“Researchers analyzed 51 studies on HPV transmission, and they noticed that the virus was found in the genital tracts of 51 percent of female virgins. This left them asking: If not through sex, how are people contracting it?”
Plus the speculums they can’t actually clean?
“The second possibility makes us even more squeamish. You might be able pick up HPV by coming into contact with an infected surface at the doctor’s office or in public places like the gym. If the examining table or bike seat you sit down on in your booty shorts hasn’t been properly cleaned, you could be at risk.”
Why did people wear so many layers of clothing in public?
History was so weird. And gloves! How absurd!
Who wears gloves, the Queen? She isn’t long-lived, is she?
I’m just picturing the HPV strains of Hollywood and its forced kissing, on and off screen.
“In multivariable analyses, detection of any HPV infection was significantly associated with reported race of Asian/Pacific Islander…
NonOncogenic HPV infection was independently associated with lifetime number of sexual partners. Circumcision, assessed by clinical examination, was associated with reduced risk of HPV detection across all categories of HPV evaluated. HPV detection in men in the current study was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision status. Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low‐cost method to reduce HPV infection.”
Hey, just in case you get a broken leg, get them amputated!
“Significantly higher risk of HPV detection was associated with increasing numbers of lifetime female sexual partners (OR 6.96–9.01 for nononcogenic, any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting ≥50 partners compared to 1 partner), number of female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.31–3.43 for nononcogenic, any HPV, oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting 3–30 partners compared to no female partners), number of new female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.64–2.85 for nononcogenic, oncogenic and any HPV type among men with ≥3 new female partners compared to no new partner), and anal sex with either a male or female (OR 1.40–1.45 for any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections).”
Good luck trying to find studies brave enough to look at anal sex frequency alone! They wouldn’t DARE.
What do they care if men get cancer, right?
Penile cancer is on the rise but do anal and never use a condom because a TV told you to!
Slut shaming also applies to men. Manwhores are disease-ridden.
“For example, the odds ratios for any HPV increased with increasing number of lifetime sexual partners peaking at an odds ratio of 6.65 among men who reported 20–49 partners.”
Er…. that’s well above average.
Here the lifetime partner rate is 4 and likely lower.
“However, the few published studies reporting HPV antibody status among men suggest that a smaller proportion of men than women are HPV antibody positive, despite a high HPV DNA prevalence among men.15″
Men are spreading it.
If I had to mock this, I’d get a tranny to dress up as Lady Gaga and sing “let’s have some fun this beat is sick, I wanna touch you with my cancer stick”… if only people had a sense of humour anymore.
“Don’t think too much, no condom bitch, ’cause porn is God and anal’s quick”
If I had to write the most unPC comedy show ever. No more jokes in this piece, it takes a serious turn.
“Finally, Castellsague et al.8 demonstrated a profound and significant reduction in invasive cervical cancer risk among women whose male partners were circumcised.8″
So… what about male cancer risk? Shouldn’t you study that too?
And they wouldn’t spread HPV if they didn’t catch it being sluts.
Prevention > whatever this is.
They’re basically operating on baby boys, assuming they’ll be manwhores when they’re older.
“HPV16, the most prevalent HPV type in this population (9.9%), also had the highest incidence (10.9/1000 person-months). A high incidence of HPV16 has been similarly reported in other studies among both men6, 7, 9, 14 and women.26 The high rate of acquisition of HPV16 has a clear implication for increasing cancer risk among men and their sexual partners, as HPV16 is the most common HPV type found in penile cancer among men;2 cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers among women;1, 27 and in anal and oropharyngeal cancers in both sexes.3, 4
If you’re avoiding performing oral on a woman, what makes you think she doesn’t have it in her mouth too and second, you’d better not be doing anal in that case….
Penile HPV IRs in our study were higher in the glans specimen, including the inner foreskin, compared with the shaft (HR=2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4). Our results are in contrast to the findings of a US study of 240 men.7 In this highly circumcised US population, the cumulative probability of incident HPV infection did not differ by anatomical site (44.3% in glans vs 45.4% in shaft). Among uncircumcised men, there may be a larger disparity in HPV acquisition by penile site, potentially attributable to keratinisation of the glans epithelium and removal of the inner foreskin after circumcision.”
Circumcised men aren’t less likely to catch it.
They’ll catch it somewhere more fatal. Increasing the rate of penile cancer.
