Re: The curse of circumcision
Steve Hayes
>Paul Abeles wrote:
>> America has the highest rate of AIDS in the industrialized world, and is the
>> only major country which circumcises a majority of its males. Is there a
>> connection? We do not know. Before a doctor performs a circumcision, must he
>> not have the answer to this question: might this baby have an increased risk
>> of AIDS - as the result of circumcision?
>
>This is drawing a ridiculously long bow considering the AIDS epidemic in
>S Africa among the black population who rarely are circumcised.
Not true. Zulus abandoned circumcision around the time of King Shaka, but many
other groups practise it.
If there is any truth in the idea that circumcision reduces the risk of Aids
for males, it certainly doesn't reduce it for females, and those most at risk
from Aids are women aged between 15 and 35.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jim Bell
Go to the group that has the information:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/
Moira de Swardt
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> If there is any truth in the idea that circumcision reduces the risk of
Aids
> for males, it certainly doesn't reduce it for females, and those most at
risk
> from Aids are women aged between 15 and 35.
Statistics indicate that the rates are a little lower in circumcised men
than in uncircumcised men. If I remember correctly it was a 2 in 5 ratio vs
3 in 5 ratio of some particularly high risk group. Not enough to warrant
touting circumcision as some form of protection.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jim Bell
Why rely on memory when the facts are a simple google search away?
USAID has produced a report named "Male Circumcision: Current
Epidemiological and
Field Evidence; Program and Policy Implications for HIV Prevention and
Reproductive Health". Read it and you will from now on have the facts at
your fingertips.
http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
and then more specifically:
Circumcision Cuts HIV/AIDS in India
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570223.stm
"Aids risk 'cut by circumcision
Last Updated: Friday, 26 March, 2004, 01:27 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
By Ania Lichtarowicz
BBC Health correspondent
Men who have been circumcised may be six times less likely to
contract the HIV virus than uncircumcised men, research carried out
in India suggests.
The study in the Lancet journal says that the thin foreskin tissue
could be highly prone to HIV infection.
The latest study, which backs up earlier research in Africa, was
carried out among 2,000-plus men in India.
Researchers say circumcision only reduces the risk of HIV infection -
other sexual diseases are not affected.
A number of studies have shown that circumcision appears to lower
the chances of contracting HIV.
Different susceptibility
When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers found that it
was more prevalent in the east and south of the continent than in
the west.
Differences in sexual behaviour were widely thought to be reason for
this.
But some scientists argued that as circumcision was more common in
west Africa, it could be reducing the risk of HIV infection, as the
foreskin could be more susceptible to the virus than other parts of
penis.
This latest research, looking at more than 2,000 men in India,
suggests exactly that.
Circumcision only seems to have a protective effect against HIV -
other sexually transmitted diseases are just as likely to be passed
on, say the researchers.
They believe this may be because the foreskin contains cells that
the virus specifically targets.
David Edwards
>
> Statistics indicate that the rates are a little lower in circumcised men
> than in uncircumcised men.
You are pulling that one out of your ass, sister. Mebbe you should
check out the real stats first? Rates are a LOT lower.
If I remember correctly it was a 2 in 5 ratio vs
> 3 in 5 ratio of some particularly high risk group. Not enough to warrant
> touting circumcision as some form of protection.
You don't remember correctly, so don't post till you check out the
facts.
Moira de Swardt
"David Edwards" <gbor...@bikerider.com> wrote in message
> "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> > Statistics indicate that the rates are a little lower in circumcised men
> > than in uncircumcised men.
> You are pulling that one out of your ass, sister. Mebbe you should
> check out the real stats first? Rates are a LOT lower.
> If I remember correctly it was a 2 in 5 ratio vs
> > 3 in 5 ratio of some particularly high risk group. Not enough to
warrant
> > touting circumcision as some form of protection.
> You don't remember correctly, so don't post till you check out the
> facts.
Like everything else in the field of HIV there is much debate about this
issue. There is some evidence that it is true that circumcision gives some
protection. The jury is still out on how much protection.
