Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
slowly707

Statistics That Will Make You Shiver.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

can you back this up with something tangible where monogamous societies are more secure against STD's than polygynous?

I sure can! I'll have a look through my notes later, but basically every sexual partner increases your risk of catching an sti. There's a saying that states that everytime you sleep with someone, its like you're sleeping with everyone they've ever been with too. There's heaps of literature about it, just do a search on any sexual health journal.

that was hardly an effort. so i had to ask someone else. i was told, that those two diseases cause inflammation of the uterus and fallopian tubes, which in turn causes scarring, which in turn traps the egg in the fallopian tube.. which is a form of ectopic pregnancy.

ok now the ref when youre ready. ya know the one that says that circumcision has not been linked to a reduction in the incidence of STDs, or was it just an opinionated lecturer who swayed you? :P

Lol sorry i missed the 'how' bit!

I think its linked with reducing at least one sti, from memory i think tropical ones but dont quote me. But it is by no means a prevention. As in, a person can't say something like 'ok, i've been circumcised, so now i cant catch any sti's regardless of what actions i take!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure can! I'll have a look through my notes later, but basically every sexual partner increases your risk of catching an sti. There's a saying that states that everytime you sleep with someone, its like you're sleeping with everyone they've ever been with too. There's heaps of literature about it, just do a search on any sexual health journal.

No problems. I will wait and then we will compare with other studies that endorse the value of circumcision where studies even show that STD incidence rates are lower in circumcised communities. A test scenario from a South African study was discussed in the last International AIDS conference in Toronto a couple of years back if i am not mistaken.

Nevertheless i am not advocating for multiple partners as a must. But i would be darned interested if any of those studies reveal that an Islamic abstinence of 3 months for the female does not prove anything and if any of the circumcised males with STI's are involved with women who do and do not observe the abstinence law.

Remember that in Islam, abstinence is only prescribed for women and not for men. Furthermore, the law governing Mutah is "those whom your right hands possess". I believe the condition of the Right Hand is neurological by design as the right hand is wired to the left brain. And the left brain is the analytical side of your brain. Thus anyone who is involved in Mutah must have engaged in some basic analysis e.g. previous partners of temporary partner before embarking on their journey of Mutah.

Edited by knightstemplar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also, brave..etc, muslims arent the only ones that practice circumcision. jews also practise it as part of their religion. furthermore, in some muslim countries such as america, it was done to all new born boys, irrespective of religion/belief.

Do you mean non-muslim countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No problems. I will wait and then we will compare with other studies that endorse the value of circumcision where studies even show that STD incidence rates are lower in circumcised communities. A test scenario from a South African study was discussed in the last International AIDS conference in Toronto a couple of years back if i am not mistaken.

Sorry if I didn't explain myself well. Circumcision has some value in the transmission of some sti's, my point was just because a guy happens to be circumcised does not mean he will never catch an sti. If he has unsafe sex with multiple partners, and also happens to be circumcised, provides little protection for him or his partners.

Nevertheless i am not advocating for multiple partners as a must. But i would be darned interested if any of those studies reveal that an Islamic abstinence of 3 months for the female does not prove anything and if any of the circumcised males with STI's are involved with women who do and do not observe the abstinence law.

I'm sorry, I don't really get what you mean here? Abstaining for 3 months after having sex with somebody does not protect you from sti's. Have you actually studied sti's or are you simply 'really interested' in them? I don't mean to be rude, but anyone with a general knowledge of them knows that this is one of the optimal incubation periods for heaps of the infections. So no, that period of abstinence does very little if you're sexually active before and after it. In some instances, without treatment it makes things a whole lot worse (just look at syphilis).

Can you please explain this bit, i dont get what you're saying? "if any of the circumcised males with STI's are involved with women who do and do not observe the abstinence law."

Remember that in Islam, abstinence is only prescribed for women and not for men. Furthermore, the law governing Mutah is "those whom your right hands possess". I believe the condition of the Right Hand is neurological by design as the right hand is wired to the left brain. And the left brain is the analytical side of your brain. Thus anyone who is involved in Mutah must have engaged in some basic analysis e.g. previous partners of temporary partner before embarking on their journey of Mutah.

Abstinence is prescribed for women in case they caught the baby virus. Its not because they're more prone to sti's (this itself is another topic; depending on the infection, it can sometimes infect a particular gender more).

If a guy does a 'check' on every sexual partner of a woman he's done mutah with, thats smart but still not guaranteed to be 100% effective. A lot of the time women are asymptomatic, which is how a fair number of guys catch sti's (and how a fair bit of them pass it onto females without them realising). Also, it doesn't rule out congenital sti's. You can get some through vertical transmission, sometimes without exhibiting symptoms for years.

