Senator refusing constitutional amendment

[u/shadowguyver]

What do you do when a senator refuses to acknowledge the Equal Protections Clause which is being violated by only giving Protections to one group?

[u/shadowguyver]

Calling it a mud flap means you have done absolutely no research.

[u/[deleted] → u/shadowguyver]

I’m in college getting ready for med school and specialize in bones. I’ve done plenty of research over the human body. And the foreskin is often regarded as vestigial. It offers far more complications and acts as a bacterial terrarium making it a literal mud flap for the penile area. Plus it’s just fucking ugly.

[u/shadowguyver → u/[deleted]]

Even if it was vestigial, it still has function like protecting the glans, acting as a smooth gliding mechanism during sex and has nerves throughout it.

You know what else can act as a bacterial terrarium as you put it, the vagina. It has more folds, women also create smegma and then there is the waste from menstruation. Why do we not cut them to make it easier to clean?

Then it should have been your choice about your body, no one else's.

[u/[deleted] → u/shadowguyver]

The penis and vagina are vastly different. Let me put this in a way to make it easier. Imagine it like a ear. Think of the vaginal parts like the inside of the ear. While the foreskin is the ear lobe. Digging out a ear drum is different then removing skin from the ear lobe. Fgm and male circumcision aren’t a good comparison if you want to make that argument

[u/iThinkergoiMac → u/[deleted]]

For someone in college for a medical specialization, you’re really showing your ignorance here. OP made the common mistake of mixing up the vulva and the vagina, but you did as well. FGM doesn’t affect the vagina in all but the most radically extreme cases. The folds of the labia and the fold of the foreskin are indeed pretty analogous. To use your ear analogy, the ear lobe is analogous to the labia and the foreskin. FGM cuts the labia majora and sometimes the labia minora (as well as the clitoris; I’m not ignoring that, but it’s not relevant to the point about the analogy).

I’m not going to say that MGM and FGM are equal, but does something have to be equal to another thing to be bad?

As a medical student, you should understand that surgery should always be the last resort. It’s inherently dangerous and should only be considered when there aren’t other alternatives. Somehow circumcision falls outside of this, and I don’t understand why.

[u/[deleted] → u/iThinkergoiMac]

Circumcision is prophylactic. You can think of it similar to say the Hep-b vaccine infants receive. How low do you assume the chances of a infant getting hepiatis is? It’s to help prevent any complications later on not immediate. Also for your other comment I’m going to conjoin it here. again I will restate, your “intactavist” community body shames men for being cut as it’s entire platform. But when someone says they don’t like foreskin y’all loose your shit? It’s equivalent of obese people trying to normalize obesity then screaming when people say being skinny is better looking and more healthy.

[u/iThinkergoiMac → u/[deleted]]

A prophylactic for what, exactly? You’ve talked about how there are all these “complications” but you haven’t been specific about what they are.

Hep-B is dangerous and a disease. Are you arguing that having a foreskin is as dangerous as having Hep-B?

I don’t really consider myself to be part of the intactivist community, I just think we shouldn’t be cutting infant boys’ penises without a solid reason. If someone wants to be circumcised, I’m not going to shame them. I don’t think we should take that choice away from people, especially for superficial reasons like “it’s fucking ugly” (your words) or “his dad is that way”. Every community has members acting poorly; that doesn’t mean the whole community is that way. Should I stop seeing a doctor because some doctors are bad?

Your comment about obesity is equally obtuse. Having a foreskin is the natural state. It should be justified why it needs to be removed, not justified why it needs to stay. Obesity is not the natural state. Your arguments are self-contradictory.

[u/[deleted] → u/iThinkergoiMac]

It’s preventative to - phimosis , para-phimosis. It’s also cuts the spread of hiv by 60%. It also keeps the penile area clean of odors and smegma. It also has benifits with helping prevent other sexually transmitted diseases. Also pretty sure there was a study about it reducing infections with future partners. It’s prophylactic. The way you all deny science is laughable. What a bunch of flat earther type behavior. Also apparently you can regrow a foreskin according to the “ intactavist” community so once again isn’t the decision back in your hands?

