T.I.'s daughter subject to virginity test(s).
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/health/ti-daughter-virginity-test.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/health/ti-daughter-virginity-test.html
Virginity Test
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
What was he going to do if he found she wasn't a virgin?
They do something like that in some Muslim countries, they check your asshole to see if you're gay...
canada-man
Well-known member
I recall reading (on TERB I think) that a woman can have surgery to create a brand new hymen. Is it a bad idea to request my future wife to have this surgery prior to our honeymoon? I just want to fall in love with the romantic notion that she's wholesome, untouched, and as pure as the driven snow.
People like TI are always gonna exist who are willing to put their loved ones under an invasive procedure just to satisfy their own backward ideals and insecurities. What pisses me of are the doctors that do this shit. Virginity testing through a physical exam is an archaic unscientific procedure that violates the patients autonomy and dignity with no beneficence. This violates every single ethical principle of doctors whether old school ones or new ones.
Quebec banned this shit and I hope others take note.
Quebec banned this shit and I hope others take note.
By the time she finally moves out from her dad's house she will have developed fecal incontinence from all the dick she has to take in her ass.
How dare you compare these things together. I know its popular to be sexist on this forum but ima take a stance on this, I can already hear the calls of beta feminist. I originally ignored your comment but then you cite evidence so I have to respond.
Male circumcision is controversial, in that there is a divide between its risk and benefits. Female virginity testing to give information to the females partner is controversial in that it is clearly unethical.
You cited a harm of circumcision but ignore the other side just to make your sexist point. but its more to it than that. I just did this research a while back for a family member. Im no expert on this and dont want to portray as such or give anyone an advice, its just personal research.
Benefits
- Reduction in UTI rates. 2013 systematic review showed lifetime risk of UTI in uncircumcised men is 31.1% vs 8.8% in circumcised men (RR 3.65)
- Significant reduction in UTI in males with congenital uropathy (Source)
- Reduced risk of penile cancer (OR 0.33, 3 studies)
- Reduction in Cervical Cancer in partners (Source)
- Reduced rates of penile inflamatory diseases such as chronic paraphimosis or balanoposthitis. (dont have the sources off hand)
- Reduction in some STD (Dont have sources off hand)
- Easier Hygiene
Risks
- Procedural Complications , rate is like 0.2% (Source). These include infection, adhesions, anesthetic complications, bleeding, glans injury
- Sexual dissatisfaction, you pointed this out and I agree evidence tends to favour circumcision as a disadvantage in that regard
- Pain
Now you have to balance the risk and benifits. I think this is a personal decision and of course there are cultural and religious over tones. THe Canadian Pediatric Society guidelines are old and inconclusive, they should update it. Not sure if they have last time i checked.
THe americans actually endorse circumcision and their guidelines are newer this is both american pediatric society and the OBY GYN society.
Europeans differ, some advise against it in their practice guidelines.
Now female virginity testing is unscientific and not evidence based (Source). But thats not the issue. It is unethical, you are violating someones autonomy and dignity to benifit someone else.
If you want to be ignorant or sexist continue to be I dont care, but dont come and spread shit citing papers to support your self.
Babies can't consent to circumcision. It's as simple as that. I have not experienced most of what you listed in my life and I am uncut. Based on your own argument (violation of autonomy), male circumcision is indeed worse because while being subject to periodic medical checkups to verify an intact hymen may be unpleasant, cutting off part of a man's body has lasting effects that may be unwanted. If circumcision is so beneficial, I'm sure that the men who see the merits in it will get it done at such a time as they can consent to it.
I dont want to make this a discussion about circumcision. It is a fascinating discussion if you get in to it both from an ethical and scientific standpoint. I have my own personal thoughts. All I am trying to say is that there is evidence for and against it. Yet I fail to see what the scientific or ethical evidence is for female virginity testing in the context of proving virgnity to a partner or parent.
Edit: I will adress some of your points though. Just cause you did not get something does not mean there is no risk, its alll about risk reduction of things that are already very low risk. Extreme example would be people can be life long smokers and get no lung cancer, does not mean smoking is not associated with lung cancer..
