[Banana]

Also, in the case of condom breakage, it's likely the *receptive* partner, exposed to potentially infected semen-not the circumcised, keratinized, penetrative partner with a long urethra and no broken skin/open wounds-that's most at risk for HIV. Circumcision won't protect her. In fact...

Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team.

Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, Habimana P, Nawrocki P, Taylor E, Dushimimana A, Saah A.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205.

This study evaluated risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in a semi-rural but densely populated area surrounding the town of Butare in Rwanda. Overall seroprevalence was 9.3% in 5690 pregnant women who sought antenatal care at one of five health centres. Factors associated with higher seroprevalence of HIV-1 included history of multiple sexual partners, history of at least one sexually transmitted disease (STD), relatively high socioeconomic status (SES), being unmarried, young age at first pregnancy, and low gravidity. Women who had used oral contraceptives, smoked more than one cigarette per day, whose partners were circumcised, and had had sex to support themselves were also at higher risk of being infected. A history of blood transfusion in the past 5 years was not associated with HIV-1 infection. History of multiple sexual partners, history of STD, high household income, partner circumcision, and past oral contraceptive use remained strongly associated with HIV-1 infection even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates. Among legally married women who lacked sexual behaviour risk factors, history of STD, high SES, young age at first pregnancy, and low gravidity were significantly associated with HIV-1 seroprevalence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...t=Abstract

[Bill]

So if I have a little pecker cheese on my uncut weiner you have no problem licking it off like sprinkles on an ice cream cone?

[Pickle]

I'm not going to risk permanently damaging my baby boy so he can look like daddy and because some people think it might be cleaner. If my son is stupid enough to go around bonking chicks with aids unprotected, then the problem is definately not that I chose not to circumsize him. Something else went wrong somewhere down the line that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he's got a flap of skin on his dick.

[Banana]

when the time comes, they'll be fine

edit: heheh. "comes"

Well, let's hope so! Cause if they are not, it's too late, isn't it?

actually, many doctors now perform foreskin restoration. Maybe your son will opt for that. Simple procedure, I'm sure.

[Jimmy]

I'm not going to risk permanently damaging my baby boy so he can look like daddy and because some people think it might be cleaner. If my son is stupid enough to go around bonking chicks with aids unprotected, then the problem is definately not that I chose not to circumsize him. Something else went wrong somewhere down the line that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he's got a flap of skin on his dick.

Question - will you approve of him bonking chicks with aids with a condom? Also, would it kill the mood if a guy spent twenty minutes wrapping potentially exposed areas in saran to prevent possible infection?

[Paddy]

Mother nature put it there for a reason.

[Banana]

I have to go, but continue this debate. I'll be back later to indoctrinate you all more.

[what?]

Well, let's hope so! Cause if they are not, it's too late, isn't it?

actually, many doctors now perform foreskin restoration. Maybe your son will opt for that. Simple procedure, I'm sure.

I'm not saying I'm even in favor of it. I just don't feel strongly one way or the other. how do you feel about ear piercing? tatoos(sp?)? or if those are different because of the choice involved on the part of the recipient, how about immunization?

[Pickle]

If he's going to bonk chicks with aids, I atleast hope I'll have taught him well enough to wrap it up. 1 in 4 people with aids dont know they have it. Will I approve of him willingly doing it? Of course not, hopefully I'm able to teach him better morals than that, but you can only do so much.

[BIRD33]

Are infants at immediate risk of acquiring AIDS through sex? Provide evidence that circumcising African infants would:

1) Prove an effective tactic.
2) Be feasible to carry out safely.
3) Is superior in terms of effectivity to methods which have been tried, tested and proven to work in reducing HIV rates.
4) Is feasible in terms of resources.
5) Is possible without reducing measures which have been proven to work as anti-HIV strategies.


This is not a scientifically proven study. remember when the FDA approves drugs, and they later pull them because of untoward and lethal side effects?

