Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 196 of 270 (436269)
11-24-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Complication rate of MGM
If just one does it because he thinks he is religiously required to do it, then it is done for religious reasons. Not exactly a free choice, now is it?
just because religion is involved doesn't mean they have no choice. i assure you that we religious people are capable of exercising choice.
If they're not congruent, then it can only be because his life is as valuable as hers.
fine. i hate men and they should all be bled to death by cutting their dicks off. happy?
Note: They couldn't find a single instance of FGM happening in the US and yet it got outlawed.
do you think they searched women's pants? do you think someone would actually report the condition of their genitals in a culture in which they don't fit?
Yes. You don't realize that you've gone too far until it's too late.
that sounds like the "oops i slipped and fell and my pants got ripped off and my dick was suddenly inside her" accidental sex argument.
And how would you know?
i'm manually stimulated several penises, and some quite forcefully. i've never torn a dick.
To allow the skin of the penile shaft to move easily up and down the corpora inside. This allows frictional sensation to be transmitted internally while preventing friction on the outside. By removing the foreskin, the skin can no longer move over the corpora and the friction necessarily must be on the outer surface of the skin.
in fact, i've know a few people who have torn their foreskins by masturbating too forcefully, but never one who tore his circumcised penis in the same fashion.
Only if the tumor is in the foreskin. Circumcision doesn't do anything for cancer localized in the corpora. So the treatment isn't "circumcision," per se, but rather excision of the tumor which happens to be on the foreskin.
so a mastectomy of a cancerous breast isn't the removal of the breast, per se, just the excision of the tumor which happens to be in the breast.
Indeed. But just because you don't care doesn't mean they are.
It's called "Body Integrity Identity Disorder." Why the special pleading for genitals?
there's lots of things that aren't "normal" that have been labeled "disorders". i've taken to disbelieving that term.
That somehow because there is a man somewhere with a tumor on his foreskin that has his foreskin medically removed, that justifies all other instances.
no, it justifies the removal of the foreskin for the purpose of treating cancer.
But the lawmakers have the same problem you do: A man's life isn't as valuable as a woman's. It's just a "tiny little bit of flesh."
Politics begins at home.
so write your congressman and piss off.
And yet, we do. And you defend it by claiming it's just a "tiny little bit of flesh," of no real concern...it isn't like anybody dies from it.
no, i don't. i say that it's not equivalent to fgm. there's a big difference. it's still wrong, but it's not equivalent. it's not the same procedure. period.
That's because in the West, that's who gets circumcized.
you're talking about banning things. i'm talking about the ways laws should be written in order to do the most good without infringing on the rights of individuals to define their own sexuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 8:27 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2007 9:11 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 270 (436270)
11-24-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 8:12 PM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Hint: Tuberculosis is a bacterium, not a lung infection.
hint: lung infections are either caused by bacteria or virii.
Indeed.
What does that have to do with bacterial infection in other parts of the body?
The words you are looking for are, "Oops. My mistake. I didn't realize that tuberculosis could infect other parts of the body. I had incorrectly assumed it was only a lung infection."
Yes, brennakimi, tuberculosis primarily infects the lungs. That's not the only place it can infect. Therefore, whence your insistence that you can't get tuberculosis of the penis?
quote:
and how in the fuck would i find that specific article with nothing to go on by jama, circumcision, and tuberculosis if you don't provide a specific citation of any sort.
Because as an adult capable of using a computer, you are thus also capable of using a search engine. It never occurred to you to type "jama circumcision tuberculosis" into the search engine to look it up?
I am not here to do your homework.
quote:
no, but tuberculosis is generally acquired through airborne transmission.
Irrelevant.
The fact that tuberculosis commonly presents as a lung infection has no bearing on the case. Since it is airborne, it can set up infection in any open wound. There's a reason why they test for tuberculosis infection by pricking your skin.
quote:
quote:
armchair quarterback
oh look, we have a new favorite insult. i have an idea. lets make a new rule. no one on the board can post on anything they don't have a degree it.
