Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by B_johnschlong, Oct 8, 2008.
Apparently there's some more research needed.
That's hardly surprising. I think the myth was made up by infant circumcision advocates in order to fight back against the increasing trend in the US where parents don't get their baby boys cut. Circumcision is only effective at avoiding infections when people practice bad hygiene. Foreskin only gets dirty if it isn't cleaned. I think hygiene standards are good enough now to make the whole argument null and void.
The whole argument that circumcision reduces risk of HIV was flawed anyway. There may have been a very small difference that was then exaggerated but there are only two ways of substantially reducing the risk - abstain or use a condom.
No surprise. Corrolational research is incapable of demonstrating causation. That's why all this research is so muddled.
The author of the article did report one thing that was bang on. Wish it was the headline...
Quoth the article:
Will Nutland, of the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "This research adds weight to the evidence that circumcision isn't an effective method of HIV prevention for men who have sex with men.
"The majority of HIV infections in men who have sex with men are as a result of receptive anal intercourse and circumcision would make no difference in these cases.
"Rather than encouraging gay men to be circumcised, investment in prevention in the UK should focus on targeted education programmes, condom provision and easy access to testing."
Can he be in charge for a while?
This was explained already some years ago in a study done in Australia.
With gay sex, males most often catch via their anus. Circumcision reduces the chance of cathing it via penis but it doesn't magically give your anal region any protection and it remains a perfect point where aids can enter your body.
With vaginal sex, males catch HIV via their penis. Circumcision makes a big difference there. And women can't really insert parts of their body into a guy's anus.
In western world, AIDS has traditionally been a gay or drug user disease. Circumcision does nothing to reduce hiv contraction via anus. And it does nothing to reduce contraction of aids via infected needles by drug users.
even if circumcision does prevent HIV, it is no excuse to cut unconsenting males, just as it wouldn't be an excuse to cut unconsenting females to protect against it.
Circumcision is infant (usually) genital mutilation, no more and no less. It might have had a place in primitive tribes in hot climates before effective healthcare, but is now simply a cultural thing enforced by "elders" of the religious or cultural "tribe" that demand this type of sacrifice of the infants.
Most men in Britain, and I suspect in Europe, are not so mutilated. No sane person would condone female genital mutilation, excision or whatever euphemism the barbarians who inflict it on infant girls wish to call it. Why condone the male equivalent?
This is the year 2008 CE not 2008 BCE, after all!
All these arguments are fine and everything, except for when you people always drift to "OH NO GENITAL MUTILATION" or "OUTLAW INFANT MUTILATION ITS 2008 ITS THE FUTURE!"
Every study, when bias is removed, showed there is no benefit, or negative effect to circumcision.
Outlawing what a parent consents to have done to their children is fascism. Again, no negative or positive effects to it. That would be the same as a law being passed that required circumcision be done to all males at birth.
In the 1990s a law was passed in USA banning female circumcision on minors. In your view that was fascism, right?