Circumcision Urged in Curbing AIDS Spread

[B_Italian1]

People get AIDS because they have unprotected sex. Not because they are uncircumcised (or circumcised).

4,000 is a lot but I'd say it's not because 3,000 had the dreaded FORESKIN. They had unprotected sex with an infected partner.

Circumcision will not curb AIDS. Education and the practice of safe sex are the only things that will. Money is being wasted on circumcision. It's not the answer or even preventative. Cut people still get AIDS you know!

Yes, people can get HIV from an infected person if they have unprotected sex whether they are cut of not cut. Education, abstinence, and condoms have not worked if 4000 people a day are getting HIV in Africa. And if you read my other post it states:

"Scientists believe the procedure helps protect men from HIV because the foreskin contains langerhans cells that are especially vulnerable to invasion by the virus. There is no evidence so far that circumcision protects women from HIV directly."

So if two guys, one cut and one uncut, were to have condomless sex with an HIV infected person, the uncut man would more likely be infected.

 

[chico8]

Yes, people can get HIV from an infected person if they have unprotected sex whether they are cut of not cut. Education, abstinence, and condoms have not worked if 4000 people a day are getting HIV in Africa. And if you read my other post it states:

"Scientists believe the procedure helps protect men from HIV because the foreskin contains langerhans cells that are especially vulnerable to invasion by the virus. There is no evidence so far that circumcision protects women from HIV directly."

So if two guys, one cut and one uncut, were to have condomless sex with an HIV infected person, the uncut man would more likely be infected.

I'm sorry but there needs to be a little more certainty than some scientist's belief.

Too many approach HIV infection as a medical issue rather than a social one. The lack of a foreskin is not going to prevent someone from contracting the virus. In the studies that have been conducted in the West, circumcision seems to offer no protection from STDs.

What's needed is a concerted effort to change the sexual habits in Africa. If nobody bothers to do that, then there's simply going to be no change whatsoever.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the countries that have seen the greatest success in combatting the epidemic don't rely on an expensive, invasive, potentially pleasure reducing procedure to fight it. What they do is use continue social pressure to reduce sexual partners, test prostitutes, test pregnant women, and generally make sure that everyone knows the science behind the transmission of STDs.

You claim that all other efforts have failed. All that does is show your ignorance regarding HIV in Africa.

The only way for Africans to stop the epidemic is to change their habits, not destroy their dicks.

 

[Latinoboy9]

The only way for Africans to stop the epidemic is to change their habits, not destroy their dicks.

This would be the correct way! Right ON!Chico8....
Jose'Latinoboy9

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
Again, you guys think you have the answers, but you're not doctors or scientists. Don't be so down on them unless you can suggest something better.

Are you certain that none of are doctors or scientists? Are you absolutely certain about that?

If you've never had a condom failure in 35 years that's wonderful; you've done something right, but you are also gay so you haven't had to deal with "what if she's pregnant?" like so many straight guys. Gays have one thing to deal with while straights have two, disease and pregnancy. Not that pregnancy is awful, but it is something straight people have to be concerned about each and every time they have sex. And even birth control pills aren't 100%.

You keep separating the issues that should be grouped, and grouping the issues that should be separate. I have to hope that it was simply that you were typing too fast, but you mentioned that "abstinence doesn't work" in Africa. That should have been "abstinence education doesn't work." Of course abstinence works, if it is practiced. My whole point is that the education in Africa is the problem, not the presence of foreskins. Bringing in the fact that "straights have to worry about two things, not just one" is a red herring. The fact is that (whether it's pregnancy or disease) one thing should be emphasized - if one chooses to be sexually active, one MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. You can minimize, but not eliminate, sexual risk. For those who do not have the proper education and information and sociological perspective, reports like this will tend to give the false impression that being circumcised will give them protection to have unprotected sex, and that is just simply irresponsible.

Too many approach HIV infection as a medical issue rather than a social one. The lack of a foreskin is not going to prevent someone from contracting the virus. In the studies that have been conducted in the West, circumcision seems to offer no protection from STDs.

What's needed is a concerted effort to change the sexual habits in Africa. If nobody bothers to do that, then there's simply going to be no change whatsoever.

That bears repeating.

Yes, people can get HIV from an infected person if they have unprotected sex whether they are cut of not cut. Education, abstinence, and condoms have not worked if 4000 people a day are getting HIV in Africa.
<...>
So if two guys, one cut and one uncut, were to have condomless sex with an HIV infected person, the uncut man would more likely be infected.

