NationStates Jolt Archive

..I shudder at the thought of the discussion I am about to instigate... God forgive me :p

Any how according to this (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/tb/5121), circumcision is proven to help prevent AIDS. Obvisouly not a be all end all but; "It cuts the risk of HIV infection by more than 50%.".

Here's the article for those who don't like clicking alot.:

CHICAGO, Feb. 23 -- The verdict on male circumcision and HIV transmission has been validated. It cuts the risk of HIV infection by more than 50%.
Action Points

* Explain to interested patients that sexual activity is the most common way HIV is transmitted and that the most effective way of preventing HIV transmission during sex is to use a condom.

* Note, however, that these studies show that circumcised men have a lower risk of contracting HIV, although the procedure is not an absolute barrier to the virus.

Now the question is how to implement what some experts called "the most compelling evidence-based prevention strategy" since it was discovered that anti-retroviral drugs could interrupt mother-to child transmission of HIV.

The publication of two large African studies in the Feb. 24 issue of The Lancet brings to three the major trials that have found male circumcision helps prevent HIV.

All three were halted early after data monitoring committees found a significant benefit for the circumcised men.

* Circumcision Halves Risk of Heterosexual HIV Transmission;
* Male Circumcision Equal to Vaccine in Preventing HIV Infection

Although there had been questions about the methods used in the first study -- of 3,274 men in South Africa -- the latest trials confirm the early results:

* In 2,784 men ages 18 to 24 in Kisumu, Kenya, researchers found the two-year HIV incidence was 2.1% in the circumcised men and 4.2% among controls -- a difference that was statistically significant at P=0.0065.
* The risk reduction in the Kenyan trial was 53%.
* In 4,996 men ages 15 to 49 in the rural Rakai district of Uganda, researchers found a two-year HIV incidence of 0.66 cases per 100 person-years in circumcised men and 1.33 cases per 100 person-years among controls, which was significant at P=0.006.
* The risk reduction in Uganda was 51%.

The South African study, by comparison, showed a risk reduction of 60%.

The mechanism of the protection appears to relate to exposure of HIV target cells, according to Robert Bailey, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago, and colleagues, who led the Kenyan trial.

They wrote, "the inner mucosal surface of the human foreskin, exposed upon erection, has nine times higher density of HIV target cells (Langerhans' cells, CD4+ T cells, and macrophages) than does cervical tissue. In addition, by contrast with the foreskin's inner surface, HIV target cells on the outer surface and the glans are protected by a layer of squamous epithelial cells."

Dr. Bailey and colleagues added, "We now have very concrete evidence that a relatively simple surgical procedure can have a very large impact on HIV. This is really the first good news we've had in quite a long time. If we can reduce the risk of infection by such a substantial amount then we can save a lot of lives."

But outside experts cautioned that the finding must be put into practice with care, both practically and ethically.

"Otherwise, a historic opportunity to save lives could be squandered," said Marie-Louise Newell, Ph.D., of the United Kingdom's Medical Research Council and Till Bärnighausen, M.D., of Harvard Medical School.

In a commentary accompanying the two studies, Drs. Newell and Bärnighausen noted that while acceptance of circumcision appeared to be high in both studies, other communities may be less open.

Also, the number of health-care workers able to do circumcisions in adults safely is likely to be limited in many areas, they said.

On the public health front, the challenge will be to get across the message that circumcision reduces the risk but does not prevent HIV infection, so that condom use remains essential.

And finally, they argued, the ethics of widespread circumcision need to be addressed. "Is it ethical to circumcise everybody even if many will not benefit from the intervention," they asked -- for instance, those who don't engage in risky sexual behavior or are already HIV-positive?

On the other hand, they noted, a simple calculation of the risk reduction rates, applied to a high-risk area such as South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province -- where few of the 2.5 million men are circumcised -- shows that if the procedure were implemented, it would prevent about 35,000 new HIV infections in 2007 alone.

According to Thomas Coates, Ph.D., of the University of California at Los Angeles, and colleagues, it remains unclear if circumcision will reduce the risk of an HIV-positive man transmitting the virus to his female partners or if, conversely, it might increase the risk by "behavioral dis-inhibition."

In a viewpoint article, they cautioned that because all three studies reported much the same results, "pressure will begin mounting for broad implementation of male circumcision."

Such a strategy should not be attempted willy-nilly, they said, but only after widespread discussion and planning, in order to ensure that this "most compelling evidence-based prevention strategy (is) affordable and safely available" to all who need it.

The Kisumu trial found that 22 men in the intervention group and 47 in the control group had tested positive for HIV when the study was stopped Dec. 12, 2006.

Adverse events related to the procedure were few -- 21 events in 1.5% of the circumcised men -- and resolved quickly. The researchers saw no evidence of behavioral change after the surgery.

"We do know that some circumcised men become infected with HIV," Dr. Bailey said. "But we did find that the circumcised men in our study did not increase their risk behaviors after circumcision."

In both trials, all participants were given counseling about safe sex and had access to condoms.

In the Rakai trial, led by Ronald H. Gray, M.D., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 22 men in the intervention group and 45 in the control group had contracted HIV when the study was halted in December.

