Forums | MacLife

I don't think that's how he meant it. The way I read XYZ's post is that Graham invented graham crackers because he thought they would curb sexual appetite, even though they don't. In that respect, the Straight Dope corroborates that point.

Perhaps it's not how he meant it, but that's how it came across. let's recap:

It is designed to reduce sexual appetite. Think I'm wrong? Graham Crackers were invented to curb sexual appetite. Pretzels were, too.

We can interpret that a couple of ways. One is that he is maintaining that circumcision curbs desire for sex (ridiculous, but I'm considering the source).To bolster his argument, he points out that those two foods were developed for the same thing.

Well, that doesn't help his position as it's already been proven that neither food (or any food, for that matter) adversely affects the sex drive. From that we can reasonably infer that male circumcision has no effect on sex drive (based on his statement.)

Or we can infer that he believes that male circumcision does in fact diminish sex drive, and maintains that pretzels and graham crackers are equally effective. Well, if those foods are ineffective then so is circumcision. Again, this merely enforces the fact that he's a nut and is talking out his ass.

if you have a third option, I'd love to know about it.

castration probably works better to stop AIDS.

The first sentence could mean either "Circumcision does reduce sexual appetite" (implying it is his personal belief) or "People started performing circumcision because they believed it would curb sexual appetite." XYZ later stated that circumcision doesn't curb sexual appetite, so that obviously isn't his personal belief. So the way I read that is he is saying that people started circumcising their sons in an effort to reduce their sons' promiscuity, and he then offers the bits about graham crackers and pretzels to support that assertion. Unfortunately, the accuracy of either of those facts doesn't prove either way the accuracy of his first statement.

hmmm...

perhaps.  but people didn't start circumcision because they thought it would stop a nasty thing. he's also wrong about that:

The word Bris means covenant; the word Milah, to cut.
Ritual circumcision is the covenant G-d has established with the Jewish people through the commandment of circumcision.

Bris Milah
Judaism views body and soul as holy partners in serving G-d. Therefore, the bris is performed on the most physical part, for all of man is holy before his Creator. Bris Milah joins the forces of body and soul together in serving G-d.

Having your thing out the entire time is just smurfing scary.

Ack! Someone giving Soulcrusher a reason to talk abou his penis again!

Why, god, why!

that never occurred. I am such a pussy.

Probably more accurate would be: that never occurred, else you would have a pussy.

castration probably works better to stop AIDS.

Seems like you don't know what castration means!?
You don't cut off penises neither does it make you lose your lust!!

Indeed. Back when the practice of producing castrati still existed, castrati used to be popular as lovers.

You're heard of "fuzzy math" well this is "junk science." And being HIV+, I speak from personal experience.

Yes, but there are so many varibles between life in the United States and  these african (or any 3rd world) countries that finding one correlation hardly seems worth talking about. When compared to the levels of advanced medical care, the easy accessibility to antibiotics, regularily inspected and controlled food supplies, the higher standard of living in general, and longer life expectancy here in the US to even say it 'might be' because of the rate of circumcision seems reckless.

There are a lot of other factors that can contribute to the spread of AIDs in Africa. A lot of them are sociological, anthropological, and even political.

In certain regions with admirable climates and soils, multinational agricultural corporations have been paying tribes and small nations for land use. However, this can lead to huge problems.

In many small african communities, women traditionally handle agriculture, and men handle hunting and local politics. Yet when a tribe or small nation sells it's land over for monoculture use,  women get stuck operating industrial farm equipment, men get the money, and then the men go to the cities with hopes of turning that money into something more.

But, that doesn't usually happen. The men dabble in the local nightlife, get AIDs, loose their money, move back home, and unknowingly spread their disease among family members. Moreover, farming with monoculture usually strips local land, agricultural corporations move on to a new location, and local families are left with nothing.... and AIDs.

No doubt, that was a fairly generalized explaination. Yet, quite a few sociological and anthropological academic studies have been done on this issue.  Hit up a journal database if your interested.