(*chuckle*)
You got caught talking through your hat and somehow it's my fault.
The rule, as it has always been, is that you need to do your homework first. Nobody is an expert on everything. Having a degree doesn't mean you know everything about a subject.
Thus to discuss something with honesty and integrity, it means you have to do some work beyond spouting off from the comfort of your chair. We are not here to spoonfeed you everything. You don't have to be a published author on the subject, but it would help if you did some investigation of the subject first.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:12 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:45 PM Rrhain has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 198 of 270 (436271)
11-24-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 8:41 PM


Because as an adult capable of using a computer, you are thus also capable of using a search engine. It never occurred to you to type "jama circumcision tuberculosis" into the search engine to look it up?
I am not here to do your homework.
responsible people cite their sources when they make reference to them.
"Oops. My mistake. I didn't realize that tuberculosis could infect other parts of the body. I had incorrectly assumed it was only a lung infection."
fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 8:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2007 9:34 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 270 (436281)
11-24-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 6:29 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
Simply because morality is arbitrary and socially constructed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
In what way do you think morals exist? I'm curious to know.
Monopoly is a completely arbitrary and created game.
What makes it arbitrary? It seems totally dependent upon strategy not fortuitousness.
are you saying atheists don't have morals?
Of course they do. They just have no good reason to be moral. It totally runs counter to Darwinistic mechanisms. You might just as well choke someone who is drowning, rather than pull them out. In a world without objective moral values, there is no difference.
Or are you saying that atheists are just deluding themselves, using the morality that was given by god and denying the source?
All I'm saying is that the atheistic position has no actual reason to be moral, nor is there any explanation for why or how morals could be passed on. At most, you have to look at the practical purposes. But even then, why is it practical? It just goes around and around leading you back to where you came.
quote:
:If female circumcision is wrong, then why is it so?
To quote from "The Life":
It's my body
Not your body
And my body
Is my business
My business
Is my business
And nobody's business
But my own
That doesn't explain why its immoral. It doesn't explain how you've come to that notion or especially why it is intrinsic. You might feel compelled to say, it just is.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 6:29 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 11:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2007 9:47 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 200 of 270 (436296)
11-24-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 10:20 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
Just popping in to say I happen to agree with your assessment, with just a few nitpicks.
It totally runs counter to Darwinistic mechanisms.
That statement is a bit extreme. Why wouldn't certain moral characteristics arise from evolutionary processes? They wouldn't have even had to have developed during our last stage of evolution.
For example we may have "programs" that keep us wanting to stay together. That could have a survival benefit, and lead naturally to more social skills, including altruism as a learned mechanism for keeping things running smoothly.
This is not to say it justifies them, but they aren't COUNTER to such mechanisms. That would require that they are clearly counterproductive to reproduction.
At most, you have to look at the practical purposes. But even then, why is it practical?
Regardless of why its practical, it would still be practical. I agree this is all atheists have, beyond describing their own aesthetic tastes. I don't see this as a fault, just a definition.
It may be true that I could just as easily kill someone as help them, but as a human I have habits and a nature. I generally just don't want to kill someone, and would want to help. Those with the reverse tend to get weeded out relatively quickly... though not always.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 10:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 12:56 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 201 of 270 (436298)
11-24-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 8:34 PM


Re: Anthropology and Human Rights
Rather extensively?
I meant using the term extensively. The Wiki page used it all over the place for explaining what political events were happening in the world. This was to indicate that it can be useful and is real.
As it happens you claimed it was never used. You searched and it did not exist. So I found it being used and what do you say? Oh yeah you merely assert that it has no connection to how I was using it.
Well I can't fight that logic. You just tell me what I mean and what they mean, and that the two are different. Here's a good example...
Monoculture implies: Discrete. Clearly bounded. Internally homogenous. Capiche?
Did I say this? Where did I say this? Where did my cite say this? I told you how I was using it and the articles used it the way I did.
