It's official -- it's best to get cut, boys

[Asher]

Fauci studies HIV and made great contributions to knowledge about it -- good for him.

That is not an acceptable argument in favour of circumcising children unilaterally. Sorry.

[lord of the mark]

the CDC pamphlet you cited, referred to precisely the same studies I cited.

Unilaterally??? The argument was about the public health effects of funding clinics to do circumcisions in africa. I guess you cant seperate that from your resentments about being cut as a baby. Too bad.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the CDC pamphlet you cited, referred to precisely the same studies I cited.

Unilaterally??? The argument was about the public health effects of funding clinics to do circumcisions in africa. I guess you cant seperate that from your resentments about being cut as a baby. Too bad.

I've never been circumcised. This is in contrast to those of us here who are desperate to rationalize their body being mutilated as a child against their wishes.

Why do you really think people are going to be willing to go get their dick chopped up if they can't even be bothered to wear a rubber?

You guys need a dose of reality. This study does nothing because circumcisions don't drastically reduce transmission rates -- have sex twice and you're back to square one. Condoms are still the only effective way of reducing HIV transmissions, so why should we waste money on chopping up foreskin when it can be doing something real?

The answer, of course, is the subtle psychology behind circumcised men justifying their parents' decision.

[SpencerH]

The argument is not that circumcision should be seen as a replacement for condom use but that it may be a useful adjunct in some regions especially those where circumcision is commonly practiced or where condom use may be stigmatized.

The fact that HIV cannot pass through an intact condom is not pertinent. Sperm cannot pass through an intact condom either yet they are only 85% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is no doubt that condoms are highly effective at preventing HIV acquisition when used correctly, but I doubt that they can be said to be 99% effective in general.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The argument is not that circumcision should be seen as a replacement for condom use but that it may be a useful adjunct in some regions especially those where circumcision is commonly practiced or where condom use may be stigmatized.

The fact that HIV cannot pass through an intact condom is not pertinent. Sperm cannot pass through an intact condom either yet they are only 85% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is no doubt that condoms are highly effective at preventing HIV acquisition when used correctly, but I doubt that they can be said to be 99% effective in general.

If we stopped funding use of birth control pills in africa, we could encourage use of condoms, with no impact on the birth rate, and we' d reduce HIV infection as well.

Does that make sense?

[Asher]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The argument is not that circumcision should be seen as a replacement for condom use but that it may be a useful adjunct in some regions especially those where circumcision is commonly practiced or where condom use may be stigmatized.

If circumcision is common then this has no effect.
If condom use is stigamatized, why would mutilation of the body be acceptable if it was not before?
Does not compute.

The fact that HIV cannot pass through an intact condom is not pertinent. Sperm cannot pass through an intact condom either yet they are only 85% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is no doubt that condoms are highly effective at preventing HIV acquisition when used correctly, but I doubt that they can be said to be 99% effective in general.

The CDC disagrees with your assessment, alas.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If we stopped funding use of birth control pills in africa, we could encourage use of condoms, with no impact on the birth rate, and we' d reduce HIV infection as well.

Does that make sense?

I wasn't aware birth control pills were popular in Africa. Seeing as the main problem is HIV, I think condoms are the better solution by far and more funding should be placed towards those than birth control pills.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

I've never been circumcised. This is in contrast to those of us here who are desperate to rationalize their body being mutilated as a child against their wishes.

Why do you really think people are going to be willing to go get their dick chopped up if they can't even be bothered to wear a rubber?

You guys need a dose of reality. This study does nothing because circumcisions don't drastically reduce transmission rates -- have sex twice and you're back to square one. Condoms are still the only effective way of reducing HIV transmissions, so why should we waste money on chopping up foreskin when it can be doing something real?

The answer, of course, is the subtle psychology behind circumcised men justifying their parents' decision.

My parents decision was made for religious reasons, not for medical ones, and I would stand behind it (so to speak) whatever the results are on this issue.


Why do i think it would work? Cause the evidence is that it does. The countries in africa with the highest rates of HIV infection also have the lowest rates of circumcision. While there are alternative explanations, this would provide support for the explanation that it works. Youre argument that it doesnt are made a priori based on your belief that no one who wouldnt use condoms 100% of the time anyway would try to get circumcized. Its NOT based on any empirical data from Africa.

Which may well explain why your POV differs from that of scientists who are focused on the actual epidemiological and public health picture (and yes, whose own agencies wrote the very pamphlet you cite when called on to cite evidence)

[Jon Miller]

Actually, Africa is heading towards a serious population problem. So many people are dying of AIDs that few are surviving to 40 even. This means populations will drop to extremely low levels.

High population does not equal poor. Low population does not equal well off. With today's soceity and technology, it is infrastructure/etc that determines poverty, not how much land a person has.

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

I wasn't aware birth control pills were popular in Africa. Seeing as the main problem is HIV, I think condoms are the better solution by far and more funding should be placed towards those than birth control pills.

If you dont think reducing the birth rate is a main problem in africa, I dont think youve been paying attention. I dont know if they use pills much - I think vasectomies are more popular.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

If circumcision is common then this has no effect.
If condom use is stigamatized, why would mutilation of the body be acceptable if it was not before?
Does not compute.


The CDC disagrees with your assessment, alas.

I dont think it does, unless you think that sample of serodiscordant couples had a high rate of incorrect usage. Somehow Id think KNOWING your partner has HIV would lead to more care about proper usage than say, a truck driver in Kampala going to a prostitute would exercise.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Actually, Africa is heading towards a serious population problem. So many people are dying of AIDs that few are surviving to 40 even. This means populations will drop to extremely low levels.

High population does not equal poor. Low population does not equal well off. With today's soceity and technology, it is infrastructure/etc that determines poverty, not how much land a person has.

JM

1. Even if southern africa its not clear that HIV is reducing the total population. Certainly the growth rates are all still positive, It IS creating a problem with demographic imbalance, cause HIV tends to hit the most productive age groups.

2. Population growth is massive in central and west africa. Of course in West Africa circumcisison is more widespread.

[Monk]

I have, um... I've got this friend who's actually born that way.

He's wondering which side to root for.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont think it does, unless you think that sample of serodiscordant couples had a high rate of incorrect usage. Somehow Id think KNOWING your partner has HIV would lead to more care about proper usage than say, a truck driver in Kampala going to a prostitute would exercise.

Considering that they say that it is essentially impossible to get HIV while using a condom, I'd say it does back the assertion that condom use is 99%+ effective.

The very simple facts here are twofold:
1) Unprotected sex is rampant in Africa
2) Africans either can't afford or have no access to or refuse to wear condoms.

You guys are not thinking this through at all. If these people getting infected are not willing or able to buy condoms -- something very trivial to do -- why would they go through a very invasive and painful operation that gives noticeable pleasure loss (way more than just using a condom would)?

The real problem here is this is not practical, at all. It's a secondary issue that getting circumcised and then having unprotected sex is still likely to leave you infected sooner or later. The only real solutions are condoms or abstinence, and since the latter is a pipe dream, we should focus our efforts on the real solution left standing.

Circumcision is a joke.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If you dont think reducing the birth rate is a main problem in africa, I dont think youve been paying attention. I dont know if they use pills much - I think vasectomies are more popular.

Considering that in the areas ravaged by HIV the biggest problem is the declining population due to HIV, I'd reckon it's you not paying attention.

And birth control pills are not popular in Africa. Just another thing you're out to lunch about.