Zulu king's circumcision decree

[gymfresh]

Some of post from the position that circumcision will do nothing to slow down the HIV rate, because circumcision does not make one less likely to become HIV-positive. This applies as much to Africa as to Denmark. We bother making the point because we also don't want to see people die. The billions of dollars needed for a circumcision ramp-up as described would be far more effectively invested in other approaches.

 

[Snozzle]

1. It reduces to risk of infection to a man.

1a. It does not reduce - may even increase - the rate of infection to a woman.
1b. The rate of male-female infections is much higher - I just saw the figure of 8 times, but I don't know how good it is - than the rate of female-male infections.

3. Reduced risk of infections means that, with time, less men AND women will be infected.

(I'd like help in expressing this more clearly, but) If you half-stem a flow that is only one aspect of a problem, while an equally important flow that is as much as eight times as great goes unstemmed (and perhaps even increased), you will make very little impact on the final distribution - especially when there are other flows (male-male sex, IV drugs, contaminated surgical instruments, informal injection) that are unaffected.

 

[Snozzle]

... The feedback, I have is that white coloured condoms look ridiculous on a black penis. There are still racial problems in South Africa, and I can understand the sentiment that some brown people do not want their penis to be white.

I'd have thought that like cats, all cocks are black in the dark and that it's foolish to risk your life for a matter of appearance, but I'm white so I won't judge what is important those who aren't, and emerging from the apartheid regime. It wouldn't help if potential partners go into fits of giggles at seeing a "white" penis.

But this is interesting and possibly important. Has any effort been made to provide enough black condoms in Africa? It seems so obvious, surely the moment the matter is raised, heads should go up and factories swing into action. A search on "black condom" just provides a few novelty varieties "for formal occasions" - and they are jet black, not an actual colour of black skin.

 

[SirConcis]

You can't compare Africa with Denmark. Denmark has more monogamous society whereas many parts of Africa have men hump many females during young adulthood before they settle down. Because a female is humped by many males, if one male infects her, she ends up infecting many males.

Because of this, any measure which reduces the rate of spread in Africa is extremely valuable. Circumcision is one such measure.

When a society is promiscusious by nature, it is pointless to try to teach them about abstinence.

When religions tell people that using condoms is illegal, it becomes harder to get people to accept condoms. And one country even based its funding for aids help on the requirement that condoms NOT be part of the plans because condoms imply people are having sex and that country wanted to teach about abstinence.


Yes, if everyone used condoms all the time, it would be a superior method, but the reality is that tetting men to always use condoms is next to impossible while it seems relatively easy to convince them to get circumcised.

So, at this point, circumcision is a very effecetive method to curb spread of aids compared to other methods. Obviously, things may change over time if other methods are found or is men accept to wear condoms all the time.

 

[circumin86]

Two bad. The minority nuts of anticircs like babies love their foreskins. So be it. But the other 98% of us enjoy their nice circumcisions. Zulu King can get out of his rut of a century. But anticircs can't.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

So, at this point, circumcision is a very effecetive method to curb spread of aids compared to other methods. Obviously, things may change over time if other methods are found or is men accept to wear condoms all the time.

That's kind of begging the question about the entire thread, isn't it? Circumcision may theoretically -- I dunno -- reduce the chance of infection, and reduce it more than condoms. However, that still may mean condoms are a more cost-effective health policy (and one without ethical hang-ups.) Is that so? I'd have to look at the data, yes, specific to Africa. So would you, though, and I'm not getting the sense you have.

Also, "When a society is promiscuous by nature, it is pointless to teach them about abstinence" -- I really wish you'd read up more on HIV prevention in Africa before making a broad statement like that. Not pure abstinence, but reduction in promiscuity, is pretty damn important and has had some successes.

Two bad. The minority nuts of anticircs like babies love their foreskins. So be it. But the other 98% of us enjoy their nice circumcisions. Zulu King can get out of his rut of a century. But anticircs can't.

none of your posts make any sense at all.

 

[mandoman]

Two bad. The minority nuts of anticircs like babies love their foreskins. So be it. But the other 98% of us enjoy their nice circumcisions. Zulu King can get out of his rut of a century. But anticircs can't.