What is true is that monocultural proponents, such as seen in the Netherlands DO argue that cultures SHOULD be that way. Thus for example there is a singular Dutch culture that has specific characteristics that should not change, and variations within weeded down.
I never said they were closed, never said they do not change. It is people trying to build that facade through law that I am arguing against.
By the way I did look into the AAA thingy, and it does seem that in 1999 they made a pretty dramatic policy change. That's sad for me to see (like the American Psych orgs) as it is not scientific, however it does not necessarily hold for all Anthropologists or all anthropology as seen in some of the papers like Bell's. Boy I hope they change back from that.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by molbiogirl, posted 11-25-2007 12:43 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 202 of 270 (436299)
11-24-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 8:22 PM


Re: Yeah, Nator, I'm starting to realize that
Holmes is a tar pit of intellectual dishonesty.
Says the person who keeps quote-mining, misreading documents, telling me what my position is, what the definition of words I am using are, making claims that are clearly falsified, and never admitting when I answer a question?
Yeah, my opinion of you is a complete waste of time. Shall we end discussion?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:22 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2007 12:19 AM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 270 (436302)
11-25-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Silent H
11-24-2007 11:55 PM


Re: Yeah, Nator, I'm starting to realize that
Says the person who keeps quote-mining, misreading documents, telling me what my position is, what the definition of words I am using are, making claims that are clearly falsified, and never admitting when I answer a question?
Part of your relentless dishonesty is that you assert she's the one doing those things.
Boy it didn't take long at all to get the same ol' Holmes, did it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 11:55 PM Silent H has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 204 of 270 (436304)
11-25-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Silent H
11-24-2007 11:51 PM


Re: Anthropology and Human Rights
I meant using the term extensively. The Wiki page used it all over the place for explaining what political events were happening in the world. This was to indicate that it can be useful and is real.
OMG.
This is precious!
"I didn't mean the term was used extensively in the literature, I meant it was used lots of times on a webpage."
That is darling. Really! Just too darling.
Did I say this? Where did I say this? Where did my cite say this? I told you how I was using it and the articles used it the way I did.
Ooooo. Lookit dat dere. Dat be a tar pit.
Aw lawda mussy!
Iffn I steps inta that, Isa gonta git stuck!
...
Sorry about that, H.
(ahem)
What I meant to say is ...
I did not suggest that you said that "monoculture" is discrete and clearly bounded and internally homogenous ...
I used words that when read suggest that you said that "monoculture" is discrete and clearly bounded and internally homogenous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 11:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2007 1:05 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 205 of 270 (436305)
11-25-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 8:21 PM


Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)
You can't pull out the pieces that you like and play with just those.
You say the above and then...
It is unfortunate that the WHO chose to both affirm and deny Klein's results.(Affirm: pain = during sex; deny: mutilated women = orgasmic) That is an abhorrent abuse of fatally flawed scientific findings. I am not defending the WHO's misappropriation of a Klein's study.
This is completely contradictory. And where exactly did you find their BS claim?
Orgasm. Enjoyment. Orgasm. Mutilation = lack of sexual response (aka orgasm) = majority of studies.
You say this, they do not and the text is clear. They do not identify the equations you just made. Can a woman not have enjoyment without orgasm? Can one not rate enjoyment without rating orgasm? Could in fact women have orgasms but still not feel enjoyment (perhaps due to pain before or after)?
What's more they start with a statement of intuitive connection, they even call it "suggests", followed by studies so far, followed by HOWEVER, to end in a caveat.
I am not referring to the WHO document. Here's the full quote:
I knew you weren't referring to the WHO document. You said I only pulled one sentence from the article. Its in post #142 and goes as follows...
