Circumcision (again)

[2322]

So let's see. If a female has sex with a circumcised male that has Chlamydia, HPV and or Aids, she will not get these std's. She will get them only if she has sex with a male that has not been circumcised. Right ? Isn't that what is being presumed here ? They can have all the shows on this they want and they can print all the articles they want on this. The only way to prevent getting any of these is to have protected sex or not have sex with someone infected with these or any std's.

And that's the dangerous part about all this. For years the US had the highest rates of HIV infection while also having one of the largest populations of circumcised men in the world.

To tell someone that circumcision prevents these diseases is to plant a false hope that could kill them and others; particularly in places where public health and sex education is non-existant. It's like Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius pulling down the window shade before the train hits the shack.

 

[B_blogboardbusters]

to each his own I guess. In africa they circumsize women as well.

 

[danerain]

He should have asked Dr. Williams if he was gay.

Why?

 

[SirConcis]

>

And that's the dangerous part about all this. For
>years the US had the highest rates of HIV infection while also having one of
>the largest populations of circumcised men in the world.

One explanation is that in the USA, HIV is often caught through needles (drug use) or via homosexual practices. In Africa, it is caught in heterosexual sex.


>To tell someone that circumcision prevents these diseases is to plant a >false hope that could kill them and others;

Circumcision prevents many infections. It doesn't prevent HIV. But it reduces the risk of catching it in heterosexual sex.

Circumcision reduces some infections in women, but that advantage is reduced when good hygiene is practiced.

Circumcision reduces aids in women simply because their male mates are then statistically less likely to catch it from someone else. Remember that in africa, men sleep with many many females. So one male with aids will spread it to many females (who will then give it to more males.


Because AIDS s so widespread in Africa, every step taken to reduce the rare of infection by a couple per % makes a big difference. Condoms would make a bigger difference though, but until african men start to accept condoms, they won't use them.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Condoms would make a bigger difference though, but until african men start to accept condoms, they won't use them.

And when they are cut they won't use them because they won't be able to feel anything.

PROFESSOR BRIAN MORRIS: That's absolutely no difference in function.

PROFESSOR BRIAN MORRIS: We immunise children routinely to reduce all sorts
of diseases. Circumcision is a surgical vaccine but it doesn't prevent
just one condition, it prevents a raft of conditions through the life of
the male.

What we're up against is pure subterfuge. The last time I checked amputation and vaccination are not synonyms. These are the type of lies that intactivists are determined to expose.

 

[B_All4show]

Is that relevant to infant circumcision?

It seemed he was asking for background, so he asked both if they were cut or uncut. I thought it was more telling to ask if he was gay or straight.

 

[B_All4show]

>

And that's the dangerous part about all this. For
>years the US had the highest rates of HIV infection while also having one of
>the largest populations of circumcised men in the world.

One explanation is that in the USA, HIV is often caught through needles (drug use) or via homosexual practices. In Africa, it is caught in heterosexual sex.


>To tell someone that circumcision prevents these diseases is to plant a >false hope that could kill them and others;

Circumcision prevents many infections. It doesn't prevent HIV. But it reduces the risk of catching it in heterosexual sex.

Circumcision reduces some infections in women, but that advantage is reduced when good hygiene is practiced.

Circumcision reduces aids in women simply because their male mates are then statistically less likely to catch it from someone else. Remember that in africa, men sleep with many many females. So one male with aids will spread it to many females (who will then give it to more males.


Because AIDS s so widespread in Africa, every step taken to reduce the rare of infection by a couple per % makes a big difference. Condoms would make a bigger difference though, but until african men start to accept condoms, they won't use them.

Good post. Seems like a very well thoughtout logical post.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Unfortunately the famous survey was set in Africa precisely because they could use social factors to influence the outcome, the same survey set in America where circumcision rates are high, as are HIV infection rates, would have proved the opposite, that HIV occurs more in circumcised men.

 

[SteveHd]

It seemed he was asking for background, so he asked both if they were cut or uncut. I thought it was more telling to ask if he was gay or straight.

You still haven't answered the question: Why is "gay or straight" relevant to infant circumcision?