Because you literally cannot catch it in a foreskin you NO LONGER HAVE.
So it’s a trick of linguistics. There’s less disease – of the foreskin. That you lack.
This study indicates higher prevalence of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised men in each survey and a reduction in use of condoms with non-marital sexual partners among circumcised men from 2004 to 2011, suggesting that promotion of male circumcision could result in risk compensation.
Considering the high levels of sexual risk behaviours among men who are already
circumcised observed in this study, the Ministry of Health and partners need to continue
sensitising the sexually active population to use condoms even when a man is circumcised. These
messages should target both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Educating men
10 undergoing circumcision also needs to be strengthened to avoid sexual risk taking post
“Data on changes in the sexual performance or sexual satisfaction of adolescents or men following circumcision are limited and conflicting.
Not really. Sunk cost fallacy is strong.
One study conducted among 138 Korean men an unknown time (possibly years) after circumcision found that 20 percent reported decreased sexual pleasure and 8 percent reported increased sexual pleasure following the procedure.3″
“Sixty-four percent of the circumcised men who were available for follow-up at 24 months reported greater penile sensitivity after circumcision, and 54 percent reported enhanced ease in reaching orgasm.6”
That is physically impossible, nerve endings are removed and existing ones covered with scar tissue.
Scar tissue is numb.
“Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”
Men deserve to know this.
Sounds like surgical differences. Or maybe the men reporting more sensation had a thicker foreskin, limiting sensation?
“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”
Possibly? The surgery is intended to remove nerves and nerve endings. It REMOVES.
It’s literally taking away the thing that makes them a man, the crown of their manhood itself, the most important and sexually responsive organ to sexual pleasure.
Circumcision could be contributing to male fertility issues.
“Laumann et al.  found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex.
Why does the porn industry want all men circumcised, it’s a mystery.
Masturbation suggests dissatisfaction with normal, spousal sex, as do the others.
In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males .
Unusual longevity is not good, it’s a common sign of impotence, porn lies. Difficulty finishing, medically.
Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females .”
I’m not kidding, impotence issues in performance, it’s tragic.
In addition, if humans do secrete pheromones, I’d expect to see that impact circumcised male fertility especially.
“The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 – 8.71) .”
That’s abnormal you shouldn’t need those, but without a foreskin there’s more friction, the prepuce evolved in men to reduce penile friction. Without the existence of lube, which might cause problems by ingredients, that suggests circumcised men would find it too painful to have sex at all.
Great profit margins for the lube companies though.
“The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man’s sexual appetite .
Yep, it’s a punishment.
Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman’s sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up.
Data supports this, keep reading.
There is a HUGE improvement in sexual performance for intact men.
When you ask the people judging said performance.
The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary ‘sexual’ organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman’s ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.”
“Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.”
So… the circumcised are bad in bed.No wonder American women don’t orgasm.
Objectively, the only way circumcised men can sexually perform is badly.
None of their behavioral pattern is pleasurable. None of it. Performance is judged by the recipient.
Again, everything porn tells you to do in bed is wrong.
It’s all the stuff that makes men bad in bed – that’s kinda why men enjoy viewing it, psychologically it’s telling them they’re normal by making bad performance in bed appear common and pay women to act aroused, contrary to honest data, like lonely women reading tons of romance novels and telling themselves “there’s nothing wrong with me”!
It’d be easy to test.
Do circumcised men enjoy watching intact men in porn? I’d bet not.
I’d bet they’d feel inferior. You think the industry doesn’t know that?
“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin . Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”
Circumcision increases divorce risk.
The study mentioned is linked below, Hughes, but nobody followed up on it.
Too controversial, plus the timing of his death is ..interesting.
“During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.'”
“When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).”
i.e. Don’t trust the sluts.
“The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07)
That isn’t premature, that’s normal. The circumcised were demonstrating a sign of impotence.
These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of ‘premature ejaculation’.
Note the quote marks, they’re actually the normal ones.
The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and ‘yet to formulate a preference’, suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.“
“When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.”
“When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016).”
It cannot be more obvious.
“When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis  to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans . This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.
The one they always preferred?
This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey  and in the human clitoris .”
Men need to be told this nerve information in biology class.
Male is comparable to female circumcision. It causes blatant nerve damage.
It destroys the experience of sexual intensity and intimacy.
It removes neuroreceptors!
“Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts.The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men  suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying .“
I try to warn you.
“Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”
And male enjoyment too. I think they’d wanna know.
20 is Van Howe http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/letters.html#vanhowe
“Of course adult feelings are not so easily dismissed. A preliminary survey of 75 men suggests that the more men know about the important functions of the prepuce, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied about being circumcised.3 Now that an increasing number of men are learning about the prepuce and expressing this dis-satisfaction, clinicians must acknowledge that is impossible to predict how a male infant will feel when he is older. A prudent course of action would be to allow men to make the decision about circumcision themselves when they reach adulthood.”
Men need informed consent, it’s THEIR penis.
“A hypothesis is needed to explain the findings of Laumann et al in the light of the known neurohistology. We suggest that a penis with foreskin and its full complement of neuroreceptors may make heterosexual coitus more satisfying, thereby making the man less likely to seek out alternate forms of stimulation. The only portion of the prepuce remaining in a man with surgically altered genitals is the remnant between the corona and the scar. While there are some fine-touch receptors in this tissue, the most sensitive portion of the prepuce at the tip is removed in even the most moderate circumcision.2 The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.
Explaining the risky sexual behaviors e.g. objecting to condom use. It doesn’t numb them, they’re already numb.
The only reason they want more oral, anal etc is to stimulate the remaining, tiny area of foreskin!
I wonder if the number of bisexual and gay men is lower in prevalence in intact men.
To date the effect of circumcision on sexual function has not been carefully studied. In rodent studies, removal of the prepuce resulted in marked changes in the mechanics of copulation,4 the hormonal response of the female partner, and aggressive behavior. In humans, behavioral alterations have been demonstrated in the pain response of circumcised infants.5 Unfortunately, studies of men circumcised as adults have had too few subjects or differences in sensation were not well documented. Testing penile vibratory thresholds has demonstrated that men experience increasing thresholds with age,
the penis does not age well
while those with premature ejaculation have low thresholds regardless of age.5 Application of this technique could be used to demonstrate if a sensation differences exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men.”
“Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.”
Men deserve to know, informed consent.
This is based on a medically necessary population, not a NORMAL one – note.
“Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”
They note in bold: “There was no clear sample of normal, healthy, intact men for comparison. Even so, thirty-eight percent of the circumcised men were dissatisfied with the results of their circumcision.”
It isn’t surprising you couldn’t find healthy adult men willing to chop off the most sensitive part of their manhood.
“John G. Swadey, MD (New England Journal of Medicine, 1987) states that circumcised men show a “somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis and scabies.“”
“Our survey suggests that there is a difference between the sexuality of the circumcised and uncircumcised male during his lifetime. It also suggests that the uncircumcised male has a more favorable sexual compatibility in his marriage.
During my experiences in medicine and surgery, occasionally there arose the question of circumcision and sexual compatibility. It seemed to me that the uncircumcised male had less of a problem in sexual compatibility.”
Sadly, he died before we could see his data.
Someone else, do the study!
Do circumcised men around the world also have higher divorce rates?
Easy to observe.
The UK, latest from newspaper article:
“The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK was at a 45-year low, with 101,669 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales.”
And we have low circumcision rates, mostly religious.
“The new statistics showed a steep drop in the number of circumcisions performed in the United States.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”
“A Federal judge in Detroit, Michigan, has ruled that the Federal United States law criminalising any form of female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
“Critics have since pointed out that these observations are equally applicable to circumcision of boys and that there were also grounds for finding the FGM law unconstitutional in the basis that it denied equal treatment to males.”
They’re pushing FGM because male is considered legal.
Two wrongs do make a right?
“It is thus perfectly obvious that circumcision does not significantly reduce a male’s risk of contracting an STD, and that organisations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control itself) who identify prevention of STDs as the most important “benefit” of circumcision, do not know what they are talking about. There is in fact evidence going back to the 1850s that circumcised men are at greater risk of gonorrhoea and other urethral infections than men with normal genitalia. It may be that the foreskin acts as a barrier to the entry of certain pathogens.”
I wonder if circumcised men are likelier to carry super gonorrhea.
Seems like it.
