The thing about circumcision is that it correlates with conservative sexual mores and more disciplined lifestyles in general. It's difficult to say that the benefits come from being cut vs. things that correlate with being cut. A lot of the studies also use Africans (as in ones living in Africa) so that further clouds them.
You’re contradicting yourself here, if you’re going to argue it’s lifestyle not circumcision then the Africa data is a clear refutation of that. A 51-60% reduction in HIV transmission after implementation of circumcision isn’t just “certain lifestyles”.
There's a strong chance the cut Africans are at least somewhat Christianized, and the uncut are practicing shit like polygamy and cannibalism, pretty different lifestyles.
Except that the circumcision push was made by the WHO/ and UN, and the data compared pre circumcision rates to post. What I do find funny is these are all the leftist/ sexual revolution talking points with MRA paint on them.
Both sides of this have various nefarious actors pushing either PoV so focusing on that leads nowhere. You tried well-poisoning when your own supply is contaminated. It didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work no matter how many times you try it.
Calling John money and his studies what they are isn’t well poisoning, it scientific accuracy. The fact the MRA anti circumcision push is entirely based on arguments made from Kinsey, Money, Foucault et al is not poisoning the well either, if anything it’s an oxymoronic stance considering MRA reviles these people completely. That’s the facts of the studies and who conducted them. Saying the UN and WHO conducted the Africa studies shows it wasn’t “Christian Africans versus bush meat cannibals” which you poised, not me. There are platitudes of studies showing health benefits from circumcision of which the Africa study is a portion. Say we scrap Africa, that still gives us… lower std rates in the US for circumcised males, lower penile cancer rates, and higher health outcomes across the board.
You’re contradicting yourself here, if you’re going to argue it’s lifestyle not circumcision then the Africa data is a clear refutation of that. A 51-60% reduction in HIV transmission after implementation of circumcision isn’t just “certain lifestyles”.
There's a strong chance the cut Africans are at least somewhat Christianized, and the uncut are practicing shit like polygamy and cannibalism, pretty different lifestyles.
Except that the circumcision push was made by the WHO/ and UN, and the data compared pre circumcision rates to post. What I do find funny is these are all the leftist/ sexual revolution talking points with MRA paint on them.
vs.
Both sides of this have various nefarious actors pushing either PoV so focusing on that leads nowhere. You tried well-poisoning when your own supply is contaminated. It didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work no matter how many times you try it.
Just take the L.
Calling John money and his studies what they are isn’t well poisoning, it scientific accuracy. The fact the MRA anti circumcision push is entirely based on arguments made from Kinsey, Money, Foucault et al is not poisoning the well either, if anything it’s an oxymoronic stance considering MRA reviles these people completely. That’s the facts of the studies and who conducted them. Saying the UN and WHO conducted the Africa studies shows it wasn’t “Christian Africans versus bush meat cannibals” which you poised, not me. There are platitudes of studies showing health benefits from circumcision of which the Africa study is a portion. Say we scrap Africa, that still gives us… lower std rates in the US for circumcised males, lower penile cancer rates, and higher health outcomes across the board.