 

[SteveHd]

One explanation is that in the USA, HIV is often caught through needles (drug use) or via homosexual practices. In Africa, it is caught in heterosexual sex.

So you're saying cultural factors play a large role in its transmission?

Circumcision prevents many infections. It doesn't prevent HIV. But it reduces the risk of catching it in heterosexual sex.

Neither of those claims have been proved.

Circumcision reduces some infections in women, ...

Circumcision reduces aids in women simply because their male mates are then statistically less likely to catch it from someone else. ...

:bsflag:

Because AIDS s so widespread in Africa, every step taken to reduce the rare of infection by a couple per % makes a big difference. Condoms would make a bigger difference though, but until african men start to accept condoms, they won't use them.

We can agree that condoms would make a bigger difference.

 

[B_All4show]

Unfortunately the famous survey was set in Africa precisely because they could use social factors to influence the outcome, the same survey set in America where circumcision rates are high, as are HIV infection rates, would have proved the opposite, that HIV occurs more in circumcised men.

I have not looked it up but you are saying that the HIV rate is high in the US? Compared to what - other industrialized nations? Could be.

But with little medial knowledge I can ascertain this... I would bet HIV is extremely low if you take out intravenous drug use, babies born to drug mothers and gays. The only way to get it in the heterosexual population is through blood transfusion (they test now) and females screwing bisexual men. BTW, do I need to explain why I said "females screwing bisexual men"?

Circumcision has nothing to do with it in America for exactly as you said social reasons and more to do with African due to social reasons and it is a place where HIV is ubiquitous.

 

[B_All4show]

So you're saying cultural factors play a large role in its transmission?Neither of those claims have been proved.:bsflag:We can agree that condoms would make a bigger difference.

Can I ask a simple question: Does it matter if a guy is circumcised if he has a boat load of HIV cum in his ass? What survey eliminates "bottoms" from the circumcision debate?

I bet I get no answer to this post.

 

[B_All4show]

You still haven't answered the question: Why is "gay or straight" relevant to infant circumcision?

I made my statement to show it shouldn't matter and show the question was stupid in the first place.

 

[SteveHd]

Can I ask a simple question: ...

There were two questions so I'll give a simple answer to just one them: no.

I bet I get no answer to this post.

You lost that bet.

I made my statement to show it shouldn't matter and show the question was stupid in the first place.

And so another unanswered question is added to the LPSG encyclopedia of unanswered questions.

 

[B_All4show]

There were two questions so I'll give a simple answer to just one them: no.You lost that bet.And so another unanswered question is added to the LPSG encyclopedia of unanswered questions.

Steve,

I answered the question three times, WTF? You are trying to be too cute?

I knew there would have no response to my question.

 

[SteveHd]

Steve, // I answered the question three times, WTF? You are trying to be too cute?

Nevermind!

I knew there would have no response to my question.

My answer was "no". That's not the same as "no response".

 

[B_All4show]

Nevermind!My answer was "no". That's not the same as "no response".

Steve, you are being cute again. It seems so funny that I can think on this subject for about 5 minutes and blow apart the surveys and statistics you and Spoiled Princess site as proof. Especially coming from a gay person that has read and written on this subject it just seems disingenuous. I bet most gays never ever wear a condom with a blow job and think nothing of it.

 

[SteveHd]

The phrase "boat load of HIV cum in his ass" was inflammatory i/m/o; and so I gave the most polite answer I could possibly offer at that time.

 

[B_All4show]

The phrase "boat load of HIV cum in his ass" was inflammatory i/m/o; so you got the most polite answer I could possibly offer.

Steve,

I agree that was somewhat imflamtory, but I also believe that lying is imflamatory as well. When Princess throws out stats she knows to be wrong or misleading and you parrot them, I respond in kind.

So you will let my premise go unanswered because you know it to be true, not because you are offended.

 

[SteveHd]

... but I also believe that lying is imflamatory as well. ...

Who, specifically, is lying?

When Princess throws out stats she knows to be wrong or misleading ...

Post a link.

So you will let my premise go unanswered because you know it to be true, not because you are offended.

To your inflammatory question, I answered "no" twice. What's your goddamned "premise"?