“A study of a rural community in South Africa has found that circumcised men generally are more likely to be infected with HIV, and that males circumcised in hospitals are 20 per cent more likely to be HIV positive than those left intact. Where 24 per cent of uncut men were found to be HIV positive, the incidence of HIV among males circumcised in hospitals was 31 per cent. These findings have come as a shock to the South African Medical authorities who have been following the orders of US and WHO health officials and “rolling out” the provision of mass circumcision as a response to the nation’s AIDS crisis. As the authors of the report comment ruefully, it seems that when it comes to the spread of HIV, anatomy is less important than behaviour – exactly what critics of the circumcision programs have been arguing for years. In fact, many other studies have found that in the real world there are many regions in Africa where there is little or no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between cut and uncut men, and that in quite a few places cut men are more likely to be HIV positive.” http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445
We sought to quantify early deaths following neonatal circumcision (same hospital admission) and to identify factors associated with such mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent circumcision while hospitalized during the first 30 days of life from 2001-2010 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,899,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions). Note: this figure should not be interpreted as causal but correlational: it may include both under-counting and over-counting of deaths attributable to circumcision. Compared to survivors, subjects who died following newborn circumcision were more likely to have associated co-morbid conditions, such as cardiac disease (OR: 697.8 [378.5-1286.6] p<0.001), coagulopathy (OR: 159.6 [95.6-266.2] p<0.001), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR: 68.2 [49.1-94.6] p<0.001), or pulmonary circulatory disorders (OR: 169.5 [69.7-412.5] p<0.001). Recognizing these factors could inform clinical and parental decisions, potentially reducing associated risks.”
“A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority because it violates the human rights of the boy on whom it is imposed. It first considers and dismisses the best interest test of parental authority which, by focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to his (future) autonomy, fails to take the boy’s human rights sufficiently into account. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. This conclusion holds even if it could be assumed that the child would later come to endorse his circumcision: a proper understanding of autonomy implies that the religious sacrifice of a body part can only be authorised by the person whose body it is. Thus, ritual male circumcision is outside the scope of parental authority because it usurps the child’s right and responsibility to become the author of his own life.”
“The statement is at pains to point out that the evidence as to the benefits and risks of circumcision is contradictory and inconclusive, and that much of it is of poor quality, especially studies claiming to show that circumcision has little impact on sexual sensation and function. The final conclusion is that while circumcision does offer some advantages, they are small, can be achieved by other, non-surgical means, and are outweighed by the risks and harms. This being the case, routine circumcision is not justified as a health measure and cannot be recommended.”
Very good news, their bold title:
… circumcision advocates have nowhere left to hide
The terms of the debate about non-therapeutic circumcision of minors have changed. The issue is no longer whether the so-called “benefits” outweigh the risks, or even whether the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. (As for the troglodytes who still mutter about pros and cons …) Coming on top of the judgement of a German court that circumcision is bodily harm and that it violates the child’s right to religious freedom, a leading legal philosopher now argues that boys have an inherent right not to be circumcised without medical need. In a paper forthcoming in Health Matrix, Stephen Munzer argues that current norms of autonomy and bodily integrity give male minors “a moral, anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication.” Even more remarkably, it is now conceded by a prominent defender of religious/cultural circumcision that the practise is harmful and does violate the rights of the child. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Joseph Mazor acknowledges the physical and moral harms of circumcision and admits that the child has “a right of moderate strength” not to be subjected to “presumably harmful circumcision”.
Both Munzer and Mazor go on to argue that, given the importance of circumcision within the cultural/religious communities that follow this tradition, the practice should not be criminalised.
You admit it’s abuse, fuck you.
Religious rape isn’t legal either.
This is a fair point, far less important than the vital concession that circumcision is harmful and does violate the rights of the child to bodily integrity, personal autonomy and an open future. The argument about these points is over; the debate now is whether non-therapeutic circumcision is or should be illegal.
You’d have to re-write all abuse laws, NO.
No means NO.
Stephen Munzer. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix 28 (1) 2018: 1-77 (in press). Full text at SSRN.
“The United States, a nation with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 47% of the world’s Viagra (Pfizer’s own figures). Turns out the same nation has been circumcising the majority of its male infants for generations.” “A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and circumcision.”
Full links in that article. It’s sickening how people try to justify this.
If the kid won’t get it done at 18, why does the parent want it done against their will?
An idiot theorized in “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, that societal violence is caused by lack of pleasure, a theory so ridiculous if one only looks at Africa – highly sexual, high rape rate, high murder rate. It’s actually IQ. Sexual and violence behaviors differ according to standard IQ deviations, it is well known most violent criminals are less intelligent, yet highly promiscuous.
