Well said, Ryan!
What a bullshot article! What's wrong with this study is that ALL the men who got cut either wanted to be or needed to be. A truly scientific study would have taken men off the street at random, studied their sexuality, and cut half of them willy nilly, then studied it again. That would be completely unethical (as cutting random babies is) but you can be damned sure the vast majority would NOT say it had improved their sex lives.
* The "health benefits" are exaggerated when they are not completely bogus – slight, disputed, reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means, or treated as and when they occur. * The sexual "improvement" could only have been concocted by cut men who have NO IDEA what they are missing.
* "Cleaner"? So wash it, don't go cutting the best part off without the slightest idea what it's for.
ryan - 7 years ago
I can see better after having one of my eyes removed!
Well said, Ryan!
What a bullshot article! What's wrong with this study is that ALL the men who got cut either wanted to be or needed to be. A truly scientific study would have taken men off the street at random, studied their sexuality, and cut half of them willy nilly, then studied it again. That would be completely unethical (as cutting random babies is) but you can be damned sure the vast majority would NOT say it had improved their sex lives.
* The "health benefits" are exaggerated when they are not completely bogus – slight, disputed, reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means, or treated as and when they occur. * The sexual "improvement" could only have been concocted by cut men who have NO IDEA what they are missing.
* "Cleaner"? So wash it, don't go cutting the best part off without the slightest idea what it's for.
I can see better after having one of my eyes removed!