UN urges circumcision in AIDS-hit southern Africa

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: keeleysam
If anyone says this is a reason to circumcise in the United States *cough*EVERY NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE*cough*, I'm going to flip.

Plenty of other reasons a guy should WANT to be circumcised. Who wants their junk looking like an ant-eater? Trust me, any sensitivity loss is moot.

Looks like the only reason not to is because the Bible says to do it AND LIKE HELL AM I GONNA DO ANYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS TO.....AAARRRGGHHHH! /crawlinginmyskin

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: Amused

At any rate, the low rate of circumcision among American blacks may very well be a contributing factor to that population having such a disproportionately high rate of infection.

or maybe... just maybe black men have more unprotected sex with a lot more women? 😕

a big contributing factor is that young gay black men are far more underground, so have sex anonymously more often than probably every other ground in the US.

it's hard to get hiv or stds introduced to a monogamous couple, and its easier to be monogamous when you're in the open.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: Amused

At any rate, the low rate of circumcision among American blacks may very well be a contributing factor to that population having such a disproportionately high rate of infection.

or maybe... just maybe black men have more unprotected sex with a lot more women? 😕

a big contributing factor is that young gay black men are far more underground, so have sex anonymously more often than probably every other ground in the US.

it's hard to get hiv or stds introduced to a monogamous couple, and its easier to be monogamous when you're in the open.

Another contributing factor to be sure. Like I said, there are many factors and this study may very well point to one of them since the rate of circumcision is lower among black Americans.

 

[imported_Pablo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Uncut penis is a lot better during sex than a cut penis .. ask any girl who has had both!

Every girl I have ever asked has told me they prefer circumcised.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fern
Oh that's a great idea. Let's teach these Africans that cutting a piece of your dick off is the cure for AIDS.

Yeah, that outta go over reeaal well. They already think we invented it and sent it over there.

Fern.

Why not? Over a decade of preaching condom use and less risky sexual practices have failed miserably.

Urging them to do ANYTHING that can cut the rate of transmission is a damn good idea.

I bet if they wont put the "coat on" they wont take the "skin off" either.

Fern

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fern
Oh that's a great idea. Let's teach these Africans that cutting a piece of your dick off is the cure for AIDS.

Yeah, that outta go over reeaal well. They already think we invented it and sent it over there.

Fern.

Why not? Over a decade of preaching condom use and less risky sexual practices have failed miserably.

Urging them to do ANYTHING that can cut the rate of transmission is a damn good idea.

I bet if they wont put the "coat on" they wont take the "skin off" either.

Fern

Like I said, if they start with infants they can seriously cut the rate of infection within a generation.

I already admitted it would be next to impossible to convince the adult population to do it to themselves.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fern
Oh that's a great idea. Let's teach these Africans that cutting a piece of your dick off is the cure for AIDS.

Yeah, that outta go over reeaal well. They already think we invented it and sent it over there.

Fern.

Why not? Over a decade of preaching condom use and less risky sexual practices have failed miserably.

Urging them to do ANYTHING that can cut the rate of transmission is a damn good idea.

I bet if they wont put the "coat on" they wont take the "skin off" either.

Fern

According to this interview

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5670899

The researcher says when they have set up circumcision clinics they have had to turn men away because the clinics were so popular.

 

[fallenangel99]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Uncut penis is a lot better during sex than a cut penis .. ask any girl who has had both!

Every girl I have ever asked has told me they prefer circumcised.

Shrug.. I read it at Stripper Web forums (awesome forums there, no, I'm serious). It's one of the topics in Ladies Only I think (or you can search)

If strippers say uncut is better, then it must be so 😛

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: keeleysam
If anyone says this is a reason to circumcise in the United States *cough*EVERY NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE*cough*, I'm going to flip.

Plenty of other reasons a guy should WANT to be circumcised. Who wants their junk looking like an ant-eater? Trust me, any sensitivity loss is moot.

Looks like the only reason not to is because the Bible says to do it AND LIKE HELL AM I GONNA DO ANYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS TO.....AAARRRGGHHHH! /crawlinginmyskin

So, if suddenly people thought fingernails were worthless would you just remove them? What about eyebrows? Those serve almost no modern purpose! Cut anything off that is "worthless"!

What complete tools, in today's image obsessed culture people will do anything to gain acceptance.

Going by what the Bible says is a joke. If God wanted us to be circumcised then why did he give us foreskin? After all, isn't God the creator of everything and perfect in all sense? Wouldn't he have predicted this problem and not given us that piece?

Or even more interesting, is the foreskin nothing but a sign of yet another evolutional process which is no longer needed? Naw, couldn't have been evolution. Thus, our only fallback is that God gave us something which we should automatically removed...why?