However, nations of high circumcision uptake do report more violence.
It’s also a proxy for low IQ, the practice of circumcision in countries predicts lower national IQ. I wonder if the circumcised are more likely to be low IQ, a correlation?
The UK used to circumcise more often until the NHS came along and didn’t allow doctors to charge for it, suddenly it ceased to be medically necessary! The foreskin is the primary erogenous organ in men, the area in adults is 3×5 inches, with 50,000 nerve endings. Minor circumcision is a human rights crisis.
“In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if religion had nothing to do with war, just circumcision?
No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.”
“Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.”
“It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mention this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.”
“Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”
“Illustrative to a still further degree of the point made above concerning the ineffectualness of the present penal system are the results of a comparison of the percentages for recidivism with those for long-term sentences.
Losing the death penalty is a mistake.
As may be seen above, although 56.7% of offenders are recidivistic or habitual offenders and hence incorrigible in the main, as has been mentioned above, only 16% to 23% are serving long term sentences. This fact, then, signifies that the greater per cent of recidivists are serving terms of more or less brevity. That little benefit to society may be expected from such terms is not to be doubted since sentences of three to five and even ten years are without effect upon recidivistic offenders and possess value only by virtue of segregating the offender for a while and thus sparing society a greater or less number of crimes.3‘ At best, such sentences, in so far as recidivists are concerned, constitute nothing more than a flimsy makeshift in dealing with the problem of repeated criminality. In-deed, the statistics of crime as well as the teachings of history confirm the absolute inadequacy of the present system of punishments against crime.12
Especially is this so in regard to the feebleminded recidivists who are accountable for a full 25% of the entire problem of repeated criminality and whose deficiency of intelligence effectually and completely militates against any possibility of regeneration or correction. That penalties are established by statutes and are based wholly upon a consideration of the material act constitutes an actual social injury since society thereby derives a false sense of having adequately and securely provided against a danger.
Because men are NOT made equal, biologically.
They should study criminal’s children to be sure.
In reality, it has not, for the harm is merely postponed. Commitment to prison should be determined not by the nature of the offense but by the nature of the offender, 33 and with a view toward the causes of the delinquency, the effect upon the individual, and the moral prognosis.3 4 Only in this way may adequate social provision be made for the warped, deficient, defective, and unregenerate enemies of the social order.”
Prison doesn’t work.
We know now from MRI psychopaths and other types literally gain pleasure from other’s pain and experience no/less fear and a neutral response to appeals for mercy. Something biologically less humane requires other treatment.
page 14 on the pdf looks at crime type
Married men are less likely to be criminals (selected by women)?
“Accordingly, the assumption of the stabilizing influence of marriage appears well substantiated. Or, it may be that the fundamental constitution of the delinquent is of such a nature that he is frequently antagonistic toward the assumption and maintenance of marital duties and thus fails even to experience contact with any presumably stabilizing influences of marriage. At any rate, marriage, together with any of the beneficial influences it may exert upon the individual, is of markedly less frequent occurrence among criminal classes than among the general population”
“That slightly over 50% of criminals, including even the low grade morons, are married with the consequently increased possibilities of the propagation of the species is somewhat disheartening.”
Er, why isn’t there a basic legal requirement of an IQ test to marry?
Low IQ people cannot consent. To prove they can consent.
“This equality of incidence is strongly suggestive that the criminally inclined nature, regardless of intellectual endowment, is fundamentally lacking in those personal and social requisites essential for the assumption and maintenance of marital duties. Or it may be that this marked prevalence of divorce indicates the failure of the stabilizing influences of marriage and home life because of the inherent instability of the criminal classes preventing the reception of any such benefits.”
Part of the reason bachelors are looked down on.
And divorced men.
“As it is, the percentages of actually disrupted marriages range from 29 for the low grade morons to 36% for the group of subnormal intelligence and 32% for the normal intelligence group. And when it is considered that 36% to 58% of the groups respectively are still within the age group of 21 to 30 years, it is reasonable to suppose that a contrasting of these percentages with figures for a like proportion of the geners1 population would render the above figures comparably much higher.
However, from a eugenical point of view as regards the propagation of the species, this high percentage of disrupted marriages is a most hopeful sign.”
Let idiots get divorced!
