Circumcized men 70% less likely to contract HIV

[monolith94]

Supposedly porn-penises aren't generally chosen for size or aesthetic value, but rather for reliability and longevity.

Circumcision is, in my opinion, a pretty awful thing, but if it will help Africa rid itself of aids, then I guess I can approve of that. People who use this to say that people in the US should get circumsized, however, can suck a ****.

[Caligastia]

What is so terrible about being circumcized?

[Lorizael]

Depends on the porn. But, erm, family site.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by monolith94
Supposedly porn-penises aren't generally chosen for size or aesthetic value, but rather for reliability and longevity.

Circumcision is, in my opinion, a pretty awful thing, but if it will help Africa rid itself of aids, then I guess I can approve of that. People who use this to say that people in the US should get circumsized, however, can suck a ****.

So they are like the Toyotas of the penis world?

[Pekka]

And you guys realize this is BS statistics? IF 0.01 get AIDS, then if 70% of those who are cut less likely get it, what does that mean? That folks who are uncut have 70% more of a risk to get AIDS than cut people when having sex?

No.

YOu guys should watch Pen and Teller's BS about cutting.. it is.. bull****.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
which is why i linked to a dvar torah that explicity addressed the question of what is "natural", etc.

Well, what is natural is what you are born with.

It's really that simple.

[Dauphin]

On statistical bases it means that the infection rate is (potentially if true) cut by 70% of its previous rate. So what if the previous rate was .01 and the new rate is .003 you say. For the individual probably not much, but for society it cuts new infections by a heck of a lot and puts less people at risk - it thus has a dampening feedback effect.

[Pekka]

So?

Do you think we should cut peoples penises so that soem folks won't get aids, many of them who are prolly rapists, drug addicts etc? I'm not saying doing drugs and you deserve to die. I'm saying you get what you order. Natural selection. Many are not of course rapist or anything just normal people..

Besides, where did it say the rates went up? I didn't read it at all. If the rates are about the same, then who cares? Youre posting a what if. Go ahead and cut penises on what ifs. It's.. BS.

[Dauphin]

The statistical application isn't bull**** is the point I'm making.

Whether they are, on their own, a justification is another issue.

[Pekka]

It's totally irrelevant however. That's why I say it's BS. It's still not a protection. Get that feeling of faulty safety.. If I can get 100% protection against AIDS if I take out of my nutsacks.. and my penis would function normally, and it would be OK in todays society and no one would think you are weird with one testicle.. it would be safe operation, but of course painful as hell. Would you do it to your kid?

Of course not. But it's not the saaameeee?!??! Yeah sure.. what ever.

[Sandman]

How did they manage to find so many uncircumcised men to volunteer to have the operation done?

[Pekka]

so if the probability of getting HIV when having unprotected sex with HIV person is, and I'm throwing numbers out of my butt now, is say 5% or less, say this is the figure for cut penises, and the uncut it rises to.. no, not 75% but 5.4325%. REally significant yeah.. let's all do it! Screw that. I don't want no mutilation thanks. I take my chances.

[pchang]

You should at least pick numbers that fit the math correctly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Well, what is natural is what you are born with.

It's really that simple.

you were born with an umbilical cord.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
you were born with an umbilical cord.

That's the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard.



The umbilical cord attachs you to your mother, who cannot have it attached to you for the rest of her/your life...