Join Date: Jan 2009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Plus nothing about circumcision ever mentions the risk of meatal stenosis, adhesions (usually a minor complication), or talks about the changes resulting after circumcision.
It is incredible how these things are minimalised to the point that most people simply do not know and do not understand how the foreskin works.
I hope in most of Canada these 'flaws' will be easily exposed since most of Canada has a much higher intact rate.
It's interesting that the 60% reduction they tout is never contextualised alongside the actual statistical risk of a North American man contracting HIV through heterosexual sex.
I suppose 60% of almost zero isn't a very compelling argument for circ.
NMY, uber-crunchy, college student, doula-in-training, health food store worker and future librarian
For example, how many positive HIV tests (in all of Canada) were reported in men over 15 whose infection were thought to be from a heterosexual source in 2007?
This is in a male population, 15-64 of about 12 million.
|43 members and 15,604 guests|
|bananabee , Boodah'smama , Childrenareawesome , Dear_Rosemary , Dovenoir , easydoesit , emmy526 , floss&ferd , Georgia Rivera , girlspn , happy-mama , hillymum , juicypakwan , justlizzy , justsamma , katelove , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , Laurel83 , Leelee3 , Lucee , MamaLeigh , McDoodlePants , Michele123 , midnight mom , Mirzam , NaturallyKait , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , samaxtics , sciencemum , shantimama , Shmootzi , Sugarbaby416 , Turner58800 , VsAngela , zebra15 , Zilver , zoeyzoo|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|