The WHO runs unscientific studies?It seemed pretty cut and dry, circumcised men have less of a chance at getting AIDS.Of course infants are not really at risk to get aids through sex but if you could give an infant a shot or perform a simple procedure that would to cut in half the risks of them developing a fatal disease and in turn passing that disease onto their own kids would you do it?I think you need to take a broader look at this topic and stop focusing on the mental repercussions of a procedure that most kids never would know was done to them unless they were told so and realize the big issue here is not that some ugandan boy thinks his dinger looks weird or his penis isnt as sensitive but the fact that half his family is infected with aids and people are dying by the hundreds of thousands from HIV.

[BIRD33]

I'm not going to risk permanently damaging my baby boy so he can look like daddy and because some people think it might be cleaner. If my son is stupid enough to go around bonking chicks with aids unprotected, then the problem is definately not that I chose not to circumsize him. Something else went wrong somewhere down the line that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he's got a flap of skin on his dick.

How many people even have complications from circumcision?Your husband turns out to be a total retard and your kid takes after him and you're ok knowing that you could have done something that would have helped him but didnt,why?I'm not a big fan of "its his fault if he screws a chick with AIDS" logic because some of you bitches are dirty and its not always the guys fault.

[Jimmy]

AIDS only exists because of uncircumcised men.

And Monkeys.

[Anhil8tor]

so i'd go even quicker if I weren't cut?


good thing my parents cut it.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

so i'd go even quicker if I weren't cut?


good thing my parents cut it.

That's what I was thinking.

[Anhil8tor]

At least my spouser couldn't call me a two pump chump anymore..

i'd be more like a one and a quarter orgasm starter

[Banana]

I'm not saying I'm even in favor of it. I just don't feel strongly one way or the other. how do you feel about ear piercing? tatoos(sp?)? or if those are different because of the choice involved on the part of the recipient, how about immunization?

Ear piercing - no. When my child is old enough to decide she wants her ears pierced, she can do it for herself at that time. I'm not putting holes in her ears just so she looks cute or like a girl.

Tattoos - ditto

Immunizations - research shows the risks of getting vaccinations outweigh the risks of not. If you want to debate that one, start a new thread and I'll join ya. Most vaccinations must take place in childhood to protect from childhood diseases, when individuals are most at risk. Circumcision does not have to take place in childhood to protect from HIV.



My simple point on circumcision is this: do the research before you blindly hack of the foreskin of your young ones. What you will likely find is that the research is equivacol at best, and very few EMPIRICAL studies which actually prove it's better to circumcize INFANT children.

I'll address the information Bird cited next, but those studies clearly state that ADULT male circumcision is ASSOCIATED (not correlated) with lower rates of HIV in AFRICA. My suggestion would be, if you are African and plan to engage in risky sexual behaviour as an adult, hack your foreskin off when you are an adult.

[Banana]

The WHO runs unscientific studies?It seemed pretty cut and dry, circumcised men have less of a chance at getting AIDS.Of course infants are not really at risk to get aids through sex but if you could give an infant a shot or perform a simple procedure that would to cut in half the risks of them developing a fatal disease and in turn passing that disease onto their own kids would you do it?I think you need to take a broader look at this topic and stop focusing on the mental repercussions of a procedure that most kids never would know was done to them unless they were told so and realize the big issue here is not that some ugandan boy thinks his dinger looks weird or his penis isnt as sensitive but the fact that half his family is infected with aids and people are dying by the hundreds of thousands from HIV.

But the WHO didn't run this study. At least not according to the link you provided. That's why I asked. They reported the findings of studies based in Kenya and Uganda.

The National Institue of Health clearly suggests that the HIV rate is lower in circumcized ADULTS. It also clearly states "The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse."

I also wonder if the studies were ended early legitimately. Meaning, was it really ethics, or did they want to stop before the rate of circumcized HIV cases outnumbered the rate on intact HIV cases? >_>

Do we know the absolute rates of circumcision in the industrialized countries?
Do we know the absolute rates of condom useage in the industrialized countries?

At best, we have nothing but guesses. Science does not accept guesses as legitimate data and we cannot do any kind of legitimate scientific analysis based on such flimsy data.

If epidemiology does it accept it, then it clearly is not scientifically based, and by using it, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. This why ANY so-called analysis is not scientifically valid--a lack of hard data precludes any.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that none of these studies (not the analysis of the studies) have been published. Wonder why?