The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria. Okonofu FE, Larsen U, Oronsaye F, Snow RC, Slanger TE. BJOG (2002 or 3)
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between female genital cutting and frequency of sexual and gynaecological symptoms among a cohort of cut versus uncut women in Edo State of Nigeria. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Women attending family planning and antenatal clinics at three hospitals in Edo State, South-south Nigeria. POPULATION: 1836 healthy premenopausal women. METHODS: The sample included 1836 women. Information about type of female genital cutting was based on medical exams while a structured questionnaire was used to elicit information on the women's sociodemographic characteristics, their ages of first menstruation (menarche), first intercourse, marriage and pregnancy, sexual history and experiences of symptoms of reproductive tract infections. Associations between female genital cutting and these correlates of sexual and gynaecologic morbidity were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of self-reported orgasm achieved during sexual intercourse and symptoms of reproductive tract infections. RESULTS: Forty-five percent were circumcised and 71% had type 1, while 24% had type 2 female genital cutting. No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse. There was also no difference between cut and uncut women in their reported ages of menarche, first intercourse or first marriage in the multivariate models controlling for the effects of socio-economic factors. In contrast, cut women were 1.25 times more likely to get pregnant at a given age than uncut women. Uncut women were significantly more likely to report that the clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of their body (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47), while cut women were more likely to report that their breasts are their most sexually sensitive body parts (OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.51-2.42). Cut women were significantly more likely than uncut women to report having lower abdominal pain (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.11-2.14), yellow bad-smelling vaginal discharge (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.54-5.09), white vaginal discharge (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.09-2.49) and genital ulcers (OR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.13-17.00). CONCLUSION: Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings. However, female genital cutting may predispose women to adverse sexuality outcomes including early pregnancy and reproductive tract infections. Therefore, female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest that it reduces sexual activity in women and prevents adverse outcomes of sexuality.
What I highlighted was the entire conclusion area.
The used symptoms of STDs to measure sexual response.
That does not read that way to me... it appears to read that they used it to show if/how FGM had effected sexual response. You make no mention of their use of other self-reporting data.
If you have more, perhaps you should share it.
If FGM's relationship to sexual response is so hotly contested, it should be really easy for you to find at least a half a dozen cites that support your contention that FGM does not eradicate sexual response in the majority of mutilated women.
WTF? So unless I keep finding more studies all the rest are assumed to be against the ones I cited? That's ridiculous!
As it is I did start looking through them and kept finding stats on health issues unrelated to sex, and others simply documenting incidence of the practice. That's why listing numbers of studies doesn't mean anything.
Well. At least now you are admitting it was Ms. Bell who used the 15% stat.
OMG!!!! I didn't say Bell didn't use the stat. I thought the question you had is where she was getting that figure. Hence I mentioned that your WHO thingy used the same figure.
Now you're trying to manufacture evasiveness on my part?
Thus, although these organizations claim to be concerned about health generally, they are really concerned specifically with sexual health. This is because the detrimental long-term health consequences seem limited largely to infibulation (see Obermeyer 1999, 2003; Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:14-18; Shweder 2000), which accounts for around only 15 percent of cases.
To which you say...
Ms. Bell uses "sexual health" in the first sentence and "health" in the second sentence. She is referring to the same thing in both sentences.
No she is not, she is making a point that leads to a conclusion right after the portion you quotemined above. As is, you should be able to understand what she is saying, but here it is in full...
Implicit within the WHO position is the assumption that such operations destroy female sexuality. This focus on sexual health becomes even more explicit in labels such as “sexual castration” (Badawi 1989; Hosken 1994:38) and “sexual blinding” (Walker 1992) that several writers have used to describe the procedures. Thus, although these organizations claim to be concerned about health generally, they are really concerned specifically with sexual health. This is because the detrimental long-term health consequences seem limited largely to in- fibulation (see Obermeyer 1999, 2003; Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:14-18; Shweder 2000), which accounts for around only 15 percent of cases. Moreover, the short-term health effects can be minimized through the use of trained surgeons, sterile equipment, and anesthetics (i.e., the transfer of surgery to a medical setting). Yet, as Shell-Duncan, Obiero, and Muruli (2000:110) point out, “paradoxically, those who emphasize female ”circumcision’ as a public health issue at the same time oppose any medical intervention designed to minimize health risks and pain for women being cut.” Thus, the opposition of the World Health Organization (1997) and many other international agencies to the medicalization of female operations would reinforce the idea that their key opposition to female genital cutting relates specifically to its impact on female sexual health.