Adverse events were slightly higher -- occurring in 84 circumcisions, or 3.6% -- and all resolved with treatment. Behaviors were much the same in both groups during follow-up, the researchers said.

Ah, let the discussion begin!

You're still not putting anything sharp anywhere near my cock.

Here's a thought, use a rubber. Cuts AIDS risk by about 99.995%.

You're still not putting anything sharp anywhere near my cock.

You want to be circumcised with something dull? :eek:

How about fire? I hear circumcision by fire is quite a show. :)

I can't imagine a bunch of adult guys rushing to get circumcised.

And you make me giggle, LG :D

Ah, let the discussion begin!That's all fine and dandy, but 50% is still a lot less than 99.9%. If you wear a condom, you're still safer than if you got circumcized.

You want to be circumcised with something dull? :eek:

OMG!!!! :D :D :D

*shudders*

Really though, I wonder if people will read this article and accept it... I mean... wow. People should just accept that condoms are the best way to avoid STDs. Well, that or abstinence... :p

What's with all of these circumcision threads these days?

Most adults won't bother with circumcision now, but as for social policy goes, infant circumcision will likely go through the roof, every governing body in the world will be forced by their citizens to make it a public subsidy. Anti-circumcision groups are about to start looking like flat-earthers do, a good sound "Wake up and smell the coffee!" should be the only thing they hear from people anymore! :p

You want to be circumcised with something dull? :eek:

How about fire? I hear circumcision by fire is quite a show. :)

Curse your insane wit.

That's all fine and dandy, but 50% is still a lot less than 99.9%. If you wear a condom, you're still safer than if you got circumcized.
Yeah, but this is aimed more at central Africa where, regardless of the ideal situation of everyone using condoms, people simply refuse to do so. Circumcision, although I don't agree with it, could help stem the spread of HIV amongst these populations.

Here's a thought, use a rubber. Cuts AIDS risk by about 99.995%.

80%, and cost money, are easy to pass on (heat of the moment, you don't have one, you do it anyway), etc.

Here's a thought, use a rubber. Cuts AIDS risk by about 99.995%.
QFthefuckingT!
You want to be circumcised with something dull? :eek:
Put the spoon down, LG, and back away slowly!
How about fire? I hear circumcision by fire is quite a show. :)
Burning ring of fire?!? Uhm... No!

There's no way on Earth I'm going to get circumsized - no matter what the reason or how good the argument.

Besides, if God didn't want us guys to have a foreskin - we wouldn't have it to begin with. (Phrased a little simple, but that's how I feel).

[Could it be that circumcision has arisen as a religious practice in those areas of the world where sand or dust might cause irritation or infection and you couldn't have a daily bath because water is not always available in abundance? Just a thought.]

And come to think of it - reducing the chance to get an HIV infection by 50% is nice - but I'd rather use a condomn and tackle the other half as well.

Advocating genital mutilation when there are other, better, less invasive and permanent methods available to prevent infection doesn't go down well with me and my member. We're against it! :p

Most adults won't bother with circumcision now, but as for social policy goes, infant circumcision will likely go through the roof, every governing body in the world will be forced by their citizens to make it a public subsidy. Anti-circumcision groups are about to start looking like flat-earthers do, a good sound "Wake up and smell the coffee!" should be the only thing they hear from people anymore! :p

I think not getting something done because it only benefits you if you have appaling standards of personal hygiene or are in the habit of sticking your penis into strangers whose sexual health you know nothing of is not exactly the same as being a flat earther.

80%,What kind of crap do you use?
and cost money, Less than AIDS medication...
are easy to pass on (heat of the moment, you don't have one, you do it anyway), etc.I wouldn't and haven't had sex when I had the opportunity for exactly that reason. And since then I carry one on my keychain, because I don't always have my backpack with me.

Put the spoon down, LG, and back away slowly!

Awww... :(

80%, and cost money, are easy to pass on (heat of the moment, you don't have one, you do it anyway), etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#In_preventing_STDs

80%, and cost money, are easy to pass on (heat of the moment, you don't have one, you do it anyway), etc.
Yep. Pragmatism>Idealism. Also, I still think everyone's missing the point - the argument is only aimed at places where condom penetration (excuse the pun) is less than satisfactory. I doubt anyone's seriously suggesting we start circumcising our young when the developed world has safer, more viable alternatives.

and castration is 100% effective....

better hygiene would probably be just as effective as circumcision ....

Yeah, but this is aimed more at central Africa where, regardless of the ideal situation of everyone using condoms, people simply refuse to do so. Circumcision, although I don't agree with it, could help stem the spread of HIV amongst these populations.

I fear the opposite. Rumors will spread that circumcision is a better idea and circumcised people will stop wearing condoms and HIV will spread anyways. Its not like these kind of misinformations don't spread more than real information.

What's with all of these circumcision threads these days?

NS General: It loves the cock.

and castration is 100% effective....

better hygiene would probably be just as effective as circumcision ....
Eh? How are the testicles/ovaries responsible for the spread of HIV?

What kind of crap do you use?
Less than AIDS medication...
I wouldn't and haven't had sex when I had the opportunity for exactly that reason. And since then I carry one on my keychain, because I don't always have my backpack with me.