Each of us, male and female, are born with a foreskin. It's the factory setting. Does that make the human race nuts?
Do you think it is the bigots against the foreskins, or the 3 billion male foreskin owners, who are really nuts?
If someone came up to you on the street, and made the proposition, "Hey buddy. I could take away half the skin of your dick. Or I could leave it alone. Your choice.", you'd be nuts to say, "Leave it alone", right?

 

[ManchesterTom]

Each of us, male and female, are born with a foreskin. It's the factory setting. Does that make the human race nuts?
Do you think it is the bigots against the foreskins, or the 3 billion male foreskin owners, who are really nuts?
If someone came up to you on the street, and made the proposition, "Hey buddy. I could take away half the skin of your dick. Or I could leave it alone. Your choice.", you'd be nuts to say, "Leave it alone", right?

Well, If removing the foreskin gives you some better chance of extending your life, then you would be foolish to keep your foreskin.

People cut more than their foreskin off to extend their lives, people with gangrene have limbs cut off.


I personally think that leaving the human body intact is the first prize in normal circumstances.

The AIDS epidemic here in Africa is NOT NORMAL.

Just do an experiment, look out at your street when it is busy, imagine that every person walking on one side of the street is infected with HIV and will LIKELY DIE OF AIDS RELATED COMPLICATIONS. Now imagine that every person on the other side of the street is NOT YET INFECTED.

The people crossing the street are transporting the virus back and forward.

With our 50% infection rate in Zululand, how long is it going to take for the viral load to spread to the healthy side of the street.

People we are losing the war against AIDS in parts of Africa, radical adversity needs radical measures to be taken.

The work force is dying off faster than people can be trained.

Hoards of Children are growing up without parents, housing, clothing, education, compassion etc etc.

In the big scheme of this catastrophe, I'm amazed that some people have such limited understanding of the scale of the AIDS pandemic, that you keep harping on about pro circ or anti circ. People we are beyond pro or anti circ, we are talking about an entire section of the human race being wiped out.

 

[ManchesterTom]

That's kind of begging the question about the entire thread, isn't it? Circumcision may theoretically -- I dunno -- reduce the chance of infection, and reduce it more than condoms. However, that still may mean condoms are a more cost-effective health policy (and one without ethical hang-ups.) Is that so? I'd have to look at the data, yes, specific to Africa. So would you, though, and I'm not getting the sense you have.

Also, "When a society is promiscuous by nature, it is pointless to teach them about abstinence" -- I really wish you'd read up more on HIV prevention in Africa before making a broad statement like that. Not pure abstinence, but reduction in promiscuity, is pretty damn important and has had some successes.



none of your posts make any sense at all.

You are 22, you live in a 1st world country, have running water, electricity, healthcare and a shop that sells condoms, that you can probably walk to before your erection dies down, and oh, yes, you very likely have the money to buy a condom or two.

Shipho Zulutwini, is also 22, gets water from a river in a rusty bucket, uses candles for lighting, the clinic is 10km away by foot, and, he has no money at all, but HE HAS AN ERECTION, AND SOMEONE TO SHARE IT WITH.

Shipho, is not going to cross a river and head for the clinic, and the stand in the clinic line for a few hours, no, he is very likely to say "Come here Beauty, let's get it on right here and now.

Since, you make the point that "none of your posts make any sense." - I'm really very keen to have you share how you would curb AIDS in Africa, right now, I'm out of ideas, and am looking forward to some positive thought provoking potential solutions.

 

[ManchesterTom]

Thank you for your kind input, it seems that you have some understanding of places outside your immediate border. So many people on forums make comments about other countries that they don't really know all that much about, and don't even own a passport for international travel, so will never find out.

Some of these same people would likely have problems locating South Africa on a map, some even think Africa is a country. Even ex Pres Bush Mk2 said Africa is a country.

You can't compare Africa with Denmark. Denmark has more monogamous society whereas many parts of Africa have men hump many females during young adulthood before they settle down. Because a female is humped by many males, if one male infects her, she ends up infecting many males.