So while abstinence is ideal in stopping transmission of sti's, its unrealistic. Things that do reduce it are safe sex, minimal partners, and timely treatment. Things that have little impact, like circumcision, provide little protection if a person has a risky lifestyle.

shay insi hal shabb sadiqiinii, mokho faadii

Lol so true. I have heaps of assessments coming up too, so i was planning on a long break from this place anyway :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't rocket science. Unprotected sex with a non virgin is a risk for STD.

Unprotected sex with a partner who has had multiple partners increases that risk and the probablility of becoming infected with a cureable or non-cureable disease, when combined with having sex with many of these partners, increases that risk exponentially.

Halal or nonHalal.....it does not matter. Sex is Sex and Disease is Disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if I didn't explain myself well. Circumcision has some value in the transmission of some sti's, my point was just because a guy happens to be circumcised does not mean he will never catch an sti. If he has unsafe sex with multiple partners, and also happens to be circumcised, provides little protection for him or his partners.

Salaams Sis

I am so glad you replied. Let me get one thing straight. Circumcision does not mean one can flaunt it without risk. What I mean is that if a circumcised male inherited the same risk as an uncircumcised male, then what is the point of circumcision? Surely if circumcision has value, it must translate in some form. Thats why studies and stats are very critical to the equation. I am going to quote a conclusion and background from one such study covering over a 100 countries and sourced from bio med. I am sure folks in the industry will value bio med as a reliable source:

Conclusion

Male circumcision was significantly associated with lower cervical cancer incidence and lower HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa, independent of Muslim and Christian religion. As predicted, male circumcision was also strongly associated with lower HIV prevalence among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, but not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission. These findings strengthen the reported biological link between MC and some sexually transmitted infectious diseases, including HIV and cervical cancer.

Background

Geographical variations in HIV prevalence have been observed between less-developed and more-developed countries, as well as within regions of similar socioeconomic development [1-5]. The epidemiology of HIV and other infectious diseases have been associated with both religious practices and male circumcision [1-19]. Religious beliefs and practices dictate many societal and sexual behaviors that influence transmission of sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) [20]. Male circumcision has been more common among populations with lower rates of HIV, cervical cancer, and other STIs [3,10-13], and shown in one randomized trial to reduce HIV transmission [21]. Although religious affiliation is a major determinant of male circumcision status [12], many analyses have not controlled for religion when examining relationships between male circumcision and infectious diseases.

This study builds upon and further expands our previously reported analyses of variables associated with country-specific HIV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence [5,22]. In our extensive analysis of HIV co-factors, among 81 variables male circumcision had the strongest association with HIV prevalence [5]. We now present a more thorough examination of the association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence by better adjusting for religion, by separately analyzing the sub-Saharan African region, and by conducting separate analyses between countries with sexual versus non-sexual primary modes of HIV transmission. Our previous ecological analysis of cervical cancer utilized 54 country-level variables, but did not include the important determinant of male circumcision [13,22]. We complete our previous analysis by describing the relationships between male circumcision and cervical cancer, and by including male circumcision in the previously reported multivariate model. In addition, we further expand on our previous studies by describing the epidemiology of male circumcision among developing countries and by describing associations between male circumcision and five other infectious diseases.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/6/172

The study did not make a sound argument on the religious aspect of its focus and i could easily prove where there bias against religion was unsound but nevertheless the bottom line is that the study reflects there is approx 60% more chance for a woman to contract something when in a relationship with an uncircumcised male.

Do you have any opinions?

I'm sorry, I don't really get what you mean here? Abstaining for 3 months after having sex with somebody does not protect you from sti's. Have you actually studied sti's or are you simply 'really interested' in them? I don't mean to be rude, but anyone with a general knowledge of them knows that this is one of the optimal incubation periods for heaps of the infections. So no, that period of abstinence does very little if you're sexually active before and after it. In some instances, without treatment it makes things a whole lot worse (just look at syphilis).

Can you please explain this bit, i dont get what you're saying? "if any of the circumcised males with STI's are involved with women who do and do not observe the abstinence law." Abstinence is prescribed for women in case they caught the baby virus. Its not because they're more prone to sti's (this itself is another topic; depending on the infection, it can sometimes infect a particular gender more).

The 2 most important aspects of Islamic sexual hygiene are circumcision for the male and abstinence for the female. Ofcourse there are other tertiary elements too but lets ignore those for the time being unless you feel the tertiary elements have significant relevance to this equation.

So far the scientific studies have purely focused on the merits/demerits of male circumcision. But what about the female responsibility in this regard thru the law of abstinence? Does this law have no scientific merits? And if not, how do we know?

Look forward to your reply.

Salaams

Edited by knightstemplar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...