How exatly do you carry a condom on your keychain? I've had one in my wallet since I got it for free during freshers week.

How exatly do you carry a condom on your keychain? I've had one in my wallet since I got it for free during freshers week.
Aww...:fluffle:

so if you live in africa, cant afford condoms, and have sex with people in the same boat, GET CIRCUMCIZED you fool.

if you live in the west where condoms are cheap and testing is very available there is just no big need. safe sex protects you much better than circumcision.

and castration is 100% effective....

better hygiene would probably be just as effective as circumcision ....

What are you saying? You think washing yourself after sex is going to reduce the contraction of HIV by 50%

so if you live in africa, cant afford condoms, and have sex with people in the same boat, GET CIRCUMCIZED you fool.

if you live in the west where condoms are cheap and testing is very available there is just no big need. safe sex protects you much better than circumcision.

Can't afford condoms, but can afford a circumcision? Surely a circumcision would cost more than pack of condoms?

QFthefuckingT!
Besides, if God didn't want us guys to have a foreskin - we wouldn't have it to begin with. (Phrased a little simple, but that's how I feel).

[Could it be that circumcision has arisen as a religious practice in those areas of the world where sand or dust might cause irritation or infection and you couldn't have a daily bath because water is not always available in abundance? Just a thought.]


The extra skin is there to protect our instruments from the enviroment. Since we humans started to wear underwear, the extra skin became nothing but useless.

I´m glad I was circuncized early (about 6 years old). It saved me a lot of trouble. I have a friend who was circuncized when he was 18, and he said it hurt like hell.

Anyway, no one is expecting adults to start to cincuncize themselves, but newborns in Africa who are in heavily AIDS infected areas that doesnt have the least means of fighting the decease.

What are you saying? You think washing yourself after sex is going to reduce the contraction of HIV by 50%
Actually, lemon juice or alcohol helps.

Can't afford condoms, but can afford a circumcision? Surely a circumcision would cost more than pack of condoms?

Not at all. You just need a nice sharp rock and a friend with a steady hand and a strong constitution who isn't put off by a bit of screaming. :)

Circumcised willies are just less fun since there's less to play with. Simple truth. Not to mention that the practice is barbaric when done to children who don't get to decide for themselves. What grown people do, I couldn't really care less about - if you want to shove a rod through it (as some body piercing aficionados do), go ahead, it's your cock - but to do it to a child... ugh, sickening.

Not to mention that circumcision as HIV prevention is unneeded in developed countries and as a surgical procedure in developing countries poses a significant risk, and I would love to see a benefit analysis between side-effects of the procedure and the HIV prevention rate.

All in all, a practice that has little place in proper prevention and that when done to children is a violation of them.

Can't afford condoms, but can afford a circumcision? Surely a circumcision would cost more than pack of condoms?

You´ve got to be kidding, right?

You dont need to be cincuncized every time you´re going to have sex. You just do it once.

Now, a pack of condoms may last a few weeks for some here, but when you´re married, have a girlfriend or a very active sex life, condoms dont last a few days.

Aww...:fluffle:
:(
Not at all. You just need a nice sharp rock and a friend with a steady hand and a strong constitution who isn't put off by a bit of screaming. :)

Why do I get the feeling you'd be just the person for such a task. You probably already have a sharp rock to hand.

:(


Why do I get the feeling you'd be just the person for such a task. You probably already have a sharp rock to hand.

:)

I was circumsized as a baby. No, I'm not Jewish.

:)

I'm so scared of you right now. Keep away from my foreskin with that rock!

I'm so scared of you right now. Keep away from my foreskin with that rock!

:eek: What a brilliant idea! Ranged circumcisions!

With a slightly modified paintball gun and disposable razor blades... *heads to the drawing board*

:eek: What a brilliant idea! Ranged circumcisions!

With a slightly modified paintball gun and disposable razor blades... *heads to the drawing board*

*waits for you to realise the anatomy of the penis makes such a thing impossible*

*waits for you to realise the anatomy of the penis makes such a thing impossible*

I'm still gonna be wearing a titanium cup. Just in case.

*waits for you to realise the anatomy of the penis makes such a thing impossible*

Hmm.... you would need some sort of boomerang effect...

*keeps designing*

*waits for you to realise the anatomy of the penis makes such a thing impossible*
Who said it needed to be one clean shot?

Hmm.... you would need some sort of boomerang effect...

*keeps designing*

I don't think you realise the bi-layered glans-approximating histology of the prepuce.

Who said it needed to be one clean shot?

Because that's the only shot you're bound to get before getting your own cock lopped off.

I don't think you realise the bi-layered glans-approximating histology of the prepuce.

Would you like to join my design team? :)

Why are you helping him maim my helpless wang?

Would you like to join my design team? :)

No, thank you. I like natural penises.

Why are you helping him maim my helpless wang?

I wouldn't dream of it.

No, thank you. I like natural penises.

They're groovy and all, but I like frightening and alarming Ifreann more. :)

Can't afford condoms, but can afford a circumcision? Surely a circumcision would cost more than pack of condoms?

different budget line items.

not that that matters in the west, but in africa one can get a charity or even the govt to make a one time payment for a circumcision but not for ongoing payments for condom supplies.

