Yet more evidence for Circumcision
- Thread starter Phil Ayesho
- Start date
scottredleter
Sexy Member
People have such an agenda with the subject of circumcision, that I can't even believe any of the research on the topic. Trust me... I helped bury many, many, many of my friends. Most of them were cut. Let me ask this... do you believe this research enough (if you are cut) to just go out and have all kinds of unprotected gay anal sex? I didn't think so. My penis (all of it) belongs to me and nobody has the right to cut it except me.
No we're not. I could give a shit what adults do with their dicks. But I think any adult who chooses circ for non-medical reasons (there are a few legitimate medical reasons) is ill informed and likely highly influenced by religion or culture.
A baby's risk of HIV is zero (unless the mother is infected). Since you've had two circumcisions, you know that it is a short same day or outpatient surgery. Something that can be decided in adulthood with fully informed consent. Not possible for babies. In fact this is the only elective surgery in existence that someone else can impose on another human being.
There is absolutely no reasonable argument for continued routine infant circumcision.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Media
- 421
- Likes
- 2,675
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
** I rather think it is the pro-circ's that sit with the dilemma of continuously trying to find justification for this bizarre practise.
There is no opposition if an adult freely chooses this (however, why anyone would want to is beyond me...) **
Last edited:
Titsdude21
Sexy Member
So pretty much if u never shower/clean ur cock u might get an STI
So in other words if u live in any part of the world where u can shower once/twice a day or even use a condom u dont need to get part of ur cock cut off?
So in other words if u live in any part of the world where u can shower once/twice a day or even use a condom u dont need to get part of ur cock cut off?
You ignored the rest of the stuff under "Is this the right thing to do"
What about the question I raised these circumcisions that were done to reduce the epidemic could actually make the epidemic worse? Most likely it would since the most effective method is safe sex and abstinence, not circumcision.
This thread should be retitled Yet More Evidence Against Circumcision.
One in five HIV infections in Africa caused by medical staff - Telegraph
They've much more serious troubles over there than many of us can comprehend. Like access to clean drinking water and food.
Sorry but I'm not lopping off my foreskin just because a bunch of girls accross the Atlantic like it that way.
Well, Duh... you're gay and not american.
Just the same I now know 3 guys who had their's lopped off for that very reason...
Not one of them has complained about the results.
Yeah- that's an argument... let's NOT do something we KNOW helps because there are other things we can do that will also help.
I suppose you would argue there's no point in giving starving people cake because they need protein, too.
Or no point in putting gas in your car because it's Also out of windshield wiper fluid.
Sheesh... how eager you folks are to impose your lunacy on others thru law.
First, I'd like to thank you for mocking us, for being the way we were born. We have foreskins, so we are lunatics.
Second, are you agreeing, or disagreeing with the AMA, which says that there are 'potential benefits", not "actual benefits". The three studies in Africa which everybody is tripping over themselves to crow about, were based on poor science. Not one was actually completed.
The scientists are ignoring the 6 studies which were actually completed, which showed that men with foreskins were less likely to contract HIV.
You must know that most Americans are circumcised, and many still died of AIDS anyway.
Europeans, who are mostly uncut, do not have the same high rate. How do you, Phil, account for this?
Who is imposing what on whom? Nobody is trying to legally stop you from cutting your child. In my opinion, this is a sad thing for your children. You, however, are literally carving your medically unbackedup opinion in their flesh.
What is so wrong with supplying education and condoms to Africa? Especially instead of cutting them with HIV infected knives?
Second, are you agreeing, or disagreeing with the AMA, which says that there are 'potential benefits", not "actual benefits". The three studies in Africa which everybody is tripping over themselves to crow about, were based on poor science. Not one was actually completed.
The scientists are ignoring the 6 studies which were actually completed, which showed that men with foreskins were less likely to contract HIV.
You must know that most Americans are circumcised, and many still died of AIDS anyway.
Europeans, who are mostly uncut, do not have the same high rate. How do you, Phil, account for this?
Who is imposing what on whom? Nobody is trying to legally stop you from cutting your child. In my opinion, this is a sad thing for your children. You, however, are literally carving your medically unbackedup opinion in their flesh.
What is so wrong with supplying education and condoms to Africa? Especially instead of cutting them with HIV infected knives?
