¿Why do not we point out that the HIV-Study in Africa (the same researchers replicated their studies with studies) are methodologically flawed?
The methodology was to split sexually active HIV-negative men into 2 groups, sexually mutilate the genitals of half the men, and START THE CLOCK RUNNING IMMEDIATELY. Given that the sexually mutilated men could not have sex for months and the study ended after 6 month, that could in and of itself totally explain the reduction in HIV-infection. Given how obvious this flaw is, one almost gets the impression that the researchers deliberately designed a flawed study. I, a nobody could design a better study:
- Sedate a large number of sexually active HIV-negative men who volunteered for the study.
- Randomize so that half wake up without a præpuce.
- Wait 1 year.
- Test both groups for HIV.
- Remove HIV-positive men from the study from both groups (this undoes the forced abstinence during healing).
- Wait 1 more year.
- Test both groups.
Well now, even using their own numbers, sexual genital mutilation is not every effective:
Even if we assume that the dubious claim that sexual genital mutilation reduces HIV-infection, using the dubious numbers of the study, it reduces it to 40% of bareback. Condoms reduce the risk of HIV to less than 10% of bareback. Since condoms can be bought in bulk for a quarter apiece and sexually mutilating the genitals of a man costs 100.00 U$D, for the cost of 1 sexual genital mutilation, one could buy the man all the condoms he needs for his years of spreading his wild oats before finally settling down and marrying. Condoms are a better investment. As for both, that is not a likely outcome:
- ¡I did not have myself sexually mutilated just so that I have to wear a condom too (risk compensation)!
- ¡Now that I have no præpuce, I cannot come wearing a condom, so I do not use them (sexual-genital-mutilation-caused reduction in sexual sensation, leading to anorgasmia while wearing condoms, leading to condom-refusal because men have sex for orgasming)!
Fucking kindergarten-tier pettiness
Stop re-inserting blatantly biased sources just to take revenge against me for the edit war about the Regressive Left article. This is incredibly petty.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 18:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm doing nothing of the kind.
- Will you please tell me why you don't like the sources? Is anything in them factually incorrect? If so, please point them out and we can see about modifying from there. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- They're too biased, fond some webside not on a crusade against or for circumcision.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 18:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need. I won't bother to edit. Kugel isn't going to talk about it anyway; any time I make an effort at asking why and how and so forth he just ignores it. Better to let him have his way. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is FGM
If the article is about male circumcision, why is there a paragraph on FGM? I thought the two are completely incomparable? Obviously you think the two are related, or else that paragraph wouldn't be there. There
(Male circumcisiopn actually literally equals FGM - and yes, I'm aware that 10 year ld girls bleed to death from FGM which is actually why I'm saying this because that's what happens to boys in Africa all the time. The truth is feminist women are just entitled and their female ego leads them to somehow think that male circumcision is about them.)
There is literally no other issue that you think should a separate paragraph about something completely unrelated attached to- why is male circumcisiomn the ONNNE and ONNNLLY issue ever in the world that has this standard? Why not have a paragraph on a page about robbery on how murder is worse?
If FGM is so incomparable, why are you comparing them? Seriously, why are feminists pro-circumcision? Why is FGM talked about on this page? That paragraph doesn't belong there and doesn't make any sense — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
We compare the dorsal slit to FGM but the Wikipedia page (NSFW) describes it as a treatment for phimosis and paraphimosis. The page recognizes that it is that it is a crude treatment and that this treatment doesn't appear to be used for phimosis, but it is still used for paraphimosis when conservative treatments fail. Finally. some African tribes have or still use dorsal slits as a way to treat phimosis. I don't see how this is comparable to FGM since dorsal slits have a legitimate medical use and that the African tribes that practice it don't use it as a form of sexual punishment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Studies on behavioral differences in babies
This e-book mentions a study by a Dr. Richards on page 96, I was wondering if differences in infant behavior have been corroborated or disproved by additional studies; woo or not, infant behavioral differences should be listed under medical issues. X-Factor (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)