't we in the US have the highest mutilation rate and the highest rate of transmission of HIV and STDs?

I just about died laughing when I read that! So true!

[BeckyBird]

I notice that most of these studies are done on males OVER 18, who are sexually active. The studies dwell on disease of men, NOT little boys. Where is the study to support the circumcision of a young boy, hmmm? There is no reason!
Ok, let them claim that circ will improve the health of a MAN. But, let the MAN choose for himself if he wants to be cut or not. Leave infants out of it, because, according to all these "wonderful" studies, we are talking about a sexually active MAN'S health, not the health of a helpless infant!

[Papai]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird

I notice that most of these studies are done on males OVER 18, who are sexually active. The studies dwell on disease of men, NOT little boys. Where is the study to support the circumcision of a young boy, hmmm? There is no reason!
Ok, let them claim that circ will improve the health of a MAN. But, let the MAN choose for himself if he wants to be cut or not. Leave infants out of it, because, according to all these "wonderful" studies, we are talking about a sexually active MAN'S health, not the health of a helpless infant!

There has already been a study conducted that showed that circ at birth provided no significant protection from STDs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

But the media wasn't interested in picking that one up like the pro-circ HIV studies.