Perhaps because we used to be dirty nasty nomadic herders that didn't take baths for weeks. Thus, we decided to write in our tome of mores and rules that we should just get rid of something that made it so we didn't stink! Brilliant!

Take your 3rd world ideals and shove them where the sun don't shine.

As far as Africa. If they are too ignorant to not be complete morons and screw anything that moves without a condom then it's their fault.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Uncut penis is a lot better during sex than a cut penis .. ask any girl who has had both!

Every girl I have ever asked has told me they prefer circumcised.

Was it before or after she told you you were the best she ever had? :laugh:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Uncut penis is a lot better during sex than a cut penis .. ask any girl who has had both!

Every girl I have ever asked has told me they prefer circumcised.

Was it before or after she told you you were the best she ever had? :laugh:

I'm 38 years old and have been capable of having adult conversations with women for over 20 years. Even with women I have no intention of sleeping with.

Sorry that's how they go for you, though.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: keeleysam
If anyone says this is a reason to circumcise in the United States *cough*EVERY NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE*cough*, I'm going to flip.

Plenty of other reasons a guy should WANT to be circumcised. Who wants their junk looking like an ant-eater? Trust me, any sensitivity loss is moot.

Looks like the only reason not to is because the Bible says to do it AND LIKE HELL AM I GONNA DO ANYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS TO.....AAARRRGGHHHH! /crawlinginmyskin

So, if suddenly people thought fingernails were worthless would you just remove them? What about eyebrows? Those serve almost no modern purpose! Cut anything off that is "worthless"!

What complete tools, in today's image obsessed culture people will do anything to gain acceptance.

Going by what the Bible says is a joke. If God wanted us to be circumcised then why did he give us foreskin? After all, isn't God the creator of everything and perfect in all sense? Wouldn't he have predicted this problem and not given us that piece?

Or even more interesting, is the foreskin nothing but a sign of yet another evolutional process which is no longer needed? Naw, couldn't have been evolution. Thus, our only fallback is that God gave us something which we should automatically removed...why?

Perhaps because we used to be dirty nasty nomadic herders that didn't take baths for weeks. Thus, we decided to write in our tome of mores and rules that we should just get rid of something that made it so we didn't stink! Brilliant!

Take your 3rd world ideals and shove them where the sun don't shine.

As far as Africa. If they are too ignorant to not be complete morons and screw anything that moves without a condom then it's their fault.

Boy, talk about an irrational obsession...

If urging people to have something done can slow the spread of a deadly disease there is no reason not to do just that.

Having the opinion you'd rather they die than follow your irrational world view is barbaric, to say the least... and shows just how irrational you are.

 

[theeedude]

If I was living in Africa, I'd definitely consider circumcision. 20-40% adult HIV rate is absolutely staggering, so if circumcision really reduces the risk in half, it is definitely worth the loss of sensitivity and the risk of complications from the procedure.
In the developed world, I am not so sure it makes a lot of difference. Doesn't seem to be a clear relationship between circumcision rates and HIV prevalence in developed world. For example, US HIV rate is higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, both of which are largely uncircumcised.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was living in Africa, I'd definitely consider circumcision. 20-40% adult HIV rate is absolutely staggering, so if circumcision really reduces the risk in half, it is definitely worth the loss of sensitivity and the risk of complications from the procedure.
In the developed world, I am not so sure it makes a lot of difference. Doesn't seem to be a clear relationship between circumcision rates and HIV prevalence in developed world. For example, US HIV rate is higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, both of which are largely uncircumcised.

It won't make any difference. If your wife has HIV and you have regular unprotected sex with her, circumcised or not, you will contract HIV.

I fail to see how this will help.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was living in Africa, I'd definitely consider circumcision. 20-40% adult HIV rate is absolutely staggering, so if circumcision really reduces the risk in half, it is definitely worth the loss of sensitivity and the risk of complications from the procedure.
In the developed world, I am not so sure it makes a lot of difference. Doesn't seem to be a clear relationship between circumcision rates and HIV prevalence in developed world. For example, US HIV rate is higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, both of which are largely uncircumcised.

..you'er politicaly uncorrect. We now live in Hillaries village. What's good for one is good for all.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was living in Africa, I'd definitely consider circumcision. 20-40% adult HIV rate is absolutely staggering, so if circumcision really reduces the risk in half, it is definitely worth the loss of sensitivity and the risk of complications from the procedure.
In the developed world, I am not so sure it makes a lot of difference. Doesn't seem to be a clear relationship between circumcision rates and HIV prevalence in developed world. For example, US HIV rate is higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, both of which are largely uncircumcised.

It won't make any difference. If your wife has HIV and you have regular unprotected sex with her, circumcised or not, you will contract HIV.

I fail to see how this will help.

