Circumcision???????

[Snozzle]

The uncut males in scandinavia have less diseases is due mostly to the fact that they sleep around far less and find a single mate, so diseases do not spread as much.

And your evidence for that claim is? My impression was that Scandinavian males sleep with quite a few partners, but they have good sex education (because the whole society has a healthy attitude towards sex) and do it more safely.

Having mutiple mates is the primary means of diseases spreading. And this is the case in africa and not scandinavia.

Having mutiple mates is the primary means of diseases spreading everywhere. What is your evidence for the claim that Africans "have multiple mates" (and Scandinavians don't)? It sounds like just a racist assumption.

Education and hygiene reduce the negative aspects of having a foreskin so the fact that scandinavian men are uncut is countered by the fact that they get good education on how to have proper hygiene of their foreksins.

Without grantiing your presumption that there are any "negative aspects of having a foreskin", since that is practicable anywhere, there is no need for circumcision anywhere. .

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

SirConcis is actually right that Scandinavians have relatively few sex partners, although I doubt he has any evidence to the assertion that the two things he identifies are responsible for varying HIV rate. He's of the "make things up intuitively and state them as facts" school of debate.

 

[mandoman]

My boy's girlfriend was a foreign exchange student in Denmark.
She said they fucked like rabbits at every opportunity, and were quite promiscuous.

 

[trkr4ckskr]

ok here is the deal im in a human sexuality class and i need to propose and argument about why should a new baby boy get circumcised.

Im not religious and i need 3 arguments explaining why you SHOULD get your baby circumcised?

thanks

I would refuse to perform the assignment just like I would have refused to have been a good little Nazi if I had grown up in 1930's Germany.

 

[SirConcis]

If you read any study that compares incidence of AIDS in Africa vs western world, or compares AIDS between different countries, it will invariably discuss lifestyle (aka: monogamy vs polygamy) as one of the major differences.

Men in africa tend to have a loger period where they have "fun" with multiple women before they settle down to one girlfriend and marry. It is during this period of young adulthood where AIDS gets caught and spread. (this is why circumcision programmes targer adults of that age or just about to become sexually active).


If a scandinavian male sleeps with a female that has no disease, he won't catch anything from her even if he has an open wound on his penis. And the smaller the number of females he sleeps with, the lesser the odds (already low) of sleeping with an infected female.

But in Africa, in regiosn where AIDS reaches 20% of population, a male has a 1 in 5 chance of sleeping with an infected female. With an open wound on penis, the odds are therefore extremely high that he will catch AIDS (statistically 100% if he sleeps with 5 women).

So having protection is therefore crucial to reducing the odds that when he sleeps with an infected women, that he will catch it.

And this is where circumcision makes a difference. The inner foreskin of the uncut male may not be as bad as an open wound, but it is significantly more inviting to the HIV than the inner foreksin of a circumcised male. This is where the 60% kicks in.

In Scandinavia, the intact foreskin doesn't make a difference because there is nothing to catch. In Africa it does make a difference because so many women are infected.

Also, in western nations, the education system has passed on the message about condoms. Not so in Africa where it is still very hard to convince males/females that a condom is necessary for casual sex. And this difference is also very significant with regards to spread of diseases.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Again, you just expanded on your assertion that Scandinavians have fewer partners than Africans. That's true. That doesn't establish causality. Find us a study that attempts to isolate the variable and find it to be explanatory. In any case, it's fairly moot; at best, this demonstrates that circumcision status is (predictably) a relatively week variable, much inferior to partnership rates and other things. It may be cost-effective in Africa, but you're not doing a good job of demonstrating that.

Also, a 1-in-5 chance times 5 does not "statistically equal a 100 percent chance" of infection. That's like claiming that flipping a coin twice statistically equals a 100 percent chance of landing on heads. I'm too lazy to calculate, but I think a 1-in-5 chance of "success" over five trials only equals like a 2-in-3 chance overall, far from 100%.

 

[mandoman]

If you read any study that compares incidence of AIDS in Africa vs western world, or compares AIDS between different countries, it will invariably discuss lifestyle (aka: monogamy vs polygamy) as one of the major differences.

Men in africa tend to have a loger period where they have "fun" with multiple women before they settle down to one girlfriend and marry. It is during this period of young adulthood where AIDS gets caught and spread. (this is why circumcision programmes targer adults of that age or just about to become sexually active).


If a scandinavian male sleeps with a female that has no disease, he won't catch anything from her even if he has an open wound on his penis. And the smaller the number of females he sleeps with, the lesser the odds (already low) of sleeping with an infected female.

But in Africa, in regiosn where AIDS reaches 20% of population, a male has a 1 in 5 chance of sleeping with an infected female. With an open wound on penis, the odds are therefore extremely high that he will catch AIDS (statistically 100% if he sleeps with 5 women).

So having protection is therefore crucial to reducing the odds that when he sleeps with an infected women, that he will catch it.

And this is where circumcision makes a difference. The inner foreskin of the uncut male may not be as bad as an open wound, but it is significantly more inviting to the HIV than the inner foreksin of a circumcised male. This is where the 60% kicks in.

In Scandinavia, the intact foreskin doesn't make a difference because there is nothing to catch. In Africa it does make a difference because so many women are infected.

Also, in western nations, the education system has passed on the message about condoms. Not so in Africa where it is still very hard to convince males/females that a condom is necessary for casual sex. And this difference is also very significant with regards to spread of diseases.

Perhaps we should surgically remove all that mucosal membrane from females, to lessen their chances of contracting HIV?

 

[matelalique]

Very good Young Native - the actual number is 67.2%, very close to 2/3. This is 1-(0.8)^5.