I won't argue that point. My questions, which I will repeat, are: Why not do more to encourage both the cut and the intact men to (properly) use condoms? and Why are infection rates as high as they are among circumcised men?

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Are their studies that show that if the whole of the US went Circ that AIDS wouldn't exist?

Or is this one of those "Africans are another species" research again?

You'll never find out how Kenyans run so fast! NEVER!

 

[DC_DEEP]

Are their studies that show that if the whole of the US went Circ that AIDS wouldn't exist?

Or is this one of those "Africans are another species" research again?

You'll never find out how Kenyans run so fast! NEVER!

No, this is another one of those "Buddhist monks shave their heads. Buddhist monks have a lower rate of coronary artery disease than most Americans. Therefore, shaving your head prevents coronary heart disease" research conclusions.

 

[B_Italian1]

You claim that all other efforts have failed. All that does is show your ignorance regarding HIV in Africa.

The only way for Africans to stop the epidemic is to change their habits, not destroy their dicks.

Ignorance? Give me a break! Changing habits is not easy and it could take a whole generation for habits to change. By then there will be even more men, women and babies with HIV--millions more.

I read these posts and can't believe what I'm seeing. You guys aren't doctors or scientists. You don't work in the medical field day in and day out. You don't go to the conferences with all of the experts. And you don't have all the answers and neither do I. And when something that drastic is happening on the other side of the world it's so far away and maybe it seems easy to accomplish but it's not.

If these men are given the opportunity to have a circumcision there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody is holding a guy to their head. They should be told about it as well as education. Haven't you ever heard of clinical trials? It's because of clinical trials that we have all the drugs available today to treat cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, parkinson's, erectile dysfuntion, and HIV. Yes, they are human guineau pigs, but medicine has always been like this from day one. The only way to find out if something works is to try it on real people.

The anti circumcision movement has gone too far if they don't even want to help people from contracting a deadly disease.

 

[SteveHd]

...
The anti circumcision movement has gone too far if they don't even want to help people from contracting a deadly disease.

That's a low blow and I won't respond in-kind. I hope the readers see how ugly that was and realize that it reflects badly upon you and you side.

 

[B_Italian1]

That's a low blow and I won't respond in-kind. I hope the readers see how ugly that was and realize that it reflects badly upon you and you side.

It's not a low blow. You guys are over reacting. All I'm saying is a lot of these men are going to have circumcisions despite what you say. And if it helps them great, and if it doesn't, then all they've lost is a little bit of skin. We won't know for years to come anyway. The same way any clinical trial works. I'm not sure what more to add to this. We can only educate up to a certain point, and if they don't get it, they don't get it. AIDS has been around for 25 years and people are still getting it, so it's not only Africa that's failed, it's the entire world.

 

[Bossman1]

rob just rob.....the only way your going to get infected by a hooker with aids is if you have an open cut or sore on your cock and your fucking without condoms...being cut or uncut has nothing to do with it.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

This circ trial seems like the holy grail to the pro circumcision crowd, it's just another justification for interfering with someone else's freedom of choice. The fact they pulled the trial says it all, a successful trial is never pulled, and no I'm not medically qualified, however many of my friends are, one who is at the moment heading up a drug trial in Britain, the trial proved the drug to be very successful but guess what, it was extended, they didn't say six months into it oh it's a really great drug, let's stop early.

 

[SteveHd]

Italian978, are you saying the "anti circumcision movement" doesn't give a shit about the spread of HIV?

 

[Meniscus]

...a lot of these men are going to have circumcisions despite what you say. And if it helps them great, and if it doesn't, then all they've lost is a little bit of skin...

I was going to stay out of this thread because it seems an exercise in futility, but this statement kinda pissed me off.

Men who choose to have circumcisions will have lost more than "a little bit of skin," and they deserve to know that so that they can make an informed choice about the procedure. They should be told that they'll lose at least a third of their penile skin. They should be told that there is evidence, both anecdotal and research-based, that they'll lose the most sensitive parts of the penis and that intercourse and masturbation may become less pleasurable for them. They'll also lose the simple fun and pleasure of having a foreskin. Even if there are no ill effects, circumcised men have lost a healthy, functioning party of their body--more specifically, a part of their penis. To many of us, both men and women, that's a big deal. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's a big deal. You don't get to decide how other people should or shouldn't feel about it. There's no "should" about it. There's what is. For some of us, it IS a big deal.