You're thinking like an American.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Amused
The rate of female to male transmission is already very low. Cutting it by 50+% would make a HUGE difference.

OK, this helps illustrate what I beleive is the cause of our disagreement here.

I do not understand the circumcision to to reduce the rate of transmission by 50% - unless you only had sex one time.

I understand it to reduce the chance of transmission, for any single event of sex, by 50%. So, given multiple sexual encounters with an HIV infected partner would still, seems to me, result in an almost certain infection.

In other words, the difference after getting circumcised is like, contracting HIV next month instead of this month. Or, you're less likely to get HIV after just having lost your virginity.

Just doesn't strike me as very impressive. From what I hear about Africa & HIV (e.g., they have the myth that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV), they are unlikely to properely grasp the situation. Example: next myth is that you can NEVER get HIV from a circumcized partner.

Will they pollute the concept into forcing more female circumcisions? You know, if it works on men why not women? (Given some of the other myths I think it possible.

Fern

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was living in Africa, I'd definitely consider circumcision. 20-40% adult HIV rate is absolutely staggering, so if circumcision really reduces the risk in half, it is definitely worth the loss of sensitivity and the risk of complications from the procedure.
In the developed world, I am not so sure it makes a lot of difference. Doesn't seem to be a clear relationship between circumcision rates and HIV prevalence in developed world. For example, US HIV rate is higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, both of which are largely uncircumcised.

It won't make any difference. If your wife has HIV and you have regular unprotected sex with her, circumcised or not, you will contract HIV.

I fail to see how this will help.

Again, the vast majority of male HIV infections in Africa are from rapes and prostitutes. Not from their wives. The men bring it home to the wives.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Amused
The rate of female to male transmission is already very low. Cutting it by 50+% would make a HUGE difference.

OK, this helps illustrate what I beleive is the cause of our disagreement here.

I do not understand the circumcision to to reduce the rate of transmission by 50% - unless you only had sex one time.

I understand it to reduce the chance of transmission, for any single event of sex, by 50%. So, given multiple sexual encounters with an HIV infected partner would still, seems to me, result in an almost certain infection.

In other words, the difference after getting circumcised is like, contracting HIV next month instead of this month. Or, you're less likely to get HIV after just having lost your virginity.

Just doesn't strike me as very impressive. From what I hear about Africa & HIV (e.g., they have the myth that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV), they are unlikely to properely grasp the situation. Example: next myth is that you can NEVER get HIV from a circumcized partner.

Will they pollute the concept into forcing more female circumcisions? You know, if it works on men why not women? (Given some of the other myths I think it possible.

Fern

Again, you're missing the point. The vast majority of male HIV infections in Africa are from rapes and prostitutes. Not from their wives. The men bring it home to the wives. If you can slow the rate of female to male trasmission, you will seriously cut the rate of overall infections... especially among children since infected wives are transmitting it to their newborns.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: keeleysam
If anyone says this is a reason to circumcise in the United States *cough*EVERY NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE*cough*, I'm going to flip.

Plenty of other reasons a guy should WANT to be circumcised. Who wants their junk looking like an ant-eater? Trust me, any sensitivity loss is moot.

Looks like the only reason not to is because the Bible says to do it AND LIKE HELL AM I GONNA DO ANYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS TO.....AAARRRGGHHHH! /crawlinginmyskin

So, if suddenly people thought fingernails were worthless would you just remove them? What about eyebrows? Those serve almost no modern purpose! Cut anything off that is "worthless"!

What complete tools, in today's image obsessed culture people will do anything to gain acceptance.

Going by what the Bible says is a joke. If God wanted us to be circumcised then why did he give us foreskin? After all, isn't God the creator of everything and perfect in all sense? Wouldn't he have predicted this problem and not given us that piece?

Or even more interesting, is the foreskin nothing but a sign of yet another evolutional process which is no longer needed? Naw, couldn't have been evolution. Thus, our only fallback is that God gave us something which we should automatically removed...why?

Perhaps because we used to be dirty nasty nomadic herders that didn't take baths for weeks. Thus, we decided to write in our tome of mores and rules that we should just get rid of something that made it so we didn't stink! Brilliant!

Take your 3rd world ideals and shove them where the sun don't shine.

As far as Africa. If they are too ignorant to not be complete morons and screw anything that moves without a condom then it's their fault.

God never said to get circumcised you moron, it was custom that the Jews first enacted to separate themselves from other cultures. Also, its more clean... :disgust:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TehMac

God never said to get circumcised you moron, it was custom that the Jews first enacted to separate themselves from other cultures. Also, its more clean... :disgust:

I have heard it said that it is stated in the Bible, I am not sure whether it is or not, you moron.

Bathing is more clean too. In fact, it's more clean than cutting a body part off.