Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[fake]

I think that that is what he's saying (that uncircumcised men are better in bed and thus harder to leave), whether it has any bearing in reality I don't know, but then the idea that circumcision will reduce sexual desire seems a bit simplistic to me.

 

This sounds like a bunch of poppycock to me

 

I agree, considering the majority of those circumcised are babies how can they tell?

[quisquose]

Not only that, but if the locals don't understand that circumsion only REDUCES the risk of HIV, they might think they are HIV-proof and go around having sexual relations carefree, INCREASING the risk of catching it.

 

The same goes for if they think the risk reduction is instant, they will be more at risk by going about things carefree.

 

Can you imagine having sex immediately after being circumcised though? It'd be months before I'd think about it.

 

This is what makes the African studies all the more unbelievable imho, the results were based on the participants reporting their own sexual behaviour, and the cut men reported having just as much sex in the 12 months following their circumcisions than the uncut men.

 

But you're right, once the "Circumcision prevents HIV" meme is loose in the community, it will be forgotten that circumcisions will be done under unhygienic conditions with shared instruments, that transmission to females might be higher, and that safe-sex practices are just as important.

[Chris_Sleeps]

These people seem to think there is a good reason for doing it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18549968

Sex education and condoms would be a much better idea.

 

But I feel it's worthy to say that you're the first person I've ever read who is telling us what great ideas they have in Zimbabwe.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

How exactly does a covenant between a [deity] and a people work?

In this context, a covenant is a permanent and irrevocable agreement.

Once both parties have agreed it, it's binding and cannot be undone.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

And that's also the basis for how English law deals with covenants in deeds, as it happens.

[RootsBooster]

Can you imagine having sex immediately after being circumcised though? It'd be months before I'd think about it.

Well, by "not instant" I didn't mean they'd be at it right after!

[RootsBooster]

In this context, a covenant is a permanent and irrevocable agreement.

Once both parties have agreed it, it's binding and cannot be undone.

That doesn't really explain much, how does one man have the authority to speak for an entire people, and every generation after that?

How can he make an agreement, to remove body parts from unwilling people that don't even exist yet? How is that valid as an agreement?

Edited June 22, 2012 by RootsBooster

[RootsBooster]

And that's also the basis for how English law deals with covenants in deeds, as it happens.

 

So if it said in a deed that I had to have a tooth pulled out, I'd have to let it happen?

[Cyclone]

In this context, a covenant is a permanent and irrevocable agreement.

Once both parties have agreed it, it's binding and cannot be undone.

 

It's fraudulent though and so can be ignored as not being binding at all.

 

Why you might ask, because the god and (in the case they exist) the instructions are nothing more than made up in someone's head. You can't form a binding covenant with a myth or a story.

[Cyclone]

And that's also the basis for how English law deals with covenants in deeds, as it happens.

 

In a deed though it doesn't apply to someone unless they choose to buy that property.

There are no covenants that apply to you simply because you are born.