NOW do you get it? They aren't all synonymous with sexual health. Really are you going to claim she meant anesthetics, sterile equipment, and a trained surgeon will help with short term SEXUAL health issues? Call me dishonest and an idjit, but at least I don't quote mine or have the massive reading comprehension problems you seem to have.
And it was pretty hokey to quote from something else entirely to try to prove your point of what she said. You'd have been better off looking at the source.
Because type II and type III share the same general health consequences, Ms. Bell goes to great length to point out that she is specifically referring to SEXUAL health.
Yeah, so you say... but then again, I can actually read her article. Look above. The meaning is clearly NOT sexual health. She is arguing that the WHO's focus is that despite protestations to general health. The final zing being that when they have chances to help women's general health they decline to do so.
Again, that was a pretty hokey stunt.
This is the third time you've pulled a stunt like this. You made the bare assertion.
Uh, actually if you want to follow it all the way back, it started with crash asserting that individual rights were universal. I brought that question here for people who maintain that position, to argue it.
As it stands I cannot prove a negative. Watch me make another assertion... I don't know that Gods exist. Can I prove that? No. It is up to people who believe in them to prove that. I don't think there are absolute morals. Oops, there I go again. Can I prove that? No. I can explain that I've seen no evidence for it, and that's why I doubt it. It would be up to absolute moralists to make their case.
If you have something by all means make a case. If you think the default of no evidence against the universality of individual rights, IS the universality of individual rights, then you've got a lot of company to work things out with. Start with the Xians moral absolutists. Or maybe the Islamic ones.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:21 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by molbiogirl, posted 11-25-2007 1:40 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 206 of 270 (436307)
11-25-2007 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by molbiogirl
11-25-2007 12:43 AM


Re: Anthropology and Human Rights
I didn't mean the term was used extensively in the literature, I meant it was used lots of times on a webpage.
Yes, that's right. Why is that funny? You said the term was useless and not real. I had shown where it was used, extensively, to discuss political trends. Hence it was useful and real.
What difference does it make if its on a webpage? And as it happens I did find some uses of it in literature... which you claimed never existed.
I used words that when read suggest that you said that "monoculture" is discrete and clearly bounded and internally homogenous.
Nice racist banter, but uh... what's with the above? Yeah, YOU used words that when read suggest I said X. But that's the problem, I didn't say X. All of the examples I gave you to help you understand what I meant did not say X. So... This is your problem, not mine.
It does appear rational debate has ended with you. Have fun with your pals.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by molbiogirl, posted 11-25-2007 12:43 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by molbiogirl, posted 11-25-2007 1:43 AM Silent H has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 207 of 270 (436309)
11-25-2007 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Silent H
11-25-2007 12:55 AM


WTF? So unless I keep finding more studies all the rest are assumed to be against the ones I cited? That's ridiculous!
As it is I did start looking through them and kept finding stats on health issues unrelated to sex, and others simply documenting incidence of the practice. That's why listing numbers of studies doesn't mean anything.
TRANSLATION:
I can't find any stats.
Yeah, so you say ...
Medical Anthropology Quarterly
June 2006, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 182-211
Among family-planning clients in Ismailia, Egypt (El-Defrawi et al. 2001), a lower percentage of circumcised women (any type, n = 200) than uncircumcised women (n = 50) reportedly had sexual desires (58 percent vs. 84 percent), always initiated sex (11 percent vs. 22 percent), enjoyed sexual life (32 percent vs. 46 percent), achieved orgasm (29 percent vs. 44 percent), and achieved orgasm before or with their husband (39 percent vs. 62 percent). Circumcised women in this study also had a lower weekly frequency of intercourse (1.9 vs. 2.8), and more frequent complaints of dysmenorrhea, dryness during sex, and dyspareunia or pain during sex.