The extra skin is there to protect our instruments from the enviroment. Since we humans started to wear underwear, the extra skin became nothing but useless.
Really now? I'm rather fond of having it. Besides, I don't like the look of circumsized penises (not that I'm making an effort to see'em - but there still is porn...)
I´m glad I was circuncized early (about 6 years old). It saved me a lot of trouble. I have a friend who was circuncized when he was 18, and he said it hurt like hell.
Ouch!
Anyway, no one is expecting adults to start to cincuncize themselves, but newborns in Africa who are in heavily AIDS infected areas that doesnt have the least means of fighting the decease.
While I do see that it's better to reduce infection rates via this means - don't you believe that it's somehow seen as the "magic" method of preventing infection?
Not at all. You just need a nice sharp rock and a friend with a steady hand and a strong constitution who isn't put off by a bit of screaming. :)
Noooooo?

Anyway, I find it rather alarming that it seems to be "standard procedure" to circumsize boys after birth - even without consulting the parents whose responsibility and right it is to make that call.

different budget line items.

not that that matters in the west, but in africa one can get a charity or even the govt to make a one time payment for a circumcision but not for ongoing payments for condom supplies.

Well then they could offer them super-durable, reusable condoms.... *Goes to Garage to Invent one*

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/Manly_protection.jpg

Ah, there we go. If worn all the time it could also be used as protection against LG's Circumcizor Assault Gun :D

Well then they could offer them super-durable, reusable condoms.... *Goes to Garage to Invent one*

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/Manly_protection.jpg

Ah, there we go. If worn all the time it could also be used as protection against LG's Circumcizor Assault Gun :D

Can I get on in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXL?
;)

Hmm.... you would need some sort of boomerang effect...

*keeps designing*
I fear it's more of a Bobbitterang effect...

Facts are in - using your brain and having safe sex reduces the incidence of AIDS...

Here's a thought, use a rubber. Cuts AIDS risk by about 99.995%.

Here's a thought: Condoms reduce pleasure by 99.996% :p

Checkmate.

Also how exactly does circumcision help prevent aids?

Facts are in - using your brain and having safe sex reduces the incidence of AIDS...

winnar!

Here's a thought: Condoms reduce pleasure by 99.996% :p

Checkmate.

Also how exactly does circumcision help prevent aids?

Circumsision reduces pleasure from sex by 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%
because you won't be doing it with me :D

Circumsision reduces pleasure from sex by 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%
because you won't be doing it with me :D

You say it like you had a choice...

Luporum: Spreading HIV to a forum near you!

Can I get on in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXL?
;)
Why? Do you need a new home?

You say it like you had a choice...

Luporum: Spreading HIV to a forum near you!

:eek:

:eek:

That's right, I went there.

Why? Do you need a new home?

"Latex condo. Boy I'd like to live in one of those"

That's right, I went there.

you mean, up my... !

you mean, up my... !

Any other way just wouldn't be pratical, or fun.

Here's a thought: Condoms reduce pleasure by 99.996% :p
Now that's just a matter of opinion and personal taste.
Also how exactly does circumcision help prevent aids?
Let me make an educated guess - the scar tissue that develops where your penis was injured will be tougher than the delicate skin that usually is there, hence the chance of transmitting HI-viruses is reduced since your skin is not as "damageable". After all, getting it on usually results in little injuries - be they as minuscule and indiscernible as they can be, for a virus it'd be enough.

Informative power hour

Ah thanks *circumcized cookie*

Condoms probably don't taste good either.

Also how exactly does circumcision help prevent aids?
The tisue removed is particularly suceptible to infection IIRC.

Ah thanks *circumcized cookie*
I have to ask - is that a kosher cookie then?
Condoms probably don't taste good either.
It depends, I'd say - there are flavored ones, after all... (But I prefer chewing gum over latex!)

Well then they could offer them super-durable, reusable condoms.... *Goes to Garage to Invent one*

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/Manly_protection.jpg

Ah, there we go. If worn all the time it could also be used as protection against LG's Circumcizor Assault Gun :D

it certainly would eliminate droopy dick syndrome too!

Here's a thought --

Not fucking every person you see at a party whilest drunk - Reduces AIDs/HIV Infection Rate for your self by...oh I'd say 100% unless you end up haveing a Girlfriend/Boyfriend who lies about not haveing the Disease...

Anyways...

I had a cirumcision not done well, apparently, and as a child had this weird..problem...

I remember when they had to 'fix' the circumcision...

They used finger nail clippers, no fucking lie. And this young man, well at the time little boy, didn't ever cry. Just read on his little tigger book...

Yea...

But was it worth it? I'm not sure yet...lol

Here's a thought, use a rubber. Cuts AIDS risk by about 99.995%.

It's actually 86%.

If you get circumsized and wear a condom you have 149.99% protection.

If you get circumsized and wear a condom you have 149.99% protection.

I prefer a more situational scoring system. I have a base risk of contracting AIDS or any STD each time I manage to score. It gets modified by various factors. Like, one or more teeth missing in the mouth? +50% risk. Christian? -5%. Catholic? +10%. Claims to be a virgin? +15%. Is willing to have sex with me? +50%.

