Jump to content

A Cut Above, er, Below


Recommended Posts

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/03/25/...herpes-hpv.html

Who knew being cut could be so beneficial :)

Circumcision helps protect heterosexual men against genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but has no effect on the bacteria that causes syphilis, two trials in Uganda show.

The study in Wednesday's New England Journal of Medicine builds on earlier research that found circumcision reduces a man's risk of HIV infection by more than 50 per cent.

"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, which funded the study.

Link to comment
Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a

Note the ADULT in this, not mutilating babies. Not only that, I'll bet you that they don't know WHY this might actually be the case. I would venture to guess that it is actually because the uncircumcised penis has softer and more sensitive tissue, and isn't a piece of hardened leather (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit). Seriously though, I'll bet you the rate of STD transmission is just about zero for those who have their penis removed altogether.

Link to comment
I'll bet you the rate of STD transmission is just about zero for those who have their penis removed altogether.

There are just so many interpretations on that statement. :hehe::hug:

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

Someone finally conducted some proper TESTS.

The findings:

Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed. Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention.
Link to comment

I simply cannot believe this. It's ludicrous!

It says Bill Gates funded a project where men known to be HIV-positive were asked to have sex with uninfected women. They did, and transmitted the disease to the women, as one would expect.

How in the world can Bill Gates live with himself? How many women had their lives shattered by this? And it was unnecessary. All they had to do was check the sperm and/or semen of the circumcised men prior to and following circumcision to see if the virus remained potent.

What kind of people are these? I must be missing something here.

C

Link to comment

I also believe that the original theory was that a circumcised man is less likely to contract HIV (because the head of the penis will be less sensitive and hence less penetrable to the HIV virus). I'm not aware of any reports about circumcised men being less likely to transmit HIV.

http://www.bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content...l/320/7249/1592

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1811312.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

It would help if they bothered to check what exactly they were supposed to be testing for in the first place.

Spoof

Recent studies have disproven the theory that shooting increases the chances of death. 100 volunteers were split into two groups by a randomised process. One group, labeled shooters, were assigned to shoot the other group, labeled victims. After several rounds of shooting, there was no observed deaths in the shooter group, therefore disproving the theory that shooting increases the chances of death.

Link to comment
I also believe that the original theory was that a circumcised man is less likely to contract HIV (because the head of the penis will be less sensitive and hence less penetrable to the HIV virus). I'm not aware of any reports about circumcised men being less likely to transmit HIV.

http://www.bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content...l/320/7249/1592

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1811312.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

It would help if they bothered to check what exactly they were supposed to be testing for in the first place.

Spoof

Recent studies have disproven the theory that shooting increases the chances of death. 100 volunteers were split into two groups by a randomised process. One group, labeled shooters, were assigned to shoot the other group, labeled victims. After several rounds of shooting, there was no observed deaths in the shooter group, therefore disproving the theory that shooting increases the chances of death.

I have known quite a few men who shoot all the time and they are still alive, as are the men they shot at. :wink:

As for the circumcision debate, Googling: 'circumcision HIV aids', gives a number of sites with varied insights; here are just two of them:

BBC report: Male circumcision 'cuts' HIV risk

From CIRP (Circumcision Reference Library) : Circumcision and HIV infection

This site has several references in discussion.

I think it is very important to set aside one's own preference on circumcision in order to be as objective as possible about the influence of circumcision on transmission of disease.

I do remember the arguments from my own youth about circumcision being an aid to cleanliness to minimise disease.

Certainly I think the sheath on an uncircumcised penis might harbour, and thereby prolong the life of the bacteria/virus of diseases, enabling possibly greater risk of transmission, but such an idea may not be obvious to research workers unless they have been in close contact with unwashed genitalia.

It isn't that long ago that doctors refused to believe in germ theory and refused to wash their hands between patients.

Whatever the outcome of such investigations I agree with Cole that such projects as Bill Gates is said to have funded, would indeed seem to be unethical. However I also know that many testing projects face this difficult ethical problem. Anyone want to be the guinea pig for the swine flu vaccine?

The final word from my own doctor, "No one gets inside me even if they are wearing 3 condoms."

I think that sums it up as safer sex being the best if not only option.

Link to comment

I think it's safe to assume that males will continue to engage in whatever activities involving their penises*, whether they are circumcised or not.

However, they can choose to be clean and safe, when possible.

I'd hope they'd also be loving about it, since that's what they're supposed to be doing when they're using those.

* Hey, if a guy's got more than one, that'd be... oh, alright, I'm just kidding there.

-- Honestly, I think the circumcision debate is unfortunate. You either are or you aren't, and if you're going to have a son, you can choose then what you think is best. But clean and safe and loving is more important than whether you still have that sheath of foreskin. Uh, as for me, I don't remember the event, so I can't be too bitter about it. Fine if ya got one, fine if ya don't.

(There, I said "penis" and "foreskin." I hope the filters won't get upset with me.)

Link to comment

Blue sums it up nicely.

I have been told by a long time activist and experienced beyond any reasonable expectation in the use of his appendage, that when he was circumcised at the age of 55 or there abouts, that the difference in quantity of pleasure was so minuscule as to be not worth worrying about.

The reason he had the circumcision was solely to find out what, if any, difference there was. He was curious. His verdict was that there was very slightly less sensitivity which he found advantageous in keeping his partner/s happy for longer. Luckily he had no desire to go back to his former state.

:wink:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...