The so-called studies and statistics regarding male genital mutilation
called circumcision as being a "prevention" of HIV transmission are flawed,
at best, being conducted by individuals who are highly biased by their
religious backgrounds for this practice.
At the height of the epidemic in the USA, 80% of males were circumcised,
and this certainly didn't prevent the spread of HIV here, and all of the
other countries in Europe, Asia, Scandinavia, South America all had much
lower rates of infection, the countries that don't habitually mutilate
males.
Yet the ones promoting male genital mutilation NEVER address this, the most
significant statistic. They never address the complications and lack
of sexual sensitivity that results from this needless and barbaric
mutilation of the male body.
It is a cultural invasion and incursion to try to impose this practice on
others, and some countries are in fact considering legislation to prohibit
male genital mutilation aka circumcision, such as Denmark.
The practice of circumcision has declined in the US, as more people
discover that a whole penis with a foreskin, which is natural and normal,
feels and functions better than one that's been made partial, mutilated and
scarred by circumcision.
Every few years they try to come up with another reason for mutilating the
penis, years ago it was to try to prevent boys from masturbating, then
there was penile cancer, which is indeed very rare, even among
non-mutilated men.
There is even some evidence that the foreskin can actually have some
anti-viral properties, but biased individuals never research the benefits
of the foreskin, they only seek more reasons to chop it off.
How can they explain that the rate of HIV infection in Pakistan is FOUR
TIMES that of India, and the rate of circumcision in Pakistan is close to
100% while the rate of infection is extremely low in India, where the vast
majority of men are non-circumcised?
The so-called studies and statistics regarding male genital mutilation called circumcision as being a "prevention" of HIV transmission are flawed, at best, being conducted by individuals who are highly biased by their religious backgrounds for this practice.
At the height of the epidemic in the USA, 80% of males were circumcised, and this certainly didn't prevent the spread of HIV here, and all of the other countries in Europe, Asia, Scandinavia, South America all had much lower rates of infection, the countries that don't habitually mutilate males.
Yet the ones promoting male genital mutilation NEVER address this, the most significant statistic. They never address the complications and lack of sexual sensitivity that results from this needless and barbaric mutilation of the male body.
It is a cultural invasion and incursion to try to impose this practice on others, and some countries are in fact considering legislation to prohibit male genital mutilation aka circumcision, such as Denmark.
The practice of circumcision has declined in the US, as more people discover that a whole penis with a foreskin, which is natural and normal, feels and functions better than one that's been made partial, mutilated and scarred by circumcision.
Every few years they try to come up with another reason for mutilating the penis, years ago it was to try to prevent boys from masturbating, then there was penile cancer, which is indeed very rare, even among non-mutilated men.
There is even some evidence that the foreskin can actually have some anti-viral properties, but biased individuals never research the benefits of the foreskin, they only seek more reasons to chop it off.
How can they explain that the rate of HIV infection in Pakistan is FOUR TIMES that of India, and the rate of circumcision in Pakistan is close to 100% while the rate of infection is extremely low in India, where the vast majority of men are non-circumcised?