Then, after all factors are taken into account, I determine whether or not I should go through with the fucking thing through the roll of 6d6 taking into account my charisma and endurance.

I have to ask - is that a kosher cookie then?

No :(

I laced it with pork and jesus


It depends, I'd say - there are flavored ones, after all... (But I prefer chewing gum over latex!)

You're wierd.

Here's a thought --

Not fucking every person you see at a party whilest drunk - Reduces AIDs/HIV Infection Rate for your self by...oh I'd say 100% unless you end up haveing a Girlfriend/Boyfriend who lies about not haveing the Disease...


theres the problem eh?

think of pastor ted's wife. im sure she thought she was the least-at-risk person on the face of the earth. little did she know that her bible-thumpin', gay-hatin' husband was fucking a male prostitute several times a year putting her in the very-high-risk category.

Here's a thought --

Not fucking every person you see at a party whilest drunk - Reduces AIDs/HIV Infection Rate for your self by...oh I'd say 100% unless you end up haveing a Girlfriend/Boyfriend who lies about not haveing the Disease...


Odds of finding a girlfriend/boyfriend who doesn't lie: About the same as launching a needle into space and then being asked to find it.

Not fucking every person, yes because there's always that one person we all know who has hooked up with at least 100 people. Damn tarp.

Yes. If you're an idiot / live in a country ran by idiots. CLEAN YOUR COCK. DON'T FUCK BIRDS WITH AIDS.:headbang:

That's the first time I've felt the need to use that emoticon.

I'm drunk. But there we go.

No :(

I laced it with pork and jesus
Circumsized pork cookie with Jesus?
Sounds delicious!

*wonders what it'll taste like*
*eats cookie*
You're wierd.
I am weird? Reading your post certainly qualifies you as well, I might say!

I am weird? Reading your post certainly qualifies you as well, I might say!

Just because I bake cookies mixed with pork and jesus doesn't make me wierd. Anyone who doesn't enjoy chewing condoms is strange in any culture.

Here's a thought, use a rubber. Cuts AIDS risk by about 99.995%.
Exactly, I don't see why a 50% improved chance in reducing the contraction of hiv is worth unnecessary surgery on sensitive areas when a condom does much better.

If you get circumsized and wear a condom you have 149.99% protection.

blast! beat me to it! :p

Hold, but would having a greater than 100% chance of not getting aids mean you would be giving the other person aids even if you don't have any?

Shit this can't be good news.,....

..I shudder at the thought of the discussion I am about to instigate... God forgive me :p

Any how according to this (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/tb/5121), circumcision is proven to help prevent AIDS. Obvisouly not a be all end all but; "It cuts the risk of HIV infection by more than 50%.".

Here's the article for those who don't like clicking alot.:



Ah, let the discussion begin!

I've known this for years, but my position remains the same.

I realize that the foreskin, which evolved to protect the gland-heavy region from infection by capturing pathogens and delivering them up to the immune system for destruction, is easily subverted by HIV which works by attacking the immune system itself.

In third world countries where rape is commonplace and condoms are an exotic luxury item, circumscision is one of the best tools available to help reduce the spread of AIDS. But in a modern developed nation it is like suggesting chewing on willow bark to relieve a headache. Yes, it will work to some degree, but it's much easier and more effective to just take some asprin. The second is soooo much more effective than the first that the first is completly obsolete.

Just because I bake cookies mixed with pork and jesus doesn't make me wierd. Anyone who doesn't enjoy chewing condoms is strange in any culture.
As long as you don't put condomns in the cookies, I guess it's alright!
Exactly, I don't see why a 50% improved chance in reducing the contraction of hiv is worth unnecessary surgery on sensitive areas when a condom does much better.
True!

The thing I'm still a little puzzled about is this: How did they manage to establish those results? Did they simply analyze the persons' backgrounds and medical conditions or did they have four groups of people, some circumsized, some not, some infected, some not - and then let them go at it and test for results?!?

Wouldn't supplying condomns be the better and definitely healthier alternative?

If you get circumsized and wear a condom you have 149.99% protection.

I posted a rant once before about how if your download speed is reduced by 500% it means that instead of opening a webpage you spontaneously create 4 webpages.

If you are 150% protected from an STD does that mean that if you have sex with them twice they're cured?

The thing I'm still a little puzzled about is this: How did they manage to establish those results? Did they simply analyze the persons' backgrounds and medical conditions or did they have four groups of people, some circumsized, some not, some infected, some not - and then let them go at it and test for results?!?

Wouldn't supplying condomns be the better and definitely healthier alternative?

There was a study done years ago where they looked at the territories of peoples with a tradition of circumsizing and those with a tradition of not doing so.

A map drawn with boundries based on AIDS infection rates matched up almost exactly with a map with boundries drawn based on territorial borders.

A subsiquent experiment performed on freshly amputated foreskins showed that it posesses a mechanism which delivers the AIDS virus to the immune system. A trick that destroys many diseases, but simply creates an HIV infection.

There was a study done years ago where they looked at the territories of peoples with a tradition of circumsizing and those with a tradition of not doing so.