Certainly one of the factors is that of importance is that people who are
circumcised for religious reasons have a tendency towards generally safer
behaviour than people who are not circumcised, which is why the studies are
only relevant in groups where similar behavioural patterns are reported.
This is the link to one of the more conservative series of abstracts.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
Now don't go relying on circumcision for protection against HIV. Rather use
a condom. That is the important message.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jim Bell
Who ever said that people should rely on circumcision to protect against HIV
infection?
Who ever said that every male should go out and get circumcised?
All that has been stated with documentation to support is that given the
same set of circumstances and behaviour the uncircumcised are 6 times more
likely to become infected.
So you need to asked the question as to why you first you tried to sell a
crock of shit information about the relative risk and now you try to sell
some skin freak web site's view on the subject?
Check out the mechanics of infection:
Susceptibility to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection of Human Foreskin
and Cervical Tissue Grown in Explant Culture
http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/161/3/867
You do want to hear the truth don't you?
Xyzzy
at justifying genital surgery for healthy children by pressing the
AIDS-fear button. People can and should choose to alter their own
genitalia. Or not. They overwhelmingly do not. Not of their own
volition.
Moira de Swardt
"Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> Who ever said that people should rely on circumcision to protect against
HIV
> infection?
> Who ever said that every male should go out and get circumcised?
> All that has been stated with documentation to support is that given the
> same set of circumstances and behaviour the uncircumcised are 6 times more
> likely to become infected.
> So you need to asked the question as to why you first you tried to sell a
> crock of shit information about the relative risk and now you try to sell
> some skin freak web site's view on the subject?
> Check out the mechanics of infection:
> Susceptibility to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection of Human
Foreskin
> and Cervical Tissue Grown in Explant Culture
> http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/161/3/867
> You do want to hear the truth don't you?
The truth is that the jury's still out. There's a lot of conflicting
information out there and the studies are certainly not definitive about the
levels of protection. I have no particular reason to enter the debate in
favour or against circumcision. AIDS is also not, at this stage, to be
considered a reason for circumcision as there is not sufficient evidence of
the level of its protective value.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jim Bell
> The truth is that the jury's still out. There's a lot of conflicting
> information out there and the studies are certainly not definitive about
the
> levels of protection. I have no particular reason to enter the debate in
> favour or against circumcision. AIDS is also not, at this stage, to be
> considered a reason for circumcision as there is not sufficient evidence
of
> the level of its protective value.
>
> Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>
Another half truth. What is it that you have against the truth?
There is no question that male circumcision reduces the risk HIV acquisition
by at least 6 fold. This is because there is no question that the foreskin
has an important role in the biology of sexual transmission of HIV.
What is outstanding are the results of the randomized controlled trials
currently underway to confirm the findings of the previous 35 studies that
have found a significant association (a two- to eightfold greater risk)
between HIV risk and lack of male circumcision. This is needed not to
confirm that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect as that is
clear but before circumcision is actively promoted as a public health
requirement. You can see the difference now can't you?
The protective effect is clear. What is needed are the results of the RCT's
before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against HIV
infection.
Read this and free your mind:
http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
Steve Hayes
>>
>> The truth is that the jury's still out. There's a lot of conflicting
>> information out there and the studies are certainly not definitive about
>the
>> levels of protection. I have no particular reason to enter the debate in
>> favour or against circumcision. AIDS is also not, at this stage, to be
>> considered a reason for circumcision as there is not sufficient evidence
>of
>> the level of its protective value.
>>
>> Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>>
>
>
>Another half truth. What is it that you have against the truth?
Which half do you consider to be the correct half?
Or, what is "half" about it?
>
>There is no question that male circumcision reduces the risk HIV acquisition
>by at least 6 fold. This is because there is no question that the foreskin
>has an important role in the biology of sexual transmission of HIV.
That is an untruth, because there DOES seem to be a question about it.
>What is outstanding are the results of the randomized controlled trials
>currently underway to confirm the findings of the previous 35 studies that
>have found a significant association (a two- to eightfold greater risk)
>between HIV risk and lack of male circumcision. This is needed not to
>confirm that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect as that is
>clear but before circumcision is actively promoted as a public health
>requirement. You can see the difference now can't you?
