|
Circumcision (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Palladium |
| circumsized and no pubes = handsome cock |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
There was also a study released in 2006 in some pediatrics journal with a strong statistical relationship supporting the circumcision = less STDs argument.
stupidest comment in this thread. |
It was to point out that you need to take all factors into account before you can assume that the results are directly correlated to only one factor.
If you did a study to find out which of the two types were to be more sexually promiscuous, the existing study could become moot.
Get it? |
|
|
| Jase83 |
| quote: | | circumsized and no pubes = handsome cock |
wrong, that equals cancer patient..
trimmed 'do plus a stout hat = handsome :tongue2 |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
It was to point out that you need to take all factors into account before you can assume that the results are directly correlated to only one factor.
If you did a study to find out which of the two types were to be more sexually promiscuous, the existing study could become moot.
Get it? |
Theresa, the NIH has already thought this one out. I think theyre ahead of you, being the NIH and all. :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
It was to point out that you need to take all factors into account before you can assume that the results are directly correlated to only one factor.
If you did a study to find out which of the two types were to be more sexually promiscuous, the existing study could become moot.
Get it? |
youre merely creating other factors (when you dont know that there actually are any), and your example was retarded. |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
Can I continue to point out that there is such a thing as statistical significance, and in this case, the results are robust. At that point, it is assumed there is a relationship.
The NIH wouldnt try to cure AIDs by cutting off penis skin on a hunch.
Sorry. I get riled up about it. |
|
|
| Palladium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jase83
wrong, that equals cancer patient..
trimmed 'do plus a stout hat = handsome :tongue2 |
i have cancer!? :eek: |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
youre merely creating other factors (when you dont know that there actually are any), and your example was retarded. |
I have to use retarded examples so our retarded viewers can understand it easier.
I have not created factors into anything, I am simply stating that numbers alone comparing only one factor against another is not a thoroughly researched study IMO.
If they covered how many people each man slept with, how many used protection, etc. etc. then I would be more inclined to think it is accurate.
However, the article simply states that it compared over 2 years circ vs. uncirc. It doesn't say anything else.
There could be plenty of reasons why this was the case.
Is there any proven documentation that a foreskin is more susceptible to infection? Is there any reason why a foreskin would pick up infection more than the open penis? |
|
|
| Jase83 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palladium
i have cancer!? :eek: |
no no no, i meant your wang looks like a cancer patient without hair around it. not handsome at all.. looks like it's on death row with out the fuzz around it. lolz |
|
|
| Palladium |
lol hater
have you got a circumsized in you lately? |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Can I continue to point out that there is such a thing as statistical significance, and in this case, the results are robust. At that point, it is assumed there is a relationship.
The NIH wouldnt try to cure AIDs by cutting off penis skin on a hunch.
Sorry. I get riled up about it. |
But is the relationship actually because the foreskin itself is more susceptible, or is it because men with their foreskin intact are more promiscuous? Is it because men without their foreskin in African countries come from wealthier families (who could afford the procedure), and thus are more educated?
I will agree that there is an obvious difference, but is it actually because of the foreskin itself, or are there other factors that are not being addressed? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Forget that there are peer-reviewed studies and other trustworthy sources providing research and statistics...
It's hilarious that those arguing against this can't just apply basic logic and think about how foreskin would contribute to increased risk of STDs.
It's really not that ludicrous of an idea. I mean, if you have half a brain. |
|
|
|
|
