Circumcision and HIV

[that_other_guy]

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to Richard Feachem, the guy quoted in the article.

well ... nevermind then :biggrin1:

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I have no opinions on this matter

Sure you have an opinion. You're gorgeous, but you're cut.

The article is a load of bollocks. It's a news article, not scientific research.

Let's put a personal spin on it. See Faces of Circumcision.

 

[that_other_guy]

Sure you have an opinion. You're gorgeous, but you're cut.

The article is a load of bollocks. It's a news article, not scientific research.

Let's put a personal spin on it. See Faces of Circumcision.

When I said I had no opinion I lied ... My opinion is that one should be able to choose their status (I did not get too ... but why become upset about something that I never knew) ... and I think that cut & uncut cocks are great ... but usually I'm more interested in the people who are attached to said cocks

 

[B_josiah852]

anyone who thinks a circumsized man that has unprotected sex will not get aids needs to rethink the whole thing. really think about it.

 

[that_other_guy]

anyone who thinks a circumsized man that has unprotected sex will not get aids needs to rethink the whole thing. really think about it.

... ahem ...

"People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."

 

[Snozzle]

... ahem ...

Quote:
"People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."

How careful would you have to be? Here are people in a region where men think sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, and they're proposing to have them lie on an operatiing table while someone cuts off part of their cock with a sharp knife, leaving a very visible difference, and a different feeling in intercourse, and then teach them the difference between epidemiological protection (the herd effect) and the fact that they are not individually immune and must continue - or start - to use condoms.

OF COURSE they're going to go back to their wives, sweethearts and prostitutes and say, "Come on, I'm protected, look! I don't need condoms!" It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[hunGreek]

silly me... and all those years i thought HIV was transmitted by getting blood or cum on your bloodstream

when in fact its just my foreskin causing the risk! well, im off mutilating my penis so i can enjoy barebacking and drug use! or better yet, i might chop the whole thing off. im sure that will reduce the risk even more!:biggrin1:


this thread is so ridiculous as any other thread advocating penile mutilation that its not even worth being serious...

 

[Snozzle]

this thread is so ridiculous as any other thread advocating penile mutilation that its not even worth being serious...

I wish it were so, but the current push to "circumcise to protect against HIV" ties in with the age-old "circumcise to protect against evil" memeplex, and that clouds people's critical faculties.

 

[charmander123]

All these mutilation apologists should take a real look at all HIV patients in the USA who are, in the vast majority, circumcised. Especially in the gay community.

 

[captainbryce1]

All these mutilation apologists should take a real look at all HIV patients in the USA who are, in the vast majority, circumcised. Especially in the gay community.

As valid as your point is, you resurrected a post from almost 20 years ago. I’m sure the general attitude and level of understanding has changed between Gen Z and Gen X.