Because of this, any measure which reduces the rate of spread in Africa is extremely valuable. Circumcision is one such measure.

When a society is promiscusious by nature, it is pointless to try to teach them about abstinence.

When religions tell people that using condoms is illegal, it becomes harder to get people to accept condoms. And one country even based its funding for aids help on the requirement that condoms NOT be part of the plans because condoms imply people are having sex and that country wanted to teach about abstinence.


Yes, if everyone used condoms all the time, it would be a superior method, but the reality is that tetting men to always use condoms is next to impossible while it seems relatively easy to convince them to get circumcised.

So, at this point, circumcision is a very effecetive method to curb spread of aids compared to other methods. Obviously, things may change over time if other methods are found or is men accept to wear condoms all the time.

 

[SirConcis]

There is obviosuly some debate about financial aspects of circumcision versus condoms. However, buying 1 million condoms for free distribution won't have an effect if nobody uses them. Using the same amount of money to circumcise men will have an effect on those men.

Best bet s to give free condoms to those willing to use them, and offer free circumcision to those willing to get cut. The more people they reach with methods that reduce spread of HIV, the better.

The anti circ people have no reason to be against this. These are willing adult men choosing to get cut. Perhaps the anti circers are unhappy about circumcision having definite advantages and men who choose to get cut happy with their new penis.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

You are 22, you live in a 1st world country, have running water, electricity, healthcare and a shop that sells condoms, that you can probably walk to before your erection dies down, and oh, yes, you very likely have the money to buy a condom or two.

Shipho Zulutwini, is also 22, gets water from a river in a rusty bucket, uses candles for lighting, the clinic is 10km away by foot, and, he has no money at all, but HE HAS AN ERECTION, AND SOMEONE TO SHARE IT WITH.

Shipho, is not going to cross a river and head for the clinic, and the stand in the clinic line for a few hours, no, he is very likely to say "Come here Beauty, let's get it on right here and now.

Since, you make the point that "none of your posts make any sense." - I'm really very keen to have you share how you would curb AIDS in Africa, right now, I'm out of ideas, and am looking forward to some positive thought provoking potential solutions.

I'm lost man...did you misread my post? I said that I think circumcision is a potentially cost-efficient strategy in Africa, but I haven't sat down and look at the empirical evidence well enough to have a position either way. Just because the situation is frustrating (and, seriously, I can only imagine how frustrating you are) doesn't mean I'm going to abandon evidentiary analysis. You seem to be implying I'm refusing to consider options, or superimposing U.S. health policy on Africa, and I don't know what gave you that idea.

I was only saying circumin86's posts don't make any sense because they literally don't make any sense. Read through a few and you'll see what I mean.

 

[mandoman]

Well, If removing the foreskin gives you some better chance of extending your life, then you would be foolish to keep your foreskin.

People cut more than their foreskin off to extend their lives, people with gangrene have limbs cut off.


I personally think that leaving the human body intact is the first prize in normal circumstances.

The AIDS epidemic here in Africa is NOT NORMAL.

Just do an experiment, look out at your street when it is busy, imagine that every person walking on one side of the street is infected with HIV and will LIKELY DIE OF AIDS RELATED COMPLICATIONS. Now imagine that every person on the other side of the street is NOT YET INFECTED.

The people crossing the street are transporting the virus back and forward.

With our 50% infection rate in Zululand, how long is it going to take for the viral load to spread to the healthy side of the street.

People we are losing the war against AIDS in parts of Africa, radical adversity needs radical measures to be taken.

The work force is dying off faster than people can be trained.

Hoards of Children are growing up without parents, housing, clothing, education, compassion etc etc.

In the big scheme of this catastrophe, I'm amazed that some people have such limited understanding of the scale of the AIDS pandemic, that you keep harping on about pro circ or anti circ. People we are beyond pro or anti circ, we are talking about an entire section of the human race being wiped out.

I get that.
The answer in every other country is, "Use a condom". Why? Because we got tired of burying our circumcised guys who thought they were safer.