Clinic- and population-based studies (El Dareer 1982; Shandall 1967) in Sudan that disaggregated by type of cutting showed that women with Type III cutting compared to those with Type II, Type I, or no cutting more often experienced pain during intercourse (Type III, 3 percent; Type II, 3 percent; Type I and uncut, 0 percent), did not experience orgasm during intercourse (Type III, 84 percent; Type II, 42 percent; uncut, 7 percent), or had male partners who had difculty with penetration (Type III, 10 percent; Type I and uncut, 0 percent).
Qualitative interviews with 60 Egyptian men showed that men prefer extramarital relations with uncircumcised women but prefer circumcised (type unspecied) wives to avoid “excessive” sexual demands (Wassef and Mansour 1999).
The biological pathways through which any form of FGC may lead to primary or secondary infertility include infections or injuries that eliminate the chance of conception or elevate the risk of pregnancy wastage.
Among Sudanese clinic attendees in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the incidence of urinary and genital infections was higher among any type of circumcised than among uncircumcised women, with more than one organism from among C. albicans, H. streptococcus, T. vaginalis, and G. vaginalis isolated in 11 percent versus 6 percent of cases, respectively (De Silva 1989).
In a random sample of women in ve Sudanese provinces, rates of vulvar abscesses (7 percent vs. 5 percent) and chronic pelvic infection (13 percent vs. 6 percent) were higher among any type of circumcised than uncircumcised women (El Dareer 1982).
In rural Burkina Faso where Types I and II cutting are the norm (Institut National de la Statistique et de la Demographie and ORC/Macro 2004), clinical data have shown 1.7 times higher adjusted odds of any genital infection among circumcised than uncircumcised women (Jones et al. 1999).
Clinical data from Edo State, Nigeria, have shown 1.5 times higher adjusted odds of lower abdominal pain among any type of circumcised than uncircumcised women (Okonofua et al. 2002).
In a sample of women in Farafenni, Gambia, where 57 percent of women have Type II cutting, the adjusted odds of bacterial vaginosis and herpes simplex virus II were 1.7 and 4.7 times higher, respectively, among circumcised than uncircumcised women (Morison et al. 2001) .
Women with tubal-factor infertility (TFI), or infertility resulting from postinammatory damage to the fallopian tubes, had higher adjusted odds than their fertile controls of having had Type II than Type I cutting and of having had a lay circumciser do the procedure (Inhorn and Buss 1993). In fact, the adverse effects of Type II cutting and a lay circumciser were synergistic.
That's all from one paper, chump.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2007 12:55 AM Silent H has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 208 of 270 (436312)
11-25-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Silent H
11-25-2007 1:05 AM


Re: Anthropology and Human Rights
Nice racist banter...
Project much?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2007 1:05 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-26-2007 2:55 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 209 of 270 (436318)
11-25-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 8:21 PM


Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)
Scientific studies are not Legos.
You can't pull out the pieces that you like and play with just those
No, they're not, but (even tho I am not sure I agree with him) what H was arguing is that YOU stated that a methodological flaw in the study is enough to discount the whole study and then pointed out that the WHO study that you cited used Lightfoot-Klein's research (which is supposedly flawed) to support one of their claims.
Now, that doesn't support any of Holmes' other claims or citations (or discount any of yours), but, if WHO is using "faulty" research to support certain claims (but not others) then doesn't that also throw the WHO cite into question (even tho they are a respected entity)? You know, Legos...
I am mostly on "your side." That is why I am questioning your tactics. Just because someone is being obtuse is no reason to forget your own argument.
