Number one weapon on HIV - Circumcision

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2010 10:37 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35407224/ns/health-aids/

    "Circumcision will likely avert far more deaths per dollar spent than other things we're spending HIV money on," said Philip Stevens, of the London-based think tank International Policy Network. "The main problem I can foresee with this is actually persuading men to sign up for it."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 2:48 AM GMT
    Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr use a condom!

    Every study on circumcision and HIV fails to address condom use. Use a condom and the benefits of circumcision are moot. Not only is condom use more effective, but also prevents other STIs and unwanted population explosion. It's a no brainer. The only excuse for promoting circumcision over condom use is socio-political conservatism.
  • barriehomeboy

    Posts: 2475

    Feb 16, 2010 2:53 AM GMT
    That's true. For anal sex. People forget that STD's are spread by oral sex as well. Don't ask me to name them, I'm just repeating what the safe sex medical community says. I am so afraid of STD's that I basically don't have sex with anybody but me anymore, but when I'm wondering if a guy is worth meeting, and I see "uncut" he's immediately off the list.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    Circumcision doesn't change the risk to oral transmission.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:03 AM GMT
    chuckystud saidhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35407224/ns/health-aids/

    "Circumcision will likely avert far more deaths per dollar spent than other things we're spending HIV money on," said Philip Stevens, of the London-based think tank International Policy Network. "The main problem I can foresee with this is actually persuading men to sign up for it."


    the number one 'weapon' is to keep your dick in your pants....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:10 AM GMT
    Ain't that the truth? LOL.

    In countries where condoms aren't readily available, clearly, the health organizations are on the right track here, and...lots of folks refuse to use condoms.

    Arguably, the condom is one of the most life saving devices of all time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:12 AM GMT
    barriehomeboy saidThat's true. For anal sex. People forget that STD's are spread by oral sex as well. Don't ask me to name them, I'm just repeating what the safe sex medical community says. I am so afraid of STD's that I basically don't have sex with anybody but me anymore, but when I'm wondering if a guy is worth meeting, and I see "uncut" he's immediately off the list.


    the risk of catching hiv through oral only is super small unless you swallow the cum. Don't swallow
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    Aggieboy said
    barriehomeboy saidThat's true. For anal sex. People forget that STD's are spread by oral sex as well. Don't ask me to name them, I'm just repeating what the safe sex medical community says. I am so afraid of STD's that I basically don't have sex with anybody but me anymore, but when I'm wondering if a guy is worth meeting, and I see "uncut" he's immediately off the list.


    the risk of catching hiv through oral only is super small unless you swallow the cum. Don't swallow


    not true. the risk from (truly) swallowing is super low... your stomach's juices are pure hydrochloric acid... it will kill anything, including HIV. now if by 'swallowing' you mean swishing cum around on your gums, that's a different story, particularly if you vigorously brushed and/or flossed prior to sucking. but technically, swallowing a load delivered on the back of the throat is not that unsafe for HIV.... it's plenty unsafe for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes, et al.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:17 AM GMT
    chuckystud said
    Arguably, the condom is one of the most life saving devices of all time.


    Life saving and life preventing! ;) i.e. providing a positive social function by preventing overpopulation. It would be better for food security, poverty, economies, etc. in poor countries if those guys could just be convinced to put one on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:18 AM GMT
    barriehomeboy saidThat's true. For anal sex. People forget that STD's are spread by oral sex as well. Don't ask me to name them, I'm just repeating what the safe sex medical community says. I am so afraid of STD's that I basically don't have sex with anybody but me anymore, but when I'm wondering if a guy is worth meeting, and I see "uncut" he's immediately off the list.


    that's brutal! i must say i have my preferences with regard to circumcision, but the real issue should be 'is casually hooking up safe?', not whether the man's foreskin is intact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:19 AM GMT
    Well, when I've eaten bad food, my stomach juices told me to THROW UP, and BLOW CHUNKS out my ass. The acid must not have been enough. Apparently, they aren't pure hydrochloric acid (they're not). SIC
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:21 AM GMT
    chuckystud saidWell, when I've eaten bad food, my stomach juices told me to THROW UP, and BLOW CHUNKS out my ass. The acid must not have been enough. Apparently, they aren't pure hydrochloric acid (they're not). SIC


    a pH of about 2.0 is close enough... if you keep it down ;-)

    and chucky, 'sic' is only used to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error... not when you disagree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:36 AM GMT
    The science doesn't back this up as even the media occasionally correctly report: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may132008/hiv_circumcision_5-13-08.php as multiple studies have shown, e.g.