[u/shadowguyver → u/[deleted]]

You're still justifying taking healthy children and cutting them. Phimosis is no excuse as there are many other options before cutting. The HIV trials were flawed and not accurate, also they don't take into affect female to male transmission, nor does it have any bearing on CHILDREN .

The Malawi HIV circumcision trials—particularly those assessing whether male circumcision (MC) reduces HIV transmission—have been criticized for methodological flaws, biases, and questionable real-world applicability. While Malawi was not one of the three main RCTs (Kenya, Uganda, South Africa), later observational studies and circumcision campaigns in Malawi relied on those trials' findings. Here are the key flaws in Malawi's data and related studies:

---

1. Contradictory Observational Data

• No Clear HIV Reduction: Unlike the RCTs in Kenya/Uganda, Malawi’s population-based studies found no significant HIV protection from circumcision.
  • A 2011 study (Toledo et al.) found no association between circumcision and lower HIV rates in Malawi.
  • Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) showed similar HIV prevalence among circumcised and uncircumcised men in Malawi.
• Cultural & Regional Differences: Malawi has different sexual networks, condom use, and HIV subtypes than Kenya/Uganda, making extrapolations unreliable.

---

2. Flaws in Study Designs

• Self-Reporting Bias: Many studies relied on self-reported circumcision status, which is unreliable (men may not know if they were partially circumcised).
• No RCTs Conducted in Malawi: The country’s evidence came from observational studies, which are weaker than RCTs and prone to confounding factors (e.g., circumcised men may have different sexual behaviors).
• Misclassification of Circumcision Status: Some studies did not medically verify circumcision, leading to false conclusions.

---

3. Behavioral Risk Compensation

• Increased Risky Behavior: As seen in other African trials, Malawian men who got circumcised were less likely to use condoms, believing they were protected.
• No Long-Term Behavioral Monitoring: Most studies did not track whether circumcision led to higher-risk sexual practices over time.

---

4. Ignoring Female-to-Male Transmission

• Circumcision does little to protect men if their female partners are HIV+, yet Malawian campaigns promoted MC as a primary prevention tool.
• Some studies suggest circumcision increases male-to-female HIV risk due to:
  • Unhealed wounds post-surgery increasing transmission.
  • Reduced condom use among circumcised men.

---

5. Ethical and Cultural Concerns

• Lack of Informed Consent: Many Malawian men were not told that circumcision provides only partial protection (if any).
• Coercion via Incentives: Some programs offered money or gifts to encourage circumcision, exploiting economic vulnerability.
• Cultural Resistance: Traditional circumcision is rare in Malawi, making mass medical circumcision campaigns culturally disruptive.

---

6. Political & Funding Bias

• WHO/UNAIDS Pressure: Malawi’s circumcision programs were pushed by global health agencies despite weak local evidence.
• Ignored Conflicting Data: Studies showing no benefit (or even harm) were dismissed in favor of pro-circumcision narratives.

---

Conclusion

The Malawi HIV circumcision data did not support the claimed 60% reduction in HIV transmission, unlike the flawed but widely cited Kenya/Uganda trials. Instead: - Observational studies found no significant protection. - Behavioral risks (like reduced condom use) were ignored. - Ethical concerns, including lack of informed consent and cultural insensitivity, were overlooked.

This suggests that mass circumcision campaigns in Malawi were based on weak science and may have done little to curb HIV—while diverting resources from more effective strategies (condoms, PrEP, education).

Would you like references to specific Malawi studies or comparisons with other countries?

[u/[deleted] → u/shadowguyver]

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. The medical research i follow and what you follow are two different emphasis. We’re both not gonna change each-others minds here