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Posts
- 442
- Media
- 33
- Likes
- 250
- Points
- 363
- Location
- Rainforest dweller
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
It's kind of hard to follow the mumbo jumbo of this post (I suspect too much alcohol and/or drugs)
I don't think there are many in this forum who are seeking to out law circumcision, but rather educate parents and remind them of the rights of their children.
Gee your arguments are water tight. How about let's not make up modern rationales for a bronze age blood ritual.
Circumcising Newborn Males Is a Cost Effective Strategy for HIV Prevention in Rwanda, Study Finds
And for only $15. Jeez I pay more than that to fill up the tank.
And for only $15. Jeez I pay more than that to fill up the tank.
When we start basing medical care on the Rwanda model maybe. :hmpf: It already is.
Should a Nine-Year-Old Boy Be Circumcised Against His Wishes? | Reader's Digest
It already is.Should a Nine-Year-Old Boy Be Circumcised Against His Wishes? | Reader's Digest
Actually, I have a few other solutions to explain the heterosexual/homosexual infection rate difference.
First off, most new HIV infections as a result of intercourse are among younger individuals. These individuals, psychologically speaking, tend to think of themselves as invulnerable. They don't dwell on the subject of their own mortality, and they often perform actions with long-term negative consequences. As a result, younger people are less likely to practice safe sex in order to prevent STD transmission. The reason why younger people are more likely to wear a condom is so the girl doesn't get pregnant. This would, after all, reduce their freedom to have a good time. Gay men don't have to worry about pregnancy.
Next, it is important to remember that the initial boom of HIV infection was primarily within the gay community. Men were having anonymous bareback sex with other men thinking it was consequence free, and all of a sudden a huge proportion of them were infected. Bisexual men ensured it wasn't strictly limited to the gay population, but the concentration was MUCH higher here. These infected men didn't become celibate after infection either; they continued having sex with other men and kept the count high. It's only been 34 years since HIV reached American soil, it'll take a while for the numbers to level out some.
Finally, heterosexuals are much more likely to eventually land in a monogamous relationship, which is a virtual safe haven against STDs if your partner is clean. This is because marriage is allowed for heterosexual couples, and is not allowed in most areas for gay couples. With no official legal structure to provide advantages to such a relationship, there is less of a push to be monogamous for gay couples, thus ensuring a higher average of polygamous homosexuals.
As a side note, I find your connection of drug use to the gay community to be laughable at best.
Sad to see that this seems to go on endlessly. At 57 years old I come from the generation that within the gay community was nearly obliterated by HIV infection. I personally between business, relatives and friendship between the mid 1980's and 2000 buried no less than 52 people that I knew from the ravages of HIV infection. In my age group virtually all of these men were by coincidence circumcised. In my generation most were "Chopped" as a routine matter of practice.
I was the one who held the hands, I was the one who gave injections when some of these men were too ill to do it themselves, and I was the one who watched disease in the form of "opportunistic infections" take each and every one of these lives.
Try holding the hands of people you care about and watch a death from "P.M.L" which is a death and opportunistic infection you have to see to believe.
To attribute HIV infection to the presence or lack of a foreskin is irresponsible no matter whom it is that does it.
HIV is transmitted in fact by a very limited set of circumstances. These are based on contact, and introduction into the circulatory system, of living HIV virus. This can be accomplished in the following ways. Oral sex has the ability on a very limited basis to transmit through gum disease of the recipient of seminal fluid and or semen. This is a very "poor" route of transmission, but it can happen in that manner. The most likely method of transmission is caused by being anal receptive and the introduction of the virus takes place via micro-tears in the lining of the anal canal during sex. In vaginal sex, the same thing takes place. The person providing the semen is already an infected individual, and the person receiving the seminal fluids or semen and being receptive is infected when the HIV retrovirus is able to be introduced into the smallest of capillaries in this manner.
Transmission of the virus from the person being anal receptive (bottom) to the (top) takes place when the person doing this has a situation where the blood from the microtears of the receptive individual can enter the urethra and via small microtears or a urethral infection. Manually caused microtears, can be done in sexual foreplay by "exotic activities". (exotic could include "sounding" or other related activities)
Now, if HIV in the civilized world were to be transmitted via the presence of a foreskin the ONLY way that this would be possible would be if the glans of the penis were in some way already injured again providing a pathway for the retrovirus to enter. An example of how to do this would include catching a glans in the zipper of a pair of pants. The same would be true of catching the foreskin itself in a zipper.
