Cobalt Blue
Legendary Member
Oh please go away and get a life you envious, odious, intolerant, discriminatory troll.horribleperson said:
Study Links Male Circumcision To Woman's HIV Risk
- Thread starter Pappy
- Start date
I never assumed / thought there'd been any deliberate editing.Pappy said:
For my sins, I read a lot of original papers and even in those supposedly peer reviewed articles there's a "Chinese Whispers" at play changing the meaning between reports, reports of those reports etc. It's a pain, but it's just the way it is.
In this case it just raised a question on numbers. Nothing drastic and nothing that affected the substance of the report.
---
James
There are a number of problems with this study. First off, no reputable medical journal is willing to publish it due to inconsistencies. Secondly, the healing time for circumcision is about 6 weeks but the study began when they were circumcised, not six weeks later. It also doesn't explain why the HIV infection rate is higher in the US than in Europe given that most sexually active males from the 80s and 90s were circumcised in the US and that very few in Europe are.
Another problem that I have with the whole circumcision is best is that the foreskin prevents or at least minimizes friction. A circumcised penis is much more likely to create tears in the vaginal or anal tissue due to its lack of a 'skin. There's also some evidence that cut guys have to try harder due to lack of sensitivity and that will create more friction.
Another problem that I have with the whole circumcision is best is that the foreskin prevents or at least minimizes friction. A circumcised penis is much more likely to create tears in the vaginal or anal tissue due to its lack of a 'skin. There's also some evidence that cut guys have to try harder due to lack of sensitivity and that will create more friction.
Something never mentioned in any of these studies are the various sexual practices and preferences of the study group. When in the UK, I asked the question of why Africans have such a problem with HIV to some S. Africans (cauc) and Brits who had spent a lot of time there (various areas of Africa) and the subject of the WAY they have sex came up. Apparently, African women use various methods to dry the vaginal canal in an attempt to make sex more pleasurable for the man. Drying is supposed to make the vagina feel like a virgin again and provide the sensation of tightness and create additional friction. There are commercial products there that can be bought, natural products that can be used, soaps, appliances, you can name anything that will dry the vagina and it is probably used. Lubrication is rarely used. Also, there are other methods of having sex which they believe do not transmit HIV, but in the process infected bodily fluids are introduced into one or both people. I think one of these is that the man constantly rubs his dick on the clit until both reach orgasm. I imagine this occurs when there is discharge of fluid from both of the partners, but there is technically no penetration (so this apparently does not transmit any disease?).
I dont know. Its something I only heard about and have never witnessed, but it made sense to me because we think sex is sex, but in other parts of the World, sex can be very different. At the end of the day, the transmission of HIV, STDs, and whatever else comes up to mess things up is about educating individuals about transmission in direct relation to their sexual practices. How long do you think it will take for that to happen? Im sure most of you have never even thought of having dry sex or would even consider it a preference.
I didnt do any Google on this because a lot of you are very intelligent, and much better at communicating information than I could ever be. do some research to see what you come up with to blow that study out of the water and to make some people (or yourself) realize how trivial and useless it is. Very incomplete and useless to anyone.
I would have been happy with the "if you're infected and bang a lot, you're more likely to spread AIDs."
Damn, education has gone down, downhill.
At the end of the day, it's a bit like arguing the case that "getting hit by lightning isn't always fatal", or that "you can survive falling out of plane without a parachute".
Just because something has a probability of it happening, doesn't always mean it's in your favour.
Reminds me of the comment that cities with more Churches have a higher crime rate......because they have large populations from which criminals can derive from!
Damn, education has gone down, downhill.
At the end of the day, it's a bit like arguing the case that "getting hit by lightning isn't always fatal", or that "you can survive falling out of plane without a parachute".
Just because something has a probability of it happening, doesn't always mean it's in your favour.
Reminds me of the comment that cities with more Churches have a higher crime rate......because they have large populations from which criminals can derive from!
perthjames
Cherished Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Posts
- 340
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 302
- Points
- 533
- Location
- Sydney (New South Wales, Australia)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Is there anything in the research indicating whether or not the use of a condom reduces the risk of HIV infection? Probably not...
Honestly, these reports that come out from time to time that link circumcision (or non-circumcision) with HIV need to be carefully considered in the context of safer sex.
If someone is HIV positive, it doesn't matter if they have a foreskin or not, if they don't use a condom, they risk infecting their partners.
If someone has HIV they should be wearing a condom to prevent transmission irrespective of whether they're circumcised or not.
Honestly, these reports that come out from time to time that link circumcision (or non-circumcision) with HIV need to be carefully considered in the context of safer sex.
If someone is HIV positive, it doesn't matter if they have a foreskin or not, if they don't use a condom, they risk infecting their partners.
If someone has HIV they should be wearing a condom to prevent transmission irrespective of whether they're circumcised or not.
There have been numerous studies over the past two decades, some seem to indicate some potential benefits of circumcision, where it fails for me is explaining why the vast majority of American HIV postive males are circumcised. I just think there is some poor correlations here. I think it has more to do with behaviour.
If safe practice isn't there, nothing is going to protect you, cut or uncut. I just wish that message would get accross instead of some researcher trying to garner points to continue this stupid practice and the "Mindless Masses" getting a message that your protected (immune, whatever) by just cutting. :disappointed:
Don't believe the hype.
If safe practice isn't there, nothing is going to protect you, cut or uncut. I just wish that message would get accross instead of some researcher trying to garner points to continue this stupid practice and the "Mindless Masses" getting a message that your protected (immune, whatever) by just cutting. :disappointed:
Don't believe the hype.
hottxboi16
Experimental Member
Who cares? Dont have sex with someone with HIV and you wont get it..plain and simple 
well actually, no it ain't. your prospective partner may not know that they have HIV, or they may not tell you even if they do. either way, it isn't really the issue and it shouldn't make any difference - the bottom line is that unless you both know for a certainty that neither of you is positive, you should protect yourselves.hottxboi16 said:Who cares? Dont have sex with someone with HIV and you wont get it..plain and simple
hottxboi16
Experimental Member
Get tested before you engage in sexual activity...People should be tested regurlarily anyways
Dr Rock said:
hottxboi16 said:
Unfortunately, unless BOTH people have been locked in a room alone since the tests were taken, and they are the more expensive form of HIV test, there is STILL no guarantee. Unless you trust someone else in a monogamous relationship enough to risk your life (and loving and trusting someone that much IS a measure of how deep a relationship is), you should ALWAYS treat ANY sexual encounter as a risk of contracting some STD. THis is simple self preservation. It isn't about anything personal, but simple self protection. End of rant.
Better plan.
Just
Don't
Fuck.
It seems it is safer to go on holiday to Iraq than to have sex. But in both cases "you never hear the bullet with your name on it".
Just
Don't
Fuck.
It seems it is safer to go on holiday to Iraq than to have sex. But in both cases "you never hear the bullet with your name on it".
There's even more to it. Here's an interesting blurb about WHEN circumcision should be performed, and why. I think you will also notice that in everything God recommends we do, He has more than just one reason for doing so. Suddenly now, we discover, "Well whatdoyaknow-- He was right, this time..."
In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name vitamin K for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn males life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normaland is the only day in the males life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.
![prothrom.jpg]()
Dr. McMillen observed:
In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name vitamin K for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn males life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normaland is the only day in the males life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.
Dr. McMillen observed:
We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham....
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K (1984, p. 93).
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K (1984, p. 93).
Similar threads
- deleted23861351
- General Sexual Discussion 2