Amputating any part of the body, no matter how unimportant you think it is, is not something to be taken lightly. It doesn't really matter if it's useful or not. But obviously you just don't get that. More importantly, you seem unwilling to even try to understand that people have legitimate concerns about this procedure.

You know, my earlobes are pretty useless. Nevertheless, I don't want to cut them off, and I'd be upset to lose them. They're my earlobes. They are a part of me. I kind of like it when someone nibbles on them. I'd miss that if they were gone. I don't want to have them cut off.

Now if there was research that showed that cutting my earlobes off would reduce my chances of getting infected with HIV by 60%, I'd want to look at that study very closely. For example, I'd want to know if there were any other variables that could explain why the lobeless people contracted HIV less often (e.g., higher rates of abstinence due to religious beliefs). Only if I was thoroughly convinced that the study was thorough and reliable would I consider cutting off my earlobes. But I would consider it. I don't know what I would decide. I wouldn't WANT to cut my earlobes off, but the benefits might be worth it. For me, it would be a difficult decision.

If I weren't already circumcised, I don't think I'd give up my foreskin, even to reduce my risk of HIV infection, but obviously I don't know since I'm not in the position to have to make that decision.

But whether it's my earlobes or my foreskin, it's my decision--not my parents', not my doctor's, not the government's, not the World Health Organization's, not UNAIDS, or any other health organization or advocacy group. It's MY decision.

Italian978: I have no problem with an adult man choosing circumcision, as long as it's an informed choice. I DO have a problem with your dismissal of people's concerns about circumcision and their skepticism about the research cited in the article you posted.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The anti circumcision movement has gone too far if they don't even want to help people from contracting a deadly disease.

No, the pro-circumcision movement has gone to far - up to, and including, misrepresentation of statistics, and outright lies, to garner support.

For less-educated men in any culture, the concept (held by you and others) that circumcision provides HIV protection is going to encourage people to contract a deadly disease, by giving them the false assurance that circumcision provides better protection than condoms or abstinence. You don't just want to help prevent the spread of HIV, you want to promote the spread of HIV.

 

[Dave NoCal]

Meniscus, VERY well written.
Dave

 

[B_All4show]

Just an observation / prediction: I would like to see a poll.

1. Gay and for circumcision
2. Gay and against circumcision
3. Straight and for circumcision
4. Straight and against circumcision.

Most people are open minded and can go either way on the subject except for #2. Why the push back?

 

[B_All4show]

To answer my own question it appears the underlying reason people are so vehement against circumcision is that many people are afraid to admit that the bible may be right, again. I am not a huge bible thumper, but many of the rules in the bible were handed down for a purpose. What to eat, how to handle the dead, circumcision etc.

 

[deleted15807]

Just an observation / prediction: I would like to see a poll.

1. Gay and for circumcision
2. Gay and against circumcision
3. Straight and for circumcision
4. Straight and against circumcision.

Most people are open minded and can go either way on the subject except for #2. Why the push back?

#2 will win by far. :tongue:

 

[B_Italian1]

Italian978, are you saying the "anti circumcision movement" doesn't give a shit about the spread of HIV?

Don't misconstrue my words. Of course they care, but they shouldn't freak over what could possibly help millions of people over the long run. Look, there was this big conference for professionals in the AIDS and a suggestion they made was circumcision because the HIV virus passes more easily through the foreskin. That's it, plain and simple. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but as I've said umpteen times, condoms and education have not worked yet for Africa. How many more pople have to get HIV? We (they)have to be open to something different. I'm sure they will offer these men circumcision, and if they don't want one, that's fine. It's their choice.

 

[Bbucko]

To answer my own question it appears the underlying reason people are so vehement against circumcision is that many people are afraid to admit that the bible may be right, again. I am not a huge bible thumper, but many of the rules in the bible were handed down for a purpose. What to eat, how to handle the dead, circumcision etc.

This is absurd. My dislike of circumcision has nothing to do with my feelings about the bible. It has to do with both aesthetics (I prefer seeing/handling uncut meat) and biology (circumcision decreases sensation).

Pro-circ arguments regarding hygene are just plain wrong. There is nothing difficult about cleaning an uncut dick, it just takes an extra second. While I can respect someone's religious reasons for mutilating their sons (up to a point), extending such barbarisms to the general population is misguided and wrong.