“It will be noted at once that the greater number of children and the greater number of families with children occur in the groups of deficient intelligence, particularly so in the low grade moron group. This is quite in accord with the findings of other investigators and the generally conceived opinion of the greater fecundity of the classes of deficient intelligence.61”
R-selection, lower quality per child.
“And another investigation of the Harvard Graduates of 1894 revealed 20% without children, 13.1% with one child, 18.1% with two children, 22.5% with three children, and 25.5% with four or more children. 65 This makes an average of 2.44 children for each individual, a figure which gives the college bred man of Harvard the lead over even the low grade moron delinquent. Further, it has been estimated by Kehrer that the proportion of childless marriages for civilized countries ranges between 10% and 15%,”; which means that the ordinary middle-class citizen, taking the criminalistic and the college-bred classes as the extremes, bears the burden of restocking the population.”
I bet that isn’t true now, they think they’re too good to have kids!
And that explains dwindling IQ compared to the Victorians, the middle class were less intelligent and the upper class dropped the ball. The middle class only seem intelligent due to their education.
“The above table shows clearly that the foreign-born stock does produce more than its due quota of our specified delinquents, especially so in regard to those of deficient intelligence. This is most marked regarding the low grade morons, where the foreign-born stock produces more than 235% of its due quota of offenders as determined by population ratios while the proportions for the other three groups ranges from 125% for the group of normal intelligence to 144% for the high grade feebleminded delinquents.
This finding is substantiated by the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1910.98 and also by Laughlin in his report to the Congressional Committee. 99 And similar findings have been reported by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.'” In addition, Laughlin also found that the second generation of foreign stock had an increased crime incidence over and above that of foreign stock in general, probably because that generation represents the transitional stage between the discarding of the customs of the old country and the adopting of those of the new. Undoubtedly this fact accounts for a proportion of the increased percentages in the above table. Obviously then, there is an undeniable danger in the admission of unselected foreign stock, both from the aspect of their own undesirability and from the aspect of their reproduction of their kind. Hence, there is an unquestionable and appealing need of a closer and more intelligent supervision of immigration, with more ample provision for the means of so doing.”
You lost the war.
You know you did.
“A second consideration evident from the above table is the increase among offenders of individuals having one parent foreign-born and the other native-born. The percentages given above nearly double that for the general population. Various investigations have shown that there is a decided tendency for the home of mixed parental nativity to produce delinquents.”°
No, it’s because they’re mixed race.
That went off on a tangent but a potentially relevant one.
“By analysing participants’ responses, researchers were able to identify the six common categories of disgust, which each relate to regularly occurring types of infectious disease threat in our ancestral past. Historically for example, eating rotting food could have led to diseases like cholera, close contact with unhygienic people could have transmitted leprosy, promiscuous sexual practices could have put an individual at risk of syphilis and contact with open wounds could have led to the plague or smallpox infection.”
Syphilis was germ warfare from American Indians, actually. Modern.
And basically all infectious diseases qualify as STDs. Depending how they’re caught.
“The results confirm the ‘parasite avoidance theory‘, in which disgust evolved in animals, encouraging them to adopt behaviours to reduce the risk of infection. This behaviour is replicated in humans where disgust signals us to act in specific ways, which minimise the risk of catching diseases.”
Slut shaming is just civilized. It’s the reason the disgust-numb largely died out. Dead amygdala, dead host. e.g. https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/7/1715/327525
“However, very much unexpected was the disproportionate deficit in recognizing disgust, which was significantly larger than the deficit observed for recognition of fear.”
Disgust is a survival instinct, not to have it is biologically wrong. It’s as wrong as a psychopath with no conscience (they also feel no disgust at violent or diseased stimuli, this is why they’re promiscuous). Something is missing.
A grid-down would be funny because all the rich sluts on anti-virals would look like something from a zombie movie. STDs mutilate the appearance and without modern meds suppressing it, it would ruin the face.
Hell, a weakened immunity from a minor blackout would cause a vulnerability in the immune system to allow any former diseases to seize control (old age also does this). Sluts never survive dangerous turns of history for that reason, picked off by the wages of sin. People have forgotten, not really informed by ‘educators’. Brummel died in an asylum, a disgrace.
“Interestingly, the survey results showed that there were gender differences in reactions to the disgusting scenarios that were presented, with women rating every category more disgusting than men. This is consistent with the fact that men are known to indulge in riskier behaviour than women, on average. The categories women in the study found most disgusting were risky sexual behaviour and animals carrying disease.”