A map drawn with boundries based on AIDS infection rates matched up almost exactly with a map with boundries drawn based on territorial borders.
Thanks for that explanation - I was wondering how they came up with their results!
A subsiquent experiment performed on freshly amputated foreskins showed that it posesses a mechanism which delivers the AIDS virus to the immune system. A trick that destroys many diseases, but simply creates an HIV infection.
Damn! Now as "smart" as that might be with other infections - it's exactly what we don't need with HIV!
Do you have a good link for that last part? Might be interesting to read a little further into the matter (biology student and future teacher here...).

Damn! Now as "smart" as that might be with other infections - it's exactly what we don't need with HIV!
Do you have a good link for that last part? Might be interesting to read a little further into the matter (biology student and future teacher here...).

While not being sure as to what was being referred exactly, I guesstimate that Langerhans cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langerhans_cell) is what you're looking for. They're not special to the prepuce - they're present generally in skin.

What's with all of these circumcision threads these days?

I don't know, but I wish they'd "cut" it out. :p

Can't afford condoms, but can afford a circumcision? Surely a circumcision would cost more than pack of condoms?

If you go to a hospital, yes. But I doubt practitioners of traditional medicine - i.e., people who perform the bulk of the circumcisions in Africa - require money.

While not being sure as to what was being referred exactly, I guesstimate that Langerhans cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langerhans_cell) is what you're looking for. They're not special to the prepuce - they're present generally in skin.
Thanks, Fass. I'm glad I learn something everyday. :p
(They don't have anything to do with the Islets of Langerhans except for the name, I take it? Because I know a little about those...)

Thanks, Fass. I'm glad I learn something everyday. :p
(They don't have anything to do with the Islets of Langerhans except for the name, I take it? Because I know a little about those...)

They're completely unrelated in that respect, yes. Both were named after Paul Langerhans, a 19th century German pathologist and biologist.

Not fucking someone with HIV helps prevent AIDS.

Not fucking someone with HIV helps prevent AIDS.

easier said than done.

how do you know who has the virus and who doesnt?

Would you advocate female circumcision if it reduced the risk of disease?

They're both mutilation. Routine infantile mutilation is barbaric, regardless of your motives.

easier said than done.

how do you know who has the virus and who doesnt?
If you look on their forearms, the Kaposi's sarcomas subdermally spell out "lol AIDS".

That's all fine and dandy, but 50% is still a lot less than 99.9%. If you wear a condom, you're still safer than if you got circumcized.

Yeah, but if you get circumcised AND wear a condom that will cut the chance of getting aids by 149.9%.

Not fucking someone with HIV helps prevent AIDS.

Well, if it was visible on their face that they had HIV, that might work.

Would you advocate female circumcision if it reduced the risk of disease?

Would you compare being poked in the arm with being beaten, sodomized and murdered? Yeah - I guess you would.

Oh well.

Would you compare being poked in the arm with being beaten, sodomized and murdered? Yeah - I guess you would.

Oh well.

Well, then, let us slice into your cock and we'll see how it compares to being "poked in the arm", because you seem to be willing to compare the two.

Well, then, let us slice into your cock and we'll see how it compares to being "poked in the arm", because you seem to be willing to compare the two.

I think you'd do better to show how my "mutilation" cripples me in any way. Let alone cripples in the same manner that women who have their clitorises severed do. Until you do that the only thing I get out of this is your usual brand of mild snarky scandinavian cheek.

I think you'd do better to show how my "mutilation" cripples me in any way.

What, so all of a sudden a knife to your penis isn't at all like being poked in the arm? Why the hypocrisy about silly comparisons you're all too willing to make yourself?

Let alone cripples in the same manner that women who have their clitorises severed do. Until you do that the only thing I get out of this is your usual brand of mild snarky scandinavian cheek.

Rather that than your oh, so apparent sanctimoniousness. Or are you still willing to let someone slice up your cock to make the comparison?

I think you'd do better to show how my "mutilation" cripples me in any way. Let alone cripples in the same manner that women who have their clitorises severed do. Until you do that the only thing I get out of this is your usual brand of mild snarky scandinavian cheek.
Whether you now object to it is irrelevant. Infants aren't given the option. They are involuntarily mutilated.

How would you like it if you were involuntarily mutilated? In any way?

What, so all of a sudden a knife to your penis isn't at all like being poked in the arm? Why the hypocrisy about silly comparisons you're all too willing to make yourself?


"slice open your cock" and "knife to the penis," - besides possibly being construed as threats - don't describe circumcision at all.

If female genital mutilation is like rape and murder, then circumcision is like being poked in the arm. I stand by this comparison.

Don't like it, fine, but don't bother me with non-arguments based purely on your own usage of dramatic language and your own sexual preference.

Or are you still willing to let someone slice up your cock to make the comparison?

If female genital mutilation is like rape and murder, then circumcision is like being poked in the arm. I stand by this comparison.

Whether you now object to it is irrelevant.

Not much for victim's rights, are you?

I mean, assuming I'm a victim since I was oh-so-cruelly "mutilated." But you ignore what I say, dismissing it, instead trying to say I am somehow just as victimized as women who can no longer experience any pleasure during orgasm (and feel pain during childbirth and urination). Regardless of what I, apparently the victim, have to say. You only care for your own comparison because it serves your "circumcision is evil" viewpoint.