What is the rate of circumcision in Botswana, which has one of the highest
rates of Aids in Africa?
The protectyive effect of refusing blood transfusions is also clear.
When the Aids epidemic has run its course, only 144000 Jehovah's Witnesses
will remain.
Jim Bell
>
> Which half do you consider to be the correct half?
>
> Or, what is "half" about it?
>
The half truth is that the "jury is still out" but not for the reason the
sister claims. The jury is only out on whether the evidence of the
protective effect of male circumcision is persuasive enough to actively
promote circumcision as a public health intervention. The jury is not out on
the mere fact that circumcised men are up to six times less likely to
contract the HIV virus than uncircumcised men.
If there is any conflict about the evidence it is in the mind of the sister
and the psychosexually motivated skin freaks she quotes.
> >
> >There is no question that male circumcision reduces the risk HIV
acquisition
> >by at least 6 fold. This is because there is no question that the
foreskin
> >has an important role in the biology of sexual transmission of HIV.
>
> That is an untruth, because there DOES seem to be a question about it.
>
The fact that some very weird people with a dubious psychosexual agenda
don't want to accept the results of the 35 studies already done does not
mean that there is any scientific "question" about it. And from there it
does not make the results "untrue" as much as you or anyone would like that.
> >What is outstanding are the results of the randomized controlled trials
> >currently underway to confirm the findings of the previous 35 studies
that
> >have found a significant association (a two- to eightfold greater risk)
> >between HIV risk and lack of male circumcision. This is needed not to
> >confirm that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect as that is
> >clear but before circumcision is actively promoted as a public health
> >requirement. You can see the difference now can't you?
>
> What is the rate of circumcision in Botswana, which has one of the highest
> rates of Aids in Africa?
>
Why don't you tell me? You seem to think that to allude to it and the high
rate of HIV infection among the Batswana somehow scores a point for your
case.
Put your facts on the table if you have any.
> The protectyive effect of refusing blood transfusions is also clear.
>
Funny how the uncircumcised and the "admirers" of foreskins resort to silly
little examples when they realise that they have no scientific basis for
challenging the protective effect male circumcision has aginst HIV
infection.
> When the Aids epidemic has run its course, only 144000 Jehovah's Witnesses
> will remain.
>
ditto
In the absence of scientific facts to argue it is predictable that you
resort to one liners.
Now let me guess. You are uncircumcised and since someone pointed and
laughed at you in the shower you have had a hang-up ever since. Get over it,
see a shrink, you don't have to carry the "burden" for the rest of your
life.
Jim Bell
"Xyzzy" <mase...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37b6d3fa.0406...@posting.google.com...
Why would any religious or traditional community have to justify anything to
you? Who are you? Who do you think you are?
In Africa at adolescence and older they line up by the million to be
circumcised out of personal choice and on their own volition.
MIB529
And AIDS really isn't that much of a concern if you're picky about
your partners. It's more a concern for a few groups of men:
1) Bottoms. Needless to say, circumcision doesn't help you if your
penis isn't involved.
2) The multipartnered. This is an individual choice, and I see no
studies of men with the same cultural upbringing, save for
circumcision, showing any difference in number of partners.
3) Nonsexual risk groups, including drug users, hemophiliacs, and
children of HIV-infected mothers. I can't see how circumcision
would help these poor souls, except to say that hemophiliacs are
less likely to survive circumcision and thus less likely to get
AIDS if circumcised.
Moira de Swardt
"Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
Attribution of Moira de Swardt snipped
> > The truth is that the jury's still out. There's a lot of conflicting
> > information out there and the studies are certainly not definitive about
> the
> > levels of protection. I have no particular reason to enter the debate
in
> > favour or against circumcision. AIDS is also not, at this stage, to be
> > considered a reason for circumcision as there is not sufficient evidence
> of
> > the level of its protective value.
> Another half truth. What is it that you have against the truth?