Also, it is quite irritating to ask for full scientific paper references in a debate on an internet forum with laypeople (especially in cultural anthropology when the main focus of the forum is biological science) and then say that those who have no access to your papers are SOL. I realize that in order to fully comprehend the topics under discussion one might have to have a background or access to those who do, but the arrogance associated with the expectation of everyone here debating having access to technical papers is appalling. Not only to those debating you, but to those lurkers (like me) who cannot follow your arguments because we cannot read your cites. Citing papers when all we can see are abstracts and then condemning someone who cites abstracts does nothing for your argument. It might make you feel vindicated, but it doesn't help your argument in a public forum.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:21 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by molbiogirl, posted 11-25-2007 5:46 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 210 of 270 (436323)
11-25-2007 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Jaderis
11-25-2007 3:11 AM


Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)
Now, that doesn't support any of Holmes' other claims or citations (or discount any of yours), but, if WHO is using "faulty" research to support certain claims (but not others) then doesn't that also throw the WHO cite into question (even tho they are a respected entity)? You know, Legos...
If by "the WHO cite" you mean, "the website that I linked to", then no.
(Just for clarification, I linked to an Amnesty site that referenced a WHO report.)
The WHO report is not a scientific study. So the LEGO thing isn't really applicable.
But, "consider the source", yes?
In Message 121, I cited this:
Genital mutilation can make first intercourse an ordeal for women. It can be extremely painful, and even dangerous, if the woman has to be cut open; for some women, intercourse remains painful. Even where this is not the case, the importance of the clitoris in experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasm suggests that mutilation involving partial or complete clitoridectomy would adversely affect sexual fulfilment. Clinical considerations and the majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment.
At least a half a dozen cites I've posted (including the latest re: FGM and adverse health effects) support the WHO's contention that the majority of mutilated women are unable to climax.
H got his panties inna wad because the Amnesty website used Lightfoot-Klein's data to support an entirely different point.
H also got his knickers bunched because it mentioned Lightfoot-Klein's data in reference to the inability to climax.
Not that they used it to make the claim that the majority of mutilated women are able to climax (as H is doing). Instead, Amnesty tried to offer an explanation for the problematic data (in a ham-handed way, I might add).
I made it quite clear to H that the WHO concludes that the majority of FGM victims are anorgasmic. I also made it clear that in no way whatsoever do I support Amnesty's use of Lightfoot-Klein's data. (Earlier I said the WHO used that data. That's wrong. Amnesty did.)
That said, their "transgression" doesn't invalidate their conclusion:
The majority of mutilated women are unable to climax.
It's no secret that the media (if one considers a WHO report and the Amnesty site "media") does a piss poor job explaining science to the general public.
That doesn't mean the original science is invalid. It just means that the nimrods who write reports and websites aren't scientists.
Not only to those debating you, but to those lurkers (like me) who cannot follow your arguments because we cannot read your cites.
I'm sorry that you were unable to follow my line of reasoning.
I try to make a point of posting enough information from the papers to make myself clear.
If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to dig into the papers and find whatever you need.
... but the arrogance associated with the expectation of everyone here debating having access to technical papers is appalling.
I don't "expect" "everyone" to have access to the literature.
That's why I quote papers. So folks can see what I'm talking about.
Also, it is quite irritating to ask for full scientific paper references in a debate on an internet forum with laypeople (especially in cultural anthropology when the main focus of the forum is biological science) and then say that those who have no access to your papers are SOL.
This is the Coffee House, not a science thread, so discussing anthropology isn't out of bounds.
And I asked H for full cites (over a hundred posts ago) because I assumed he had access.
When he said he didn't, I suggested he find some other source of supporting evidence.
However. He didn't. Instead, he chose to use abstracts to support his nonsense (and I told him to cut it out).
Then he tried to critique the methodology of my cites, using only the abstracts (and I told him to cut it out).
If that is "condemnation", then so be it.
H did finally manage to find some other sources online (Dr. Bell's work, for example -- and btw -- I did some googling this evening and found out she's a PhD -- my apologies to Dr. Bell for alla the Ms. Bell stuff).
Had he done that in the first place, then we wouldn't have had a problem.
It might make you feel vindicated, but it doesn't help your argument in a public forum.
It also might make the point to those who lurk that it's a really bad idea to try and argue an untenable position by using only the abstracts of technical literature.
Edited by molbiogirl, : awkward wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Jaderis, posted 11-25-2007 3:11 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024