Infants aren't given the option. They are involuntarily mutilated.

Infants aren't really given very many options at all. Apparently this has something to do with them not being responsible adults capable of making informed decisions. Next time though, make sure to take a poll to see whether the baby wants to be born, so it's not an involuntary separation from his parents (which would obviously be... child abuse!)

How would you like it if you were involuntarily mutilated? In any way?

I had a birthmark removed once when I was a kid too. The scar could be called "mutilation," and I wasn't volunteering for it at the time. So, how do I like it? I like it just fine. Of course that would be different from doing the same to me now, as a rational, thinking adult. But then again FGM is also different from circumcision so I'm getting used to the silly comparisons already.

Any other questions?

"slice open your cock" and "knife to the penis," - besides possibly being construed as threats

What a pathetic accusation.

- don't describe circumcision at all.

If female genital mutilation is like rape and murder, then circumcision is like being poked in the arm. I stand by this comparison.

Don't like it, fine, but don't bother me with non-arguments based purely on your own usage of dramatic language and your own sexual preference.

So basically you get to make absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical comparisons, and you get to jump down other people's throats accusing them of doing the same nonsense that you do, but you get to get away with it because you're you? Alrighty then, that removes even the semblance of you having any point at all, which was of course apparent all along.

If female genital mutilation is like rape and murder, then circumcision is like being poked in the arm. I stand by this comparison.

Standing by it or not, you remain as transparent as always.

What are you saying? You think washing yourself after sex is going to reduce the contraction of HIV by 50%

yes...for men urinating immediately after sex reduces STD's, men with foreskins practicing proper hygiene does reduces STDs...the foreskin provides a great place for STDs to survive and until transmitted again...simple washing does work, you may have noticed surgeons do it before surgery...so good hygiene works, combined with a condom even better....

Besides, if God didn't want us guys to have a foreskin - we wouldn't have it to begin with. :p

Aye, and if God didn't want your relatives to die of cancer, they'd still be alive. Likewise, if God didn't want my teenage cousins to die horribly in a head on collision, they wouldn't have. Right? :rolleyes:

That argument went out of style in the 1800's. Next.

theres the problem eh?

think of pastor ted's wife. im sure she thought she was the least-at-risk person on the face of the earth. little did she know that her bible-thumpin', gay-hatin' husband was fucking a male prostitute several times a year putting her in the very-high-risk category.

Not to be too anal - but what portion of HIV/AIDS cases result from that sort of situation...

yes...for men urinating immediately after sex reduces STD's, men with foreskins practicing proper hygiene does reduces STDs...the foreskin provides a great place for STDs to survive and until transmitted again...simple washing does work, you may have noticed surgeons do it before surgery...so good hygiene works, combined with a condom even better....

That is mainly for urinary tract infections, HIV is a little different.

Aye, and if God didn't want your relatives to die of cancer, they'd still be alive. Likewise, if God didn't want my teenage cousins to die horribly in a head on collision, they wouldn't have. Right? :rolleyes:

That argument went out of style in the 1800's. Next.
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/ohoh.gif :headbang: http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/ohman.gif

You may have noticed the ":p" at the end of that sentence - after all, you quoted it, too...

That was clearly meant as a joke - too bad you don't seem to have any sense of humor!

Not to be too anal - but what portion of HIV/AIDS cases result from that sort of situation...

i wouldnt know. im not up on aids statistics.

but does it matter?

here is what i was responding to: "Not fucking every person you see at a party whilest drunk - Reduces AIDs/HIV Infection Rate for your self by...oh I'd say 100% unless you end up haveing a Girlfriend/Boyfriend who lies about not haveing the Disease..."

you have no control over the past actions of your lovers. even the most moral upright person might stray and you would have no idea.

if even the wife of a prominent christian fundamentalist minister is in the high risk category and doesnt know it, what makes any of us think that we can be 100% sure of our own sexual partners and risk?

i wouldnt know. im not up on aids statistics.

but does it matter?

here is what i was responding to: "Not fucking every person you see at a party whilest drunk - Reduces AIDs/HIV Infection Rate for your self by...oh I'd say 100% unless you end up haveing a Girlfriend/Boyfriend who lies about not haveing the Disease..."

you have no control over the past actions of your lovers. even the most moral upright person might stray and you would have no idea.

if even the wife of a prominent christian fundamentalist minister is in the high risk category and doesnt know it, what makes any of us think that we can be 100% sure of our own sexual partners and risk?

Death by jumping from a tall building eliminates the chance of death by AIDS by 100%.

i wouldnt know. im not up on aids statistics.

but does it matter?

here is what i was responding to: "Not fucking every person you see at a party whilest drunk - Reduces AIDs/HIV Infection Rate for your self by...oh I'd say 100% unless you end up haveing a Girlfriend/Boyfriend who lies about not haveing the Disease..."

you have no control over the past actions of your lovers. even the most moral upright person might stray and you would have no idea.

if even the wife of a prominent christian fundamentalist minister is in the high risk category and doesnt know it, what makes any of us think that we can be 100% sure of our own sexual partners and risk?It's pretty silly to assume that sex is the only way of getting HIV. Drug addicts that use needles to inject themselves are at much higher risk than people having sex.