In the world of HIV research the words are: "publish or perish" and if you don't publish (good or bad) you do not get grant awards to continue your research. For a scientist, this also means that he and or his family doesn't eat.
When it comes to HIV, the figures have been questionable from the beginning with regards to this retrovirus and it's distribution between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.
In the early years, because of the political stigma, MD's hesitated to use the letters HIV if a heterosexual person was involved. Many years ago, I was personally in the office of a 70-year-old female MD (an associate of my late Stepfather) working on this in Los Angeles. She became so angry at what was going on with the statistics she in a screaming tyrade resigned her position in analysis and went to work tending movie stars old enough to require carbon dating. She told me that she found tons of evidence that was painting a picture that was incorrect. At that time, according to her, if a guy ended up in bed with PCP pneumonia, covered with KS purple and a mouth full of thrush while having a wife and six kids, the MD's often used the words "immune system shutdown" on their diagnosis report. As long as the attending MD's did not use the words "HIV" or "AIDS" in their diagnosis, the statistic was not recorded as HIV. On the other hand, the same MD's when attending a flamboyant gay man would not hesitate to write down "HIV" or "AIDS" when the actual diagnosis came out to be common bacterial pneumonia. By the time the corrected diagnosis was submitted the reports and statistics had already gone to the CDC. It took years for this to change, and it was this kind of action that totally made a mess of the initial disease distribution to the CDC. As this changed, and HIV transmission gained greater understanding, the diagnosis became less a political football and more of a statistic.
In a way, we have the celebrity deaths from this virus to thank for bringing it into the limelight, and taking away at least some of the political "value". Brad Davis, Paul Shenar, Rock Hudson, Lee Liberace, and many others to follow kept the disease process in the limelight. Those losing children to this disease process have included Robert Guillame, Harry Morgan, and Russell Johnson.
Today, in order to cover up the lack of developments on the HIV front, researchers have to sit back and debate the "old issues" over and over again by introducing variables and then repeatedly going after the "what if" we change this or that, what would happen to the transmission models.
Right now, our biggest challenge in removing HIV from the map are those individuals who actually pursue becoming infected, and those who choose to ignore accurate information.
Religion also has to make money. Historically, religion fills a collection plate by "demonizing" something. In the United States, organized religion has worked very diligently to maintain a power base. Coming from a medical family as I have said in the past, I dig very deep to find out who it was that supplied funding for various data studies. Privately funded studies are another way for those employed in medical science to survive. When you have a study funded by a front for some corporate or religious organization, the findings will nearly always reflect more opinion than actual fact.
Everybody can be "bought" for the right price and this includes most scientists.
The exact routes and vectoring of HIV transmission are in fact OLD OLD news. What you see now on this are a bunch of "also rans" spouting more opinion than fact.
The bottom line is the presence or absence of a foreskin is not going to prevent or encourage HIV transmission. What will prevent it is making certain that there is no actual transmission pathway of the virus to the bloodstream. It is that simple! PERIOD!
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/HIV-africa-vs-c.png
CIRCUMCISION INCREASES HIV RISKS too, let alone lowering the rate at which you have sex
www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
CIRCUMCISION INCREASES HIV RISKS too, let alone lowering the rate at which you have sex
www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
Last edited:
dc46064
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Posts
- 253
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 75
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Central Indiana
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
You got it right! The whole thing in Africa has nothing really to do with circumcision, it has to do with a bath, cleaning your penis on a regular basis, and if you have been there you know it doesnt happen very often. I am 50. My group had no choice, they just cut us without even asking. Thats a crime in its self to me. I have only been with 2 men that were uncut. Would like to study it some more. I thought to myself, wow- why would someone cut part of my penis off. To me, my opinion- it all has to do with church, and thats it. God wanted Jews to do it so they would always be able to tell who a jew was. This was only for Jews and the bible even says it. Seems this country trys to get as close to a jew as possible, thinking they are closer to God ,like it is going to make a difference to God. To me thats all it has to do with it. Make us a Jew and closer to God they think. Everything in this country has something to do with church. Bet you havent heard this very often.
Yes, having clean water for drinking and sanitation and a clean food supply and some way to deal with wastes. You can acquire immune deficiency by being exposed to dangerous pathogens too often and "curing" the problem with broad spectrum oral antibiotics.