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/648376?cookieSet=1

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/648472?cookieSet=1

    and here's the star: It's a meta-analysis of 18 studies.

    so how about we drop this nonsense? This is clearly BAD science!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:42 AM GMT
    and the "uncut" hysteria begins.

    how about every guy be responsible wrap up that bad boy and get a fucking test every couple of months if you're sexually active. Spread the word love the dick don't be one. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    barriehomeboy saidThat's true. For anal sex. People forget that STD's are spread by oral sex as well. Don't ask me to name them, I'm just repeating what the safe sex medical community says. I am so afraid of STD's that I basically don't have sex with anybody but me anymore, but when I'm wondering if a guy is worth meeting, and I see "uncut" he's immediately off the list.


    That's quite sad to reduce people to if they are cut or not. The true measure there is if the person is hygienic. A way to be sure, is to have shower time as a warm up to getting hot and heavy.


    rightasrain saidnot true. the risk from (truly) swallowing is super low... your stomach's juices are pure hydrochloric acid... it will kill anything, including HIV. now if by 'swallowing' you mean swishing cum around on your gums, that's a different story, particularly if you vigorously brushed and/or flossed prior to sucking. but technically, swallowing a load delivered on the back of the throat is not that unsafe for HIV.... it's plenty unsafe for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes, et al.


    Second this notion. As well, eating a single potato chip leaves you with 30,000 micro abrasions in your mouth. *Be afraid of eating before having sex* icon_eek.gif

    In short...circumcision is a pointless argument to preventing much of anything. Use the head on your shoulders.
  • barriehomeboy

    Posts: 2475

    Feb 16, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    So you're going to make life-ending choices based on anything this bunch of disagreeing gay bois says? You're talking about chopping off the end of IT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 4:07 AM GMT
    i think this study is socially irresponsible. it gives a false sense of security that having sex with a circumcised person will eliminate the risk of getting infected with HIV----at least that is how the uninformed person on the street will interpret it. the risk may be lower----but it's not 0. like someone else said, the use of condoms is a better promotion.

    my bets are that HIV infection rates will actually increase in Africa because of this false sense of security. they also believed that having sex with virgin women would cure them of the disease. this led to rapes of underage women. i know---it's an extreme stretch to compare that to a scientific study.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2010 4:29 AM GMT
    I think it's more like some-one trying to justify a barbaric procedure, genital mutilation that should of been outlawed by now

  • Mar 14, 2010 9:24 AM GMT
    Yes, yes, and studies have shown that numerous bacteria and viruses are harbored under finger nails and are spread by the touching of fingers.

    Therefore, the "obvious" solution to the spreading of finger germs is the removal of the fingernails.

    Makes about as much sense as circumcision.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2010 1:20 PM GMT
    Condoms are cheaper and less painful. I'll keep my foreskin, thank you very much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2010 1:37 PM GMT
    Surely if being cut reduces the risk of HIV to such an amazing extent the proportion of men with the virus in the US would be far less than it is.

    Studies like this are dangerous in that they give people a false sense of security, no matter how much or how little skin is on the end of your cock you can still get HIV so why take the chance?

    Cut or uncut if you don't wrap it up you're playing with fire and I for one am not willing to risk it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2010 2:28 PM GMT
    Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations.

    For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males.


  • allatonce

    Posts: 904

    Mar 15, 2010 2:59 PM GMT
    I agree with others in that firstly, the evidence behind this doesn't seem 100% yet. And more importantly, forcing people to circumcise themselves is a horrible plan. Why would somebody go through such a procedure to do something that may reduce their chances on average? Some have argued that there is a higher risk for bottoming unprotected than topping, doesn't mean that topping unprotected isn't dangerous, even if it were true that it were less dangerous on average. Condoms are the most viable solution we have. Whether or not circumcised, people need to be wearing condoms. To the OP: condom availability is not the issue, its a lot easier to provide condoms than circumcisions. I was just reading that in India one in four condoms provided actually go towards the intended use. The population keeps using them for balloons or mixing in pavement to make roads smoother, etc. So the problem isn't "when condoms aren't available" as much as getting people to use them consistently. Furthermore, often these operations have side effects, especially when performed in less than ideal conditions.

    This idea is up there with forced sterilizations to control population in the developing world. There are empirical, peer reviewed studies, showing that higher educational attainment leads to higher response to safe sex campaigns, maybe the money would be better spent there. This is the kind of half-assed thinking that prevents us from getting this epidemic under control.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
    ejay79 saidCondoms are cheaper and less painful. I'll keep my foreskin, thank you very much.

    No, thank YOU! icon_biggrin.gif

    <--- foreskin lover
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Mar 15, 2010 3:28 PM GMT
    Dear God. What is it with chucky and being uncut icon_question.gificon_confused.gif