Death by jumping from a tall building eliminates the chance of death by AIDS by 100%.Theoretically you could die from AIDS while on the way down, so I'd say it's more like 99.999999%.....

It's pretty silly to assume that sex is the only way of getting HIV. Drug addicts that use needles to inject themselves are at much higher risk than people having sex.

if you share needles. *shudder*

IV drug addicts arent the most responsible people when it comes to avoiding hiv.

and there are those people who come from countries where there arent good hiv precautions in medical care.

there is so much more involved than only fucking "clean" people (a stupid idea i heard on a tv talk show one day long ago)

if you share needles. *shudder*
there is so much more involved than only fucking "clean" people (a stupid idea i heard on a tv talk show one day long ago)

*nods* Too true. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's my opinion that the popularization of AIDS/HIV has had some negative impact on the scientific treatment of the disease. Science and pop-culture aren't very compatible. Where science would take quite some time to carefully eliminate any side-effects from a cure and try as much as humanly possible to circumnavigate the law of unintended consequences, Pop culture presses for MORE CURE MORE CURE FASTER FASTER NOW NOW NOW.....

I could be very wrong, but it's just an opinion.

*nods* Too true. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's my opinion that the popularization of AIDS/HIV has had some negative impact on the scientific treatment of the disease. Science and pop-culture aren't very compatible. Where science would take quite some time to carefully eliminate any side-effects from a cure and try as much as humanly possible to circumnavigate the law of unintended consequences, Pop culture presses for MORE CURE MORE CURE FASTER FASTER NOW NOW NOW.....

I could be very wrong, but it's just an opinion.

i think its the fatal part that drove the anti-scientific hysteria about developing a cure. people someimes seem to think that science/medicine is holding back a cure through greed or laziness.

its not the only disease that has no cure. it may never be cured but only prevented with a vaccine. *shurg* we have come a long way in slowing it down and improving the life of those with hiv.

"Latex condo. Boy I'd like to live in one of those"

Don't we all?

i think its the fatal part that drove the anti-scientific hysteria about developing a cure. people someimes seem to think that science/medicine is holding back a cure through greed or laziness.

its not the only disease that has no cure. it may never be cured but only prevented with a vaccine. *shurg* we have come a long way in slowing it down and improving the life of those with hiv.

yeah. That and just a smidge of the residual guilt from back when it was considered an exclusively gay-related disease. It's gotten a lot of press because liberal forces have latched onto it as a pet cause.

You're right that there have been a lot of things done to help make people's lives easier, and that's good. As a matter of fact, I don't know if anyone else read this, but in US NEWS a year or so ago there was an article about a theoretical treatment that somehow (Don't ask me, I'm not a med student) treated AIDS-infected cells with microbes. But still, I can't help but wonder where treatment would be without the hysteria.

Not to be too anal - but what portion of HIV/AIDS cases result from that sort of situation...

Deliberate pun?

if you share needles. *shudder*

IV drug addicts arent the most responsible people when it comes to avoiding hiv.

and there are those people who come from countries where there arent good hiv precautions in medical care.

there is so much more involved than only fucking "clean" people (a stupid idea i heard on a tv talk show one day long ago)
On a comparative basis too: You are more likely to become infected if you use a contaminated needle than if you have sex with someone that has AIDS.

That is mainly for urinary tract infections, HIV is a little different.

no it's not...HIV needs an opening preferably an abrasion or cut to enter the body....Transmission must occur, directly from one person to the other, very quickly (the virus does not survive more than a few minutes outside the body)...so flushing the urethra immediately after sex and washing beneath the foreskin reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission to a man ...the man washing beneath his foreskin immediately after sex reduces the chances of transmitting HIV or any STD from one woman to another...

no it's not...HIV needs an opening preferably an abrasion or cut to enter the body....Transmission must occur, directly from one person to the other, very quickly (the virus does not survive more than a few minutes outside the body)...so flushing the urethra immediately after sex and washing beneath the foreskin reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission to a man ...the man washing beneath his foreskin immediately after sex reduces the chances of transmitting HIV or any STD from one woman to another...

The "abrasions" are microscopic and happen during intercourse and the virus has plenty of time to invade the mucosa and dermis. Peeing or washing doesn't help an iota against that, especially since it's done after infection... :rolleyes:

Please, don't spread such misinformation around. Someone out there might be stupid enough to believe it.

Thanks for that explanation - I was wondering how they came up with their results!

Damn! Now as "smart" as that might be with other infections - it's exactly what we don't need with HIV!
Do you have a good link for that last part? Might be interesting to read a little further into the matter (biology student and future teacher here...).

It was a documentary that I saw on the Discovery Channel. If I'm not mistaken they've got a link for teachers' resources, but I doubt that severed foreskins make the kids list.

It was a documentary that I saw on the Discovery Channel. If I'm not mistaken they've got a link for teachers' resources, but I doubt that severed foreskins make the kids list.
Probably not - but as a future biology teacher, STDs and SaferSex are part of what I'll have to teach... And the better the source, the better the teaching - and the better the results, hopefully, the safer the children.

Thanks!