Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just a note to anyone not following the links, "genital cutting of minors" refers to circumcision. In Africa there are some other widely publicized practices of... editing genitals that I originally thought of.
[doublepost=1543630632][/doublepost]
Well just sex with multiple people in general. However, now that it's out there, people can also get it through blood transfusions.
The genital cutting of boys, girls, and intersex individuals is more similar in origin and practice than realized and resulting devastating health consequences.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ircumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa
https://aeon.co/essays/are-male-and-female-circumcision-morally-equivalent
https://www.dovepress.com/female-ge...utonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MB
 
Ok, but you shouldn't misrepresent things that you link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, but you shouldn't misrepresent things that you link.
[doublepost=1543637404][/doublepost]
To be fair, it's kinda hard to when people either lie or get pissed off if you ask about it. I had to tune out during sex ed because they kept contradicting themselves, dodging questions, etc about something that should be straightforward.

Well, I know enough to say you're right about this.
In academia these terms are frequently debated. I took an international relations course where the professor went over at great length how to phrase these. He settled on genital cutting as a universal term. Circumcision is somewhat euphemistic whereas mutilation is somewhat dysphemistic. It's actually somewhat offensive to tell a person they have been mutilated. Culturally based female genital cutting is mostly driven by either mothers or grandmothers, and many females who have been genitally cut do no identify as mutilated and wish to continue the practice with their daugthers. Similarly many American men who have been genitally cut do not identify as mutilated.

We have an offensive "other" stereotype where we imagine that all female genital cutting is an extremely invasive removal of tissue that occurs in unhygienic settings. In fact just this month in Michigan a US, female doctor had female genital cutting charges dropped against her in Michigan for cutting she performed (known as khatna) in the United States on young girls in a hospital. The vas majority of female genital cutting is a "nick" or "scraping" procedure, and it very often occurs in medical facilities throughout the world. In the United States it has commonly been performed on intersex individuals to reduce the clitoris. This has been legal, and has only recently been questioned. Male genital cutting generally removes approximately 50% of the penile skin system, but it also varies widely—and as can se been from those links can occur in the bush in initiation rites during which hundreds die per week. This is something I study, so I am familiar with these cases. Each initiation season of male genital cutting in places like Cape Cod are fraught with infections and deaths.

I did not misrepresent anything. Please watch the video in its entirety I posted to the end, as it explains with great clarity the spectrum of genital cutting and how the similarity is more in the disregard for children than it is for a gender.

The fact is that Westerners have had genital cutting misrepresented to them.
 
In academia these terms are frequently debated. I took an international relations course where the professor went over at great length how to phrase these. He settled on genital cutting as a universal term. Circumcision is somewhat euphemistic whereas mutilation is somewhat dysphemistic.
What you say here is fair. It's just that saying they promote "genital cutting" suggests that they promote all forms of it, when it's only circumcision that they're promoting. I'm not saying one is better than the other.
 
Tell me this is not a real comment.

Sounds like some don't want to practice the solution to this and want to turn it into a religious debate, when in fact in this case, science supports the fact that the only safe sex is to wait. Some would rather a miracle drug so that they can be self-centered and try to ignore the consequences of sex outside of marriage, whether it be murder or STDs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexGraphicD
Your response is pure emotion.

Here are the two most common methods of contracting HIV—unsanitary needles and risky, unprotected sex.

Both are easy to avoid by lifestyle changes. How is prevention ever “not an option?” If it’s “not an option” you’re really saying HIV is an inevitability for a lot of folks. Which is just bonkers.

Bottom line—reasons for transfer are well known and easy to contain through relatively cheap means, your emoting and whining for “compassion” notwithstanding.
My post is not emotion, it is fact. Prevention is not an option for those people who are infected. Period. Simple, scientific, emotionless fact. I never claimed “that HIV is an inevitability for a lot of folks”. My point is that is HIV is a reality for 37 million humans. To them, your prevention is absolutely nothing. Whining? Naah, I just care about more than myself. Some people on here don’t mind supporting causes that affect people other than themselves. I think the whining was being done by those, such as yourself that were complaining about Apple raising money for something you believe to be a waste. I support Apple’s fundraising. You were the one complaining about the subject of this article; Apple Raising $200 million for Product Red. Complainining about a socially beneficial program by a corporation that aims to help millions of others. Whining AND selfish.
 
I'd like to see Apple do something towards cancer. They have AIDS somewhat under control. But cancer in not even close to being under control. And considering it killed Steve Jobs, they might want to do some giving in that direction.

Cancer rates are steadily falling. While Alzheimer's keeps rising. Don't get me wrong I don't want cancer, but at least with that you have a fighting chance. Alzheimer's is a death sentence. And it's a horrible, horrible death. Trust me on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfgrad93
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.