And Bird, do you think most males really don't know they are missing their foreskin? It may not matter to you now, but you know and I guarantee, it matters to some men.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

I'm going to google "poor people aren't cut". I'll post results later.

[Banana]

How many people even have complications from circumcision?

Do you want a legitimate answer?

Your husband turns out to be a total retard and your kid takes after him and you're ok knowing that you could have done something that would have helped him but didnt,why?I'm not a big fan of "its his fault if he screws a chick with AIDS" logic because some of you bitches are dirty and its not always the guys fault.

So we should all circumcize infants because they could marry ho's? When we have failed to even prove that a clear relationship exists between men, except in Africa, and the state of their foreskin? Seems reasonable. cratch: For now , until I see further evidence, there has been no proof that this would actually prove to be an effective method of combating HIV/AIDS. Also, I would stress that large numbers of people would ignore the implication that circumcision means "reduce, not prevent" and it would be a dangerous precedent if we implied that being circumcised prevented one for acquiring AIDS. Let's not forget there are scores of circumcized men with HIV. And scores of uncircumcized men without HIV.

[BIRD33]

But the WHO didn't run this study. At least not according to the link you provided. That's why I asked. They reported the findings of studies based in Kenya and Uganda.

The National Institue of Health clearly suggests that the HIV rate is lower in circumcized ADULTS. It also clearly states "The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse."

I also wonder if the studies were ended early legitimately. Meaning, was it really ethics, or did they want to stop before the rate of circumcized HIV cases outnumbered the rate on intact HIV cases? >_>

Do we know the absolute rates of circumcision in the industrialized countries?
Do we know the absolute rates of condom useage in the industrialized countries?

At best, we have nothing but guesses. Science does not accept guesses as legitimate data and we cannot do any kind of legitimate scientific analysis based on such flimsy data.

If epidemiology does it accept it, then it clearly is not scientifically based, and by using it, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. This why ANY so-called analysis is not scientifically valid--a lack of hard data precludes any.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that none of these studies (not the analysis of the studies) have been published. Wonder why?

And Bird, do you think most males really don't know they are missing their foreskin? It may not matter to you now, but you know and I guarantee, it matters to some men.

I understand that the Africa findings isnt exactly a harvard study but how else could a study like this be conducted but in a poor undeveloped country like uganda where similar test subjects are available by the 1000's while the country under goes an AIDS epedimic.The WHO felt it was valid enough to issue this statment about it
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/stat...index.html
that seems to imply that they thought it had some scientific merit.The WHO mentions that this isnt a reason to not use condoms but when you're losing 200,000 a year to a disease and a safe procedure is available to cut risks by maybe 50% you have to value the thousands of lives possibly saved a year over the small % of mishaps or even smaller % of men who a really emotionaly harmed by not having it.

I think the discussion over circumcision in a developed country like america is totally different than the issue as it pertains to an undeveloped place like Africa so I don't believe we can take the study and apply to much to the AIDS problems over here except a few things.


A possible mechanism relates to Langerhans cells, a part of the human immune system. Szabo and Short suggest that Langerhans cells in the foreskin may provide an entry point for viral infection.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/320/7249/1592

There seems to be real evidence that cells in an uncut foreskin is a way to contract a virus during sex.That paper says most men who are HIV positive get it through the penis which sounds funny but it isnt.Couple that info with the results of the Africa study as sketchy as it was but hey what if its not 50% but only a 25% lower risk rate isnt that still worth it when talking about a fatal disease especially when it pertains to your own kids?I know nobody thinks their kid will grow up and get AIDS but it does seem like the good outweighs the bad.

I feel no regret,anger,loss or whatever because I'm circumcised and I know some do but to mentally be effected by it seems a little much since you wouldnt know unless you were told, the persons probably got more issues than his foreskin.I could care less about looking "normal" because I didnt spend alot of time in a locker room comparing dicks.I still think that overall its a stupid ritual that some guy came up with a 1000 years ago to please his god and perpetuated for no good reason up until now but call it a happy accident or whatever it seems to have some benefits.The % of medical mishaps has got to be low compared to the amount done a year and when balanced with the fact that it probably has some positive health advantages for you thats why I'd do it for my kid.