It is not a half truth. I have been actively involved in the field of HIV
and AIDS for at least a decade and a half and personally interested in the
subject since having a boyfriend who told me he had AIDS in 1984. He died
in 1985. I read a great deal about the subject and not simply that which
relates to circumcision.
> There is no question that male circumcision reduces the risk HIV
acquisition
> by at least 6 fold. This is because there is no question that the foreskin
> has an important role in the biology of sexual transmission of HIV.
There is a question about that. In fact several questions. At least one
reliable study has found that it was 3 out of 5 uncircumcised men to 2 out
of 5 circumcised men in some high risk group. I'm looking for that study to
quote.
I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
> What is outstanding are the results of the randomized controlled trials
> currently underway to confirm the findings of the previous 35 studies that
> have found a significant association (a two- to eightfold greater risk)
> between HIV risk and lack of male circumcision. This is needed not to
> confirm that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect as that is
> clear but before circumcision is actively promoted as a public health
> requirement. You can see the difference now can't you?
I acknowledged, not once, but twice, that the evidence is in favour of
circumcision having some protective value. I merely said that the jury was
out on how much. You asserted something about 6 times less likely in
another post, now you state that it is somewhere between two and eightfold.
Make up your mind. Either the protective factor is known as you claim, or
it is not known exactly as I claim.
> The protective effect is clear. What is needed are the results of the
RCT's
> before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against HIV
> infection.
> Read this and free your mind:
> http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
My mind is free on the subject of circumcision, and as a woman, so are my
genitals. I have no agenda on this issue. It seems that your motives may
not be as "pure".
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>And AIDS really isn't that much of a concern if you're picky about
>your partners. It's more a concern for a few groups of men:
Tell that to Ryan White and Isaac Asimov.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
>
The following site might help:
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/
Any mutilation practiced without consent is a criminal assault. Babies
cannot give consent. So circumcision is morally wrong, and ought to be
criminal, when practiced against babies.
Since circumcision reduces sexual enjoyment for life, those circumcised as
babies ought to be able to get extensive damages from the doctor
responsible.
Barbaric and primitive religious practices may well be acceptable between
consenting adults in private, but any civilised society ought to ban them if
forced on victims that have not consented.
--
What are the objections to games for girls? It seems to me the chief
arguments against them are (1) that
they are injurious to health; (2) that they impair the womanliness of
woman; (3) that they mar her appearance. There may be something to be
said for these contentions, but to my mind the _pros_ materially
outweigh the _cons_. - Lawn tennis for Ladies
Xyzzy
...
> before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against HIV
> infection.
What is unethical is assuming that others want this surgery and
forcing it on them, especially on children.
MIB529
> >And AIDS really isn't that much of a concern if you're picky about
> >your partners. It's more a concern for a few groups of men:
>
> Tell that to Ryan White and Isaac Asimov.
They got it via a blood transfusion. Do you seriously think
circumcision would've protected them? Notice that I listed
blood transfusions as a case.
wrt circumcision itself, there are two theories: One is that
the foreskin has too many epithelial Langerhans cells, and
one is that the foreskin has too few epithelial Langerhans
cells. LOL
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>Varicose Brain <lacr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<ennld0pu2a39r1n3r...@4ax.com>...
>> >And AIDS really isn't that much of a concern if you're picky about
>> >your partners. It's more a concern for a few groups of men:
>>
>> Tell that to Ryan White and Isaac Asimov.
>
>They got it via a blood transfusion. Do you seriously think
>circumcision would've protected them? Notice that I listed
>blood transfusions as a case.
So, you're that the method of infection is cause NOT to be concerned?
Jim Bell
> "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
news:<cbcgsj$dqk$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> ...
> > The protective effect is clear. What is needed are the results of the
RCT's
> > before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against
HIV
> > infection.
>
> What is unethical is assuming that others want this surgery and
> forcing it on them, especially on children.