Science confirms what all women knew – male sluts are more disgusting than female sluts.
Women need to be discerning as a sex, this isn’t surprising. Birth defects, miscarriage and infertility aren’t fun.
“This corresponds to an evolutionary view of the emotions which are for action; emotions make us do things that put us in a better state with respect to our survival and reproduction.”
We spot them.
And we shun them.
K-select women especially.
“Researchers say the findings could be used to develop instruments for measuring disgust, to investigate how disgust might vary across cultures and to understand how moral disgust, for example, relates to disease disgust.”
“keeping steadfast love for thousands,[a] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
And before you think I’m man-hating, no.
It’s the data.
“The virus notorious for causing cervical cancer in women also turns up frequently in men and can hang on unnoticed for months or even years, researchers report online March 1 in Lancet. The study solidifies earlier research indicating that human papillomavirus is highly prevalent in men and strengthens the case for vaccinating men and boys against it, the report’s authors say.”
Imagine my shock.
“The study, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that 11 million men and 3.2 million women in the United States had oral HPV infections. Among them, 7 million men and 1.4 million women had strains that can cause cancers of the throat, tongue and other areas of the head and neck.”
“The rate was higher among men who also had genital HPV. (Almost half of men aged 18 to 60 have a genital HPV infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)”
It’s a male-carried disease. By far (that was a 5:1 male to female ratio, deny it).
7/1.4=5 for the illiterates at home.
The penile cancer risk for men goes unmentioned. Some informed consent, right? Feel empowered yet?
“No, there is currently no approved test for HPV in men.”
“Routine testing (also called ‘screening’) to check for HPV or HPV-related disease before there are signs or symptom, is not recommended by the CDC”
They want the men to spread it.
Back to the original doctor.
“This is major news, and I’m wondering – why no headlines about it? There were no press conferences with Dr Crino, and no statements from SIECUS or Planned Parenthood, our leaders in “comprehensive” sexuality education.
There’s a double standard at work: if research suggested that sugary drinks cause fetal malformations, it surely would be announced with alarm by every media outlet.
Cover-up isn’t a double standard but okay.
With sexual health it’s always been different. The negative consequences of sexual license are often ignored or minimized. Young people are led to believe that with condoms and STI testing they’re safe, or safe enough. But it’s not so.
“Free lust” is anything but free of consequences. If only the Bible mentioned fornication and how sinning against oneself is different.
I believe that one day there will be congressional hearings about the persistent whitewashing of STIs, the exaggerated efficacy of condoms, and the endorsement by sex educators of high risk behaviors. Until then, the madness continues.”
One day there might be real science, we can all dream!
They make so much money off pelvic exams, which by the way, were pioneered in Nazi concentration camps!
And that’s just the tip of the hooker berg.
It was the same with syphilis and other diseases. Men would catch it, usually from hookers and infect their wife (or eventual wife) and their children would have medical issues (look up the syphilis skulls). Deliberate honeypots for this purpose would bring down an entire nation quickly via its leaders. Wouldn’t it, France?
We have DNA testing to trace precise strains of types but that’s small comfort.
If you can get it from a handshake or a peck on the cheek (children, Europeans) nobody is safe.
It goes on about genital ulcer, pushes circumcision and still admits that it doesn’t explain the data.
“Transmission of simian retroviruses to humans is not exceptional.”
But this one is different.
“Simian foamy viruses (SFV) have frequently been transmitted to humans exposed to bushmeat, apparently without further spread and the epidemic human T-cell lymphotropic viruses (HTLV) arose from their simian counterparts (STLV) through contacts over thousands of years. It is generally acceptedthat SFV, STLV, as well as SIV, entered the human population through bushmeat handling. Although such events are common today –, and therefore assumed to also have been common in the recent and distant past, they seldom result in a virus with epidemic potential. Despite progress in identifying SIVs closely related to HIV groups –, , how and why only some of the transmitted SIV strains established epidemics is subject of ardent debate”
That’s as close as an academic gets to I know I’m lying but I need to get this published.
Genetic modelling showed that variation in homophobia scores could be explained by additive genetic (36%), shared environmental (18%) and unique environmental factors (46%). However, corrections based on previous findings show that the shared environmental estimate may be almost entirely accounted for as extra additive genetic variance arising from assortative mating for homophobic attitudes. The results suggest that variation in attitudes toward homosexuality is substantially inherited, and that social environmental influences are relatively minor.