 

[mandoman]

There is obviosuly some debate about financial aspects of circumcision versus condoms. However, buying 1 million condoms for free distribution won't have an effect if nobody uses them. Using the same amount of money to circumcise men will have an effect on those men.

Best bet s to give free condoms to those willing to use them, and offer free circumcision to those willing to get cut. The more people they reach with methods that reduce spread of HIV, the better.

The anti circ people have no reason to be against this. These are willing adult men choosing to get cut. Perhaps the anti circers are unhappy about circumcision having definite advantages and men who choose to get cut happy with their new penis.

No, the anti-circ people are tired of watching their loved ones die, because they thought they were safer, and didn't have to use a condom.

 

[ManchesterTom]

No, the anti-circ people are tired of watching their loved ones die, because they thought they were safer, and didn't have to use a condom.

Mandoman, free condoms are given out by government, and fundraising organisations, circ is done free of charge, thousands of billboards are advertising safe sex, red ribbons, encouraging slogans in English and the other 11 languages.

ARV drugs are also free, however, there are thousands of people who can't make the journey to the towns to visit the clinics.

Some people have started smoking ARV drugs recreationally, and attack the sick and infirm for their "fix".

The business of burial is so brisk, that it is starting to seem that there are more funeral shops (selling head stones, hire of tents and funeral party catering, ) than food shops.

The living relatives put the family into financial distress, by having a super duper funeral. There are many who go from one funeral to the next just to get their meals.

It would be very sad that black people came through the struggle against the apartheid regime, only to fuck themselves into extinction, because of cultural rights and common behaviour.

There are no easy fixes for this tragedy.

 

[mandoman]

Circ is done free of charge. It simply doesn't work. The researchers fudged the numbers. There was no shortage of collusion, with the WHO, and other organizations.

If condoms are a problem, then oral sex is a solution. The HIV virus can't survive in the mouth or stomach, as long as there are no cuts in the mouth. I wouldn't floss, and then shortly after have oral sex, but other than that, it is a low risk, immediate gratification kind of behavior.

The situation sounds a lot like hell.

I am convinced, from looking at other hells, like the Jewish Holocaust, that the survivors will sort it out. Humanity has a way of restoring its own humanity, in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

It sounds like the South African government has a failure of will. That is not unusual, for a government, anywhere.

This is the saddest story I have heard, since the concentration camps. My heart breaks for both you, and your country.

 

[SirConcis]

Mandoman, not only are the statics concusive on reduction of spread of aids, but they also know why/how circumcision diminishes the risk for the male to catch it from an infected vagina. (because of the langerhans cells becoming out of reach once the inner foreskin thickens post circumcision.).

What is not know is how long it takes for the remaining inner foreskin to thicken to provide that barrier that prevents HIV to latch on to langerhans cells. So there is debate on whether circumcsions should remove as much of inner foreskin as possible or not.

 

[mandoman]

Right. Not. The people who conducted the three major African studies, were all rabidly pro-circumcision before they started...and had been, for decades. Some of them are also members of circumcision fetish organizations. Ronald Gray has published with Brian Morris, repeatedly. Morris has been a member of circlist, the Gilgal Society (two well-known circumcision fetish supporter organizations). Robert C. Bailey is not even a medical doctor. He has been associated with the Gilgal Society. Bailey also formally published with Morris. From what I can see, he co-authored a pamphlet for the Gilgal Society, with Morris, and Vernon Quaintance, founder of the Gilgal Society. Quaintance is now a sex offender, arrested in Croydon, UK, and convicted, and sentenced for child porn. Bertran Auvert, third author of a major African study, apparently also co-wrote a pamphlet for the Gilgal Society. Gilgal means "hill of foreskins". Daniel T. Halperin, also not a doctor, was instrumental in promoting the studies at the WHO. He was formerly with Harvard. He was a member of Circlist. He co-authored a work with a London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, doctor Helen Weiss. On the oversight panel for the WHO, are, you guessed it, Gray's employer, Johns Hopkins, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Weiss' employer), and the University of Chicago, Bailey's employer.
Some quotes from Halperin:
"Circumcision is too human, too 'soft.' "
"It's as if you went to a lung-cancer resource center and they had nothing at all about cigarettes. What the hell is going on? Why is everyone ignoring the elephant-sized foreskin in the living room? "

A quote from Robert C. Bailey:
“We’re hacking away at it every month,” Dr. Bailey said. “Those foreskins are flying.” This quote was published in the New York Times.