>
I read recently that by "forcing" vaccinations on infants and kids their
immune functions become depressed. As
Dr. Joseph Mercola put it, "Now let me repeat, we are trading a total immune
system depression (our only defense against all known disease - including
millions of pathogens) for a temporary immunity against one disease, usually
an innocuous childhood disease." Now given that I would assume you concern
for infant and child rights would extend to calls to cease immediately all
vaccinations of non consenting children? Certainly as the science behind the
opposition to vaccinations is far more credible than that which the "save
the foreskin" crowd rave about. But then you skin freaks are not about child
rights but rather about dicks and appendages and especially the object of
you peculiar psychosexual fetish, the foreskin.
Jim Bell
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@phmb.biz> wrote in message
news:86823ce356ff1415...@news.teranews.com...
>
> "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> news:cbdsdh$cev$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> >
> > I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
> >
> You might find it interesting to read up about it and develop an opinion.
> The following site might help:
>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/
>
> Any mutilation practiced without consent is a criminal assault. Babies
> cannot give consent. So circumcision is morally wrong, and ought to be
> criminal, when practiced against babies.
>
> Since circumcision reduces sexual enjoyment for life, those circumcised as
> babies ought to be able to get extensive damages from the doctor
> responsible.
>
> Barbaric and primitive religious practices may well be acceptable between
> consenting adults in private, but any civilised society ought to ban them
if
> forced on victims that have not consented.
>
My God where did the bitch queen come from!
I suppose every list has got one.
Listen honey, where is your outrage over the rights of the child when they
are subjected to vaccination without consent? Yes we know honey that your
frustration has been all about your frustration in not finding enough
succulent foreskins to tongue out before you spread for the man of the
moment. The problem honey lies with you. In your own twisted mind.
Then honey you go and give it all away by connection your staged and
blatantly false "outrage" at the child rights abuse you can't help yourself
but to make a sexual connection and thus give away your true psychosexual
interest in the matter.
Honey pie I am truly sorry that you derive sexual pleasure from other
peoples foreskins. I am sure the mammalian penile sheath was never intended
for such a purpose but then again neither was the anus. So honey you strike
out on both counts.
Answer this then baby cakes. If circumcision has an adverse effect on sexual
pleasure do you really think that millions of Africans who are circumcised
after commencing with sexual exploration would not long ago have revolted
against the tradition? Of course they would have. As people who have been
circumcised at an age after having experienced sexual intercourse these are
the only true and honest source of information as to any effect circumcision
may have on sexual function. Here is one study for example.
Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function.
enkul T, IserI C, sen B, KarademIr K, Saracoglu F, Erden D.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14751371
and the conclusions were .........
"CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function.
The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage
rather than a complication."
Sorry honey. Now off you go back to the public toilet to find a succulent
and juicy foreskin to tongue out.
Bitch queens sure are predictable but nevertheless entertaining. Go bitch
go.
Jim Bell
>
> "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
>
> Attribution of Moira de Swardt snipped
>
> > > The truth is that the jury's still out. There's a lot of conflicting
> > > information out there and the studies are certainly not definitive
about
> > the
> > > levels of protection. I have no particular reason to enter the debate
> in
> > > favour or against circumcision. AIDS is also not, at this stage, to
be
> > > considered a reason for circumcision as there is not sufficient
evidence
> > of
> > > the level of its protective value.
>
> > Another half truth. What is it that you have against the truth?
>
> It is not a half truth. I have been actively involved in the field of HIV
> and AIDS for at least a decade and a half and personally interested in the
> subject since having a boyfriend who told me he had AIDS in 1984. He died
> in 1985. I read a great deal about the subject and not simply that which
> relates to circumcision.
>
Yes it is a half truth. I was being kind to you there sister because it
really was just another lie. But I suppose you are going to rise up in
righteous indignation because maybe you present youself on this list as
being a knowledgeable person with honesty and integrity.
I notice from your CV that you have no academic basis for your claim to
possessing expert knowledge on this matter so all it amounts to is that you
were at one time screwed by someone HIV+ and that you have read a lot and
maybe your active involvement is that you hang out with lots of gay people.
BTW I hope you are not a fag hag as they are truly sad and pitifull people.
So bottomline sister, you don't speak with authority on the subject so
support what you say with evidence.
> > There is no question that male circumcision reduces the risk HIV
> acquisition
> > by at