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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher


I also know when you remove most of the sensation from the penis,

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so if you take a group that HAS been educated on safe sex, for THAT group circumcision makes them safer? That seems like an argument for an integrated approach.

This comes down to the practical aspects of it all.

1) It is not practical to give every person in Africa extensive safe-sex training
2) It is not practical to give every man in Africa a circumcision procedure, let alone one performed by a professional in a completely sterile environment with proper follow-up treatments

This is the main problem you choose to ignore about this. You do not seem to understand what is involved for a proper adult circumcision to be done -- the recovery time that is involved (including the intermediate time where HIV contraction rates are FAR higher until it's healed), the follow up visits required, the professionals to do the procedure, and the sterile equipment and environment. Now you're talking about adding extensive safe-sex lectures on top of this for what, over a billion people in the poorest part of the world?

This is the real world, LOTM, so we have to get real.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You laugh because you don't know what you're talking about.

Talk to somebody who can compare before and after. Talk to a doctor who understands the purpose of the foreskin and its sensitivity.

[Asher]

We should also consider further complications of circumcisions aside from the obvious infections, botchings, etc.

Circumcised men are twice as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunctions than uncircumcised men. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi....x?cookieSet=1)

Circumcised men required significantly more time (60% on average) to ejaculate after they were circumcised (http://www.circs.org/library/senkul/). -- note, this is not saying they "can last longer", just that they have to.

The foreskin contains more Meissner's Corpuscles than any other part of the penis, which are by far the most nerve-dense and sensitive part of the body: http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/1704591419.htm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

What's important would be after circumcision. No, I don't believe there are any studies. But I do know the main complaint about not using condoms is decreased sensation.

I also know when you remove most of the sensation from the penis, men are likely to be more discouraged about using a condom to further dullen the sensation when they are comparing this to their previous experiences.


Care to quote a public health official?

'cause all of the public health officials I know of do not recommend routine circumcisions, either here or in Africa. Just ask the pediatric societies of the world.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De **** of the World Health Organization.

Male circumcision is common at birth in the United States. But in sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than half of the world's almost 40 million HIV-infected people, there are large swaths of populations where male circumcision is rare.

The WHO plans an international meeting early next year to discuss the studies' results and how to translate them into policies that promote safe male circumcision — done by trained health workers with sterile equipment — while teaching men that it won't make them invulnerable.

If male circumcision were widely adopted, officials predicted that could help to avert tens of thousands of HIV infections in coming years; Fauci cited one model from South Africa that suggested possibly up to 2 million infections could be averted over a decade.

"This is tremendous news, and it could help millions of men while in turn reducing the risk faced by millions of women," said Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance.

[Asher]

The WHO guy's comment was non-committal, and who the hell is the other guy and what is that group?

[Asher]

Googling Paul Zeitz, I see he's very Jewish and a big supporter of circumcision in general. This news is indeed, shocking, that he supports such actions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm also very interested in the real numbers of this study, not percentages. I find it very curious they are not being released.

[Asher]

Researchers enrolled 2,784 HIV-negative men in Kisumu, Kenya, and 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, into the studies. Some were circumcised; others were just monitored.

Over two years, 22 of the circumcised Kenyans became infected with HIV compared with 47 uncircumcised men, a 53 percent reduction. In Uganda, 22 circumcised men became infected vs. 43 of the uncircumcised, a 48 percent reduction.

The actual numbers.

Why does it not mention how many were circumcised vs uncircumcised? I'm very confused why this is not public.

These percentages assume exactly half of the men were circumcised, which I don't see actually stated anywhere.

[Snotty]

were the guys circed for the study, or did they just round up a group of circed and non circed guys. I dont have time to check now.

Why were the circed guys circed? religious reasons? because they thought it would stop them getting Aids? Either might mean they are more careful/less promiscuous than the uncirced group

[Asher]

Originally posted by Snotty
were the guys circed for the study, or did they just round up a group of circed and non circed guys. I dont have time to check now.

Why were the circed guys circed? religious reasons? because they thought it would stop them getting Aids? Either might mean they are more careful/less promiscuous than the uncirced group

These are all valid issues. It's not clear right now, but from the sounds of it they gathered thousands of men and somehow convinced some of them to get circumcised while the others were not.

You can definitely make a case that perhaps the ones who agreed to the circumcision were more paranoid, and thus more cautious than the others. That connection is not clear.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty
were the guys circed for the study, or did they just round up a group of circed and non circed guys. I dont have time to check now.

Why were the circed guys circed? religious reasons? because they thought it would stop them getting Aids? Either might mean they are more careful/less promiscuous than the uncirced group

They rounded the guys up, and according to the study the levels of sexual activity were comparable.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Here's a tip for you, soldier: you don't put the condom back on, you go and fetch another fresh one

Yes, I know that, but the member itself is extremely slick at this point.

Also it is rather depressing that the circumcised male has been conditioned to consder additional lubrication to be a bad thing.

Who needs additional lubrication?

[Gibsie]

Well given that it is not unusal for condoms to come with an additional lubricant, and that circumcised penises don't produce natural lubrication like an uncirc one does, a lot of people might. Lubricants are generally considered a good thing (natural or otherwise), and if they're causing you problems, then you're doing it wrong...