Here is a copy of a mail message Halperin sent to a pro-circumcision group in Yahoo Groups.
http://circleaks.org/images/1/1f/MCIRC_-_Msg_16.pdf

One can guess that Vernon is Vernon Quaintance, founder of Gilgal Society. One can also guess that smoses is Stephen Moses, co-author with Robert C. Bailey of one of the African studies. It is not a great stretch to imagine that brianm is Brian Morris. circlist is the world famous circumcision fetish supporting organization. rcbailey could easily be imagined as Robert C. Bailey.

Morris has some truly off the wall videos which one can readily see in You Tube, and wrote "Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century", contrary to the medical advice of every country which has a medical policy on circumcision, including his native Australia.
Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century - Morris - 2007 - BioEssays - Wiley Online Library
He also quickly tried to hide his Gilgal Society membership, when Quaintance went down.

The WHO's chief advisor on circumcision has been Dr. David Tomlinson. I believe he just got his 4th patent for a circumcision device.

Still think the statistics are conclusive?
Why does the medical organization of no country find the three African studies solid enough evidence to embrace them, and make infant circumcision their policy?

 

[JTalbain]

USAID (The United States Agency for International Development) is completely unaffiliated with any pro or anti-circumcision groups. They did a study to gather the HIV/AIDS rates in various countries in Africa, and examined the results by various demographics, one of which was circumcision status. They went into the study fully expecting to find circumcision had a protective effect, they were just checking to see what degree it affected infection rates. What they found was quite different. They confirmed the rates in Uganda, with circumcised men having a 50% lower infection rate, but out of the 18 countries they examined, only 8 had a lower rate among cut men, while the other 10 had lower rates among intact men. They effectively proved that there was no correlation. http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

Mandoman, not only are the statics concusive on reduction of spread of aids, but they also know why/how circumcision diminishes the risk for the male to catch it from an infected vagina. (because of the langerhans cells becoming out of reach once the inner foreskin thickens post circumcision.).

What is not know is how long it takes for the remaining inner foreskin to thicken to provide that barrier that prevents HIV to latch on to langerhans cells. So there is debate on whether circumcsions should remove as much of inner foreskin as possible or not.

circumcision - HIV - Langerhans cells
And that's an example of psuedoscience with a directed result. Two different studies, both performed with the intent to examine Langerhans' cells in the foreskin and determine their effect on HIV transmission.

Study 1) Examines the foreskin and finds that there are more Langerhans cells in the foreskin than other areas of the penis.

Study 2) Examines the foreskin and finds that there are almost no Langerhans cells in the foreskin.

Study 1) Chooses to latch onto the theory that HIV latches onto Langerhans cells as a primary vector for transmission.

Study 2) Chooses to latch onto the observation that Langerhans cells are a primary cell for immuno defense against STDs.

Study 1) Proposes that the foreskin's presence creates an easier entry point into the body due to the presence of Langerhans cells.

Study 2) Proposes that the foreskin's presence creates an easier entry point into the body due to the absence of Langerhans cells.

Study 1&2) Recommend circumcision.

The science on the matter of transmission is not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think. These studies have clearly conflicting findings and yet come to the exact same conclusion. Why?

 

[SirConcis]

Actually, the initial studies were done by a French doctor (from France) who had no vested interest in circumcision. Betrand Auvert if I recall correcty.

In terms of variations in the findings: simi;lar to comparing to dennmark: in coutries where society is less promiscusous, circumcision will have less of an effect since the spread of HIC is not "epidemic" proportions.

In countries where HIV is epidemic in proportions, circumcision has a definite impact. You can't lump all of african into one country.

And because coubries were carved up by western europe without considering tribal areas there are many countries that are made up of different tribes in different areas of the country. Some tribes may be more prone to HIV than others depending on lifestyles.