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

[SlowwHand]

If we can get them to quit screwing monkeys, we'll have it made.


(Relates to another thread. Don't get excited.)

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I'm also in favor of circumsizing poor, innocent African babies because my zionist jew of a father villainously circumsized me as a baby and I need to get revenge on someone.

we need to stop the cycle of snippings.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Well, since it's a known fact that circumcising reduces one's pleasure, circumcised men are likely to be less promiscuous

You think guys who cant masturbate as easily are going to be less promiscuous?

[LordShiva]

Good point.

[Pekka]

Cutting just isn't an option for Africa. What Asher pointed out is correct, plus, if anyone of you think cut penises are so safe agaisnt AIDS versus uncut, I mean what are you smoking? Do you want to take your chances and prove it and end up in Darwin's greatest?

CONDOM, CONDOM and CONDOM. It works. The cutting operation is undoable in Africa for large proportions of people, not to mention you are encouraging penis mutilation on black people which is racist of course, but it's generally going to give you a 'AHH! Less chance for an AIDS, now let's go ****!'. 'Don't worry baby, I'm cut.. just suck it, you won't get it..'.

Right on idiocy

Condoms.

What, are we filled with catholics who are unaware of condom and its benefits?

Condom and penis mutilation is not even on the same category of how effective they are.

Or if you want to 'well, let's reduce the chances from 0.1 to 0.095 and chop your penis.. no no, this is just an addition for this protection thingie..'..

Makes no ****ing sense. Use condom, period, promote that, put money on that and forget about anythign else.

[SlowwHand]

Off with their heads!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

The chance of getting HIV through proper condom use is virtually nil. In fact, there are many gay couples where one is HIV+ and the other is not, and they have sex for years together while never infecting the other.

There is simply no rationale for circumcising to reduce the spread of HIV. At all.

It's also impractical in Africa, where apparently convincing boys to wear a rubber is hard enough -- can you imagine telling them to go through excruciating pain and having less sensitivity in a potentially infected environment? It's stupid.

If anything the "knowledge" that circumcision may reduce HIV transmission rates on its own may lead to circumcised men being less consistent with the use of a condom. And since condoms are already upwards of 99% effective, there's no excuse to be chopping them up.

Id like a cite for 99% effectiveness.

as for convincing people to get cut, apparently there is quite a lot of interest in it, but its too expensive. Its also part of the culture in many areas, and has only declined with urbanization, so it may not seem so odd for someone with that background to seek out a modern, sterile procedure in the city. As for their worrying about reduced sensitivity, what makes you think that THEY think it would do so given that many folks here dont believe it does so despite your hectoring


As for the protection of circumcision leading to less safe behavior, thats precisely the arguement some make against condoms, clean needles, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Well, since it's a known fact that circumcising reduces one's pleasure, circumcised men are likely to be less promiscuous

actually in the studies cited sexual behaviour was apparently the same in both groups.

[lord of the mark]

the spread of seat belts and shoulder restraints is associated, apparently, with driving faster.

Should seat belts be discouraged?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
Cutting just isn't an option for Africa. What Asher pointed out is correct, plus, if anyone of you think cut penises are so safe agaisnt AIDS versus uncut, I mean what are you smoking? Do you want to take your chances and prove it and

Do you drive like a maniac just because you have a seat belt?

[Asher]

The only people here who don't believe it are people who have no way of comparing.

The people who HAVE been circumcised can tell you there's a difference. The doctors examining nerve endings can tell you there's a difference. There IS a difference, whether you want to believe it or not.

As for the protection of circumcision leading to less safe behavior,

It's not the same thing to ask people to refrain from the biological imperative to have sex than it is to ask them to wear a rubber. But telling them they're circumcised to help protect against HIV is one less thing to motivate circumcised people to slap on the rubber.

As for the cite: http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...3856-95300.pdf

In the studies done, actually, no one has caught HIV when using a condom. The common figure is 99%+ because there's no way to guarantee a faulty condom, etc.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the spread of seat belts and shoulder restraints is associated, apparently, with driving faster.

Should seat belts be discouraged?

No, we should put a big sharp spike in the centre of the steering wheel. The number of accidents will drop dramatically.

[Asher]

From the CDC on condom use preventing HIV:

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially
impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf

I'll say it again: circumcising boys for "preventing the spread of HIV" is sadistic, cruel, and unnecessary.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
"The only people here who don't believe it are people who have no way of comparing.

The people who HAVE been circumcised can tell you there's a difference. The doctors examining nerve endings can tell you there's a difference. There IS a difference, whether you want to believe it or not."

The medical opinions are mixed. As are personal reports, from what I understand. all of which is irrelevant since the only question is what the africans beleive. Since many DO seek circumcisions, and dont get them becaue they cant afford them,there is clearly a demand.

As for the protection of circumcision leading to less safe behavior,

"It's not the same thing to ask people to refrain from the biological imperative to have sex than it is to ask them to wear a rubber. But telling them they're circumcised to help protect against HIV is one less thing to motivate circumcised people to slap on the rubber."

You dont have to ask them to refrain from having sex. Ive never heard of a case of HIV in the hasidic community, and judging from the number of kids, they dont refrain from the biological imperative to have sex.




As for the cite: http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...3856-95300.pdf

In the studies done, actually, no one has caught HIV when using a condom. The common figure is 99%+ because there's no way to guarantee a faulty condom, etc.

"The effectiveness of condoms has been the subject of a great deal of research. One recent review of multiple studies found that the consistent use of condoms during sexual intercourse results in an 80 percent reduction in HIV incidence, a level of protection slightly less effective than for pregnancy (Weller and Davis 2003). In 2001, the United States Department of Health and Human Services concluded that male latex condoms are effective in reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Studies analyzed for this conclusion demonstrated “an 85 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users” (US DHHS 2001).

The most conclusive evidence of condom effectiveness in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission has come from studies of serodiscordant couples, in which one person is infected with HIV and one person is not. One study in Italy followed 305 sexually active HIV-negative female partners of HIV-positive men for approximately two years. Within the study, a total of 3.9 infections occurred per 100 person-years, and the incidence of HIV diminished by 84 percent in women who always used condoms as opposed to those who used them occasionally or never. Less than two percent of the 171 women who always used a condom became infected. In a multi-country European study of serodiscordant couples, none of the HIV-negative partners of HIV-positive men or women became infected when using condoms at every intercourse. In a Haitian study, the infection rate among serodiscordant couples who always used condoms was 1 per 100 couples (McNeill et al. 2001)."


Note the key number is the CHANGE from non-use to use. Some serum discordant couples remain so, IIUC, despite NOT using condoms. Some folks may be naturally immune, or just lucky.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
The people who HAVE been circumcised can tell you there's a difference.

Er. uhm, i think theres a qualifier you left out. As it stands you seem to imply that I have NOT been circumcized.