By the way if you care to respond do so on the “Trump first 100 days” thread or another applicable thread. I don’t want to hijack this fine Circumcision Equality thread.
1 Like
There are benefits to female circumcision.
If women do not have the capacity to receive sexual pleasure, their incentive to cheat on men drops substantially. Less cheating means more stable families.
But mutilating genitals as I already explained here is immoral :
Lol hopping on the semantics of “benefits” is hardly stirring up productive conversation.
I can’t see how your logic would produce a happy wife. Believe me when a person uses the expression “happy wife happy life” they probably have a great marriage.
What’re you talking about? People justify male circumcision by saying it’s beneficial
Who said anything about female happiness?
It’s for the good of society not for her
How is male circumcision not mutilation?
Mutilation: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.
Also the so called benefits are usually done by random group tests where the results can not be attributed to circumcision.
From a link posted about “benefits”:
“The two trials, one funded by NIAID and the other by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, enrolled 3,393 uncircumcised men between the ages of 15 and 49 who initially tested negative for both HIV and HSV-2. The men were assigned at random to one of two study groups”
At certain intervals they were again tested some of which then tested positive. Too many variables to say circumcision was the game changer.
moved to Trump 100 days
Lol as if female happiness is somehow mutually exclusive from the “good of society.”
We could go back and forth all day with articles supporting our views. I’m sure we won’t change each others mind so I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.
From an experimental-design perspective, random assignment removes the “other variables” from consideration, because those variables end up distributed evenly (enough) across groups. Thus, unless one can show that 1) subject assignment was in fact not random; 2) by dumb luck, a causal variable happened to distribute unevenly between the groups; or 3) the result, while statistically significant, was not clinically significant (as determined by risk reduction, or better yet, NNT and NNH indices), then dismissing the results of the study is unwarranted.
Here’s pictures of men’s junk who suffered botched circumcisions (something the government doesn’t track)
http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm
Maybe a gallery of pictures will help convince you that men deserve just as much control over their bodies as women
So you like your dicks uncircumcised eh raj?
I would really hate to see your Google search history.
1 Like
I think it’s great that raj feels comfortable enough with his sexuality to say openly what he wants(lots of uncircumcised dick).
Okay, it’s confirmed; I was right all along about you, Raj.
I’m going to ask this again, just to be sure.
I’ve been looking at sick shit on the Internet since the 90s. Buncha Internet noobs on this forum
I saw Luka Magnotta eating a little Chinese man for dinner before the authorities did.
Raj is really starting to come into focus. Non-white white supremacists. Who woulda thought?
2 Likes