Having said that, the benificial effects of circumcision in my opinion are very small but there are more of them. The harms while less I think their more significant. Its a balance. Again you can have your own personal decision on it I don tthink there is a right or wrong. Female virginity testing is wrong.
Regarding consent, yes the babeis cant consent for anything, their guardians have to use their judgement based on best medical advice and their own belifs and backgrounds for the baby. Getting circumcision as an adult is SIGNIFICANTLY riskier so unfortunately the decision should be made in infancy when the consent is for the parents. Yet do you think a teenager is not coerced into giving consent for virginity testing? What would be the dads response if she said no?
First of all, while it is true that the hymen may be broken due to non-sexual causes, I'd like to see an actual statistic that shows just how common it is. I believe in general (ie barring exceptional circumstances) an intact hymen is a good indicator that a woman hasn't had vaginal intercourse.
As for your other point, while I do think this man is taking it a bit far, it's his house and his rules. Perhaps he is deeply religious, I don't know and how he runs his household isn't my business. I don't think that just going to the gynecologist every once in a while is a traumatizing experience. I think the father is misguided in his belief that he can keep his daughter "pure" this way but it's none of my business.
Look at the study I poseted,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437416/
Look at table 1.
Why does the mans religious or personal beliefs grounds to violate the girls privacy and cause a traumatic experience? SAme study Table 2 shows some of the psychological traumatizing impact of such tests on girls
canada-man
Well-known member
the claim that circumcision reduces UTI's is a myth.
Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)
Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.
Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.
Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.
n Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).
What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.
In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/...cision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds
G
canada-man
Well-known member
Cancer of the Penis
American physician Abraham Wolbarst was also responsible for promoting the erroneous notion that circumcised men were immune to cancer of the penis. His opinion piece published in the Lancet in 1932[120] − a time when the causes of cancer were not understood − has been erroneously cited as fact ever since.
It was not long, however, before doctors started to report cases of cancer in circumcised men.[121] Maden et al. studied a population of 110 men with penile cancer, and found that 41 cases were in circumcised men.[122] Despite these cases, the researchers claimed that not being circumcised was a risk factor for penile cancer.[122] However, when Maden’s data were properly adjusted for age, there was no difference in the risk for circumcised and non-circumcised men.[123]
Two subsequent case-control studies found that being diagnosed with pathological phimosis was an important risk factor for penile cancer.[16,119] When the data were controlled for phimosis, not having been circumcised as an infant was not a significant risk factor. Other risk factors include genital warts/HPV infection, tobacco use, and an increased number of lifetime sex partners.[122,124,125]
DNA from human papillomavirus (HPV, which is contracted by sexual contact) has been identified in penile cancer cells in about half the cases of penile cancer, so these infections are an important risk factor.[125,126] Half of penile cancers may be linked to balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO), which is increasingly being identified as a precancerous condition, and whose cause is not fully understood.[12,127,128]
Based on numbers provided in the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Task Force report,[5] the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one case of penile cancer is between 4237 and 7184. With the average reimbursement for infant circumcision being $285 paid at the time of the procedure,[53] the cost at the time of the procedure would be between $1.21 million and $2.01 million. But this is not the true cost, because the opportunity costs of not having the money available for the 80 years before penile cancer usually occurs has not been considered. Typically the opportunity costs are between 3% and 5% per annum. With this taken into account, using circumcision to prevent one case of penile cancer would cost between $12.85 million and $101.47 million.
Cancer of the penis is a rare disease of elderly men (occurring in the U.S. in less than 1 in 100,000 men,[129] with an average age of diagnosis of 68 years[130]). Breast cancer is actually more common in men than cancer of the penis.[131]) To prevent penile cancer, the American Cancer Society does not recommend circumcision for all males, rather it recommends avoiding exposure to HPV and HIV, not smoking, and good genital hygiene.[132]
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumci...alleged-medical-benefits/cancer-of-the-penis/
American physician Abraham Wolbarst was also responsible for promoting the erroneous notion that circumcised men were immune to cancer of the penis. His opinion piece published in the Lancet in 1932[120] − a time when the causes of cancer were not understood − has been erroneously cited as fact ever since.
It was not long, however, before doctors started to report cases of cancer in circumcised men.[121] Maden et al. studied a population of 110 men with penile cancer, and found that 41 cases were in circumcised men.[122] Despite these cases, the researchers claimed that not being circumcised was a risk factor for penile cancer.[122] However, when Maden’s data were properly adjusted for age, there was no difference in the risk for circumcised and non-circumcised men.[123]
Two subsequent case-control studies found that being diagnosed with pathological phimosis was an important risk factor for penile cancer.[16,119] When the data were controlled for phimosis, not having been circumcised as an infant was not a significant risk factor. Other risk factors include genital warts/HPV infection, tobacco use, and an increased number of lifetime sex partners.[122,124,125]
DNA from human papillomavirus (HPV, which is contracted by sexual contact) has been identified in penile cancer cells in about half the cases of penile cancer, so these infections are an important risk factor.[125,126] Half of penile cancers may be linked to balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO), which is increasingly being identified as a precancerous condition, and whose cause is not fully understood.[12,127,128]
Based on numbers provided in the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Task Force report,[5] the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one case of penile cancer is between 4237 and 7184. With the average reimbursement for infant circumcision being $285 paid at the time of the procedure,[53] the cost at the time of the procedure would be between $1.21 million and $2.01 million. But this is not the true cost, because the opportunity costs of not having the money available for the 80 years before penile cancer usually occurs has not been considered. Typically the opportunity costs are between 3% and 5% per annum. With this taken into account, using circumcision to prevent one case of penile cancer would cost between $12.85 million and $101.47 million.
Cancer of the penis is a rare disease of elderly men (occurring in the U.S. in less than 1 in 100,000 men,[129] with an average age of diagnosis of 68 years[130]). Breast cancer is actually more common in men than cancer of the penis.[131]) To prevent penile cancer, the American Cancer Society does not recommend circumcision for all males, rather it recommends avoiding exposure to HPV and HIV, not smoking, and good genital hygiene.[132]
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumci...alleged-medical-benefits/cancer-of-the-penis/
This is not mutilation. There is no disfigurement or lack of function. Maybe removing an appendix or tonsils is also mutilation. The benefit is cleanliness/health.
How's your smegma today? I will grant you that you know more about that topic than I do.
From Jim Jeffries:
Okay, so… I’m circumcised. I know you are all not circumcised. I know you’re not, right? I got my son circumcised. Right? When I got my son circumcised, I mentioned on a late night show that I got my son circumcised, and I got a lot of hate mail and people freaking the fuck out and saying I mutilated my kid and all this type of stuff, and… Look, people do it for different reasons. It’s a personal thing. Right? Some people circumcise their children for religious purposes. Some people do it for medical reasons. The reason I got my son circumcised is so that when he is older, women will enjoy having his dick in their mouths. [audience laughing] I did it because I love him. And your dicks are fucking disgusting. You fucking animals. How do you fucking look at your dick and have any level of self-respect? Every fucking day, your fucking hooded, slimy fucking dicks. [audience laughing] My dick smells constantly. It’s an eternal battle against that smell. I can’t even imagine what you accept in your life. Do you know that it’s not in porn? It’s not in fucking porn. Uncircumcised isn’t in porn. Because the people that make porn are trying to run a business, and they don’t want people fucking vomiting when they’re masturbating. You can’t go into a porn site and put “uncircumcised.” It doesn’t come up. Your dick is less of a fetish than feet, you fucking disgusting animals. [audience laughing] Name me one time where extra skin on the body is a good thing. [audience laughing] When someone gets old, they get that turkey neck and they’re like, “Ooh, I’ve been looking forward to this.” Some fucking 500-pound cunt loses 300 pounds, has a big elephant ear of skin, and the doctor goes, “Oh, lucky you! Extra skin. Women love extra skin.” [audience laughing]
$3200 in Toronto for hymen reconstruction. You have to find a dr that leans more towards the religious conservative end of the spectrum to find them but they are there.
Won’t make a chick tight, but it will give her the appearance of being a virgin on her wedding night.
Starting off a marriage with a lie is deplorable, but what do I know?
Won’t make a chick tight, but it will give her the appearance of being a virgin on her wedding night.
Starting off a marriage with a lie is deplorable, but what do I know?