Aversion to walking public health risks is like avoiding zombies during an apocalypse, it’s just common sense.
Add to this how many cancers are pathogenic (some caused by STDs or physical contact) and it becomes evolutionally intelligent.
Their entire legal premise is a lie.
The opposite force is heterophobia and the lesser term heteronegativism, because sleeping with somebody’s bisexual husband or wife is grounds for a stabbing.
Moreover, individual-level analysis using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth indicates that risky sexual behavior such as engaging in unprotected sex and number of sexual encounters increases as a result of over-the-counter access to EBC, which is consistent with the state-level STD findings.
THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED ACCESS TO EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION ON SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE AND ABORTION RATES;
I mean I literally just found the top three studies on the subject and they confirmed the obvious.
Handing out contraceptives like sweeties takes away responsibility, encouraging risk-taking behaviour. It’s economics.
More ’empowering’, ‘sex-positive’ ‘teachers’ pushing for moar moar always moar Sex Education (now suggesting porn use in the classroom), the more sex the children have. Just like those pesky conservatives predicted.
Under this system so-called sexual health officials go into classrooms and are now encouraging children as young as 12 years old to have sex. This is not only destroying childhood innocence but has given Britain the worst sexual health in the western world and the most one-parent families.
It reads like fiction: an estimated 50 to 75 percent of American men were infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD); in thousands of families, an STD killed one, two, even five of their children; and an incredible 30 percent of all blindness was attributed to STDs. The transmission of STDs was an urgent concern of national health and security—so serious, in fact, that soldiers were court-martialed if they were found to be infected.
These statistics are not from a third-world country in the midst of the AIDs pandemic. These are estimates of syphilis and gonorrhea prevalence in 1904, during the Progressive Era of American history. This surprising STD epidemic is one indication that the “good old days” weren’t so good after all.
As American soldiers headed across the sea to fight World War I, they found themselves far away from the watchful eyes of family and free to enjoy what many thought was a male “sexual necessity.” Few know that the federal government first became interested in what happened in the bedroom, in part, as a matter of national security. Estimates suggest that half of all servicemen had an STD. These men could not dependably protect their fellow soldiers if they were stuck in a foxhole with advanced-stage syphilis.
Simply put, America was in the midst of a public health crisis in the early 1900s. And it was this crisis that sparked the birth of public sex education in America….
Sluts are a serious pathogenic risk to children. This is why they were shamed and ostracized (which they still are, rarely mentioned).
Fuck adults….. with a condom.
When the antibiotic resistance kicks in proper, a lot of people are going to finally regret their “personal” lifestyle choices.
Yes, why aren’t there studies of vaginal bacteria cultures? Doctors already take millions of samples.
I would also like to see male sample studies from STD checks to ascertain % transmission. As do the men, I would imagine.
Is this why feminists are insistent upon receiving oral? Subconsciously trying to pass on promiscuity or cuckoldry-causing strains?
….So why are women impacted by STDs differently than men? A few key reasons go a long way to explaining feminine vulnerability:
One/ For many common STDs — including chlamydia and gonorrhea — women are less likely to show symptoms compared to men and when symptoms do occur, they may appear to go away even though the infection remains. More importantly, men find it easier to notice symptoms because they signs are so obvious — an unusual discharge, for example. Since women experience a whole range of natural discharges, all of them quite normal, they find it much more difficult to distinguish when an abnormal one appears.
Two/ Not only is the vagina a suitably moist environment where bacteria may easily flourish, but its lining is exceedingly more delicate and thinner than the skin of a penis. This natural fragility means viruses find it easier to penetrate.
Three/ Women have visibility issues. Notably, it’s harder for a woman to see a genital ulcer (from syphilis, say, or herpes) because they could occur only inside her vagina and not on the surface of her genitalia. Meanwhile, it’s difficult for a man to miss seeing a sore making its debut on his penis.
Four/ Finally, everyday sexually transmitted infections wreak havoc on a woman’s more gentle system while causing no problems in men. Along with chlamydia, the human papillomavirus (HPV) is contracted by both men and women frequently. However this common virus does not lead to serious (if any) health problems for most men while it is the main cause of cervical cancer in women. The fairer sex has been dealt an unequal hand.
So what’s a woman to do? In a phrase: protect yourself…..