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

[Snotty]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Merriam Webster

cripple -to deprive of the use of a limb and especially a leg

A subtle (at MOST) difference in sensation does not constitute crippling.

unless it goes wrong

no wait, thats not something to be LOLed over

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Asher

If you seriously LOLed at that, there is no hope for India.

Actually it was rather droll.

LotM

[SpencerH]

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'm not aware that we fund birth control pills in Africa, but even if we do I'm not sure what you're getting at. Surely we have money for both!

Promoting "safe-sex" and condom usage has been shown to be effective at reducing HIV transmission. More importantly, the (somewhat) surprising result from the Ugandan study was that it was possible to change cultural resistance against condom usage.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I'm not aware that we fund birth control pills in Africa, but even if we do I'm not sure what you're getting at. Surely we have money for both!

Promoting "safe-sex" and condom usage has been shown to be effective at reducing HIV transmission. More importantly, the (somewhat) surprising result from the Ugandan study was that it was possible to change cultural resistance against condom usage.

What Im getting it is that its silly to NOT support circumcision on the basis of a "moral hazard" (circed men wont bother with condoms) in the absence of empirical evidence that circumcision actually lowers condom use. If we dont follow that logic wrt birth control, auto safety, or dozens of other policies.

[Asher]

I don't support it because when combined with a condom, there's no change in HIV prevention. But there's additional risks involved with the procedure (especially in Africa) as well as cost concerns that are best served funding condoms and education.

[SpencerH]

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.

It may not compute to you but different cultures view circumcision and condom use differently than you or I.

The CDC disagrees with your assessment, alas.

Not to get on my "high horse" but I'm a scientist who studies the immune responses to STD. I know many of the people who set the CDC guidelines on these matters and while I'm not an HIV expert (since I work mainly with bacterial not viral infections ) I would suggest that my assessment is closer to the truth than your inexpert interpretation of what the CDC has published.

[lord of the mark]

BTW apparently they are also studying its impact on male to female transmission.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SpencerH
It may not compute to you but different cultures view circumcision and condom use differently than you or I.

Not to get on my "high horse" but I'm a scientist who studies the immune responses to STD. I know many of the people who set the CDC guidelines on these matters and while I'm not an HIV expert (since I work mainly with bacterial not viral infections ) I would suggest that my assessment is closer to the truth than your inexpert interpretation of what the CDC has published.

The high horse is reducing the oxygen flow to your brain.

The CDC PDF linked above states condoms make it "essentially impossible" to acquire HIV when used correctly.

It really doesn't matter if you study immune responses to STDs and you know Fred from the CDC that makes the guidelines, when Fred's PDF says it clearly.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW apparently they are also studying its impact on male to female transmission.

That would be a pretty big waste of money to study something like that. Either way the same semenal fluid leaves the penis in the same place and goes to the same place.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

That would be a pretty big waste of money to study something like that. Either way the same semenal fluid leaves the penis in the same place and goes to the same place.

Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV

In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners. If the male blood HIV viral load was <50,000 copies/mL, there was no HIV transmission if the man was circumcised, compared to a rate of 9.6 per 100 person-years if the man was uncircumcised [8]. If viral load was not controlled for, there was a non-statistically significant trend towards a reduction in the male-to-female transmission rate from circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men. Such an effect may be due to decreased viral shedding from circumcised men or to a reduction in ulcerative sexually transmitted infections acquired by female partners of circumcised men [14].

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

The high horse is reducing the oxygen flow to your brain.

The CDC PDF linked above states condoms make it "essentially impossible" to acquire HIV when used correctly.

It really doesn't matter if you study immune responses to STDs and you know Fred from the CDC that makes the guidelines, when Fred's PDF says it clearly.

What the CDC actually says

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm

"Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. "

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

What Im getting it is that its silly to NOT support circumcision on the basis of a "moral hazard" (circed men wont bother with condoms) in the absence of empirical evidence that circumcision actually lowers condom use. If we dont follow that logic wrt birth control, auto safety, or dozens of other policies.

You seem to have me mixed up with someone else. I support promoting circumcision (in addition to condom use) in geographical areas (where it makes sense) despite that I think it likely that some misguided individuals in those areas will believe themselves 'protected' by being circumcised.

After all, we have a poster here who has stated:

The CDC PDF linked above states condoms make it "essentially impossible" to acquire HIV when used correctly.

If a well educated member of a modern society can be so misguided what can we expect from members of societies with less education.

[SlowwHand]

Ooooooh. That has to hurt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SpencerH


You seem to have me mixed up with someone else.

My initial point was a response to Asher. I appended it to your post, in a yes, BTW, kind of mode. Sorry for the confusion.

[Gibsie]

Lord of the mark, you have posted some beauties in this thread. While I think the question of how these people (With HIV, I presume) will manage to have babies is the best, I'll just ask a couple of queries from this page.

1) If circumcision is so great, and creates huge waiting lists among the better off but is too expensive for the mainstream uneducated masses to pay for, what do you think will happen? Perhaps one or two scamsters will offer to do it on the cheap, leading to numerous occasions where it will "go wrong", and perhaps not in a subtle way, I expect. Is this a price that you are willing for those affected to pay?

2) Are you actually aware that you are appear to be arguing against condom use based on the fact it is only 85-99+% effective, yet defending the use of circumcision to cut HIV transmission when its protectiveness is just over half that of condoms?

Just to be clear, on a like for like basis, if consistent and correct condom use is only 85%, hell let's go further and say 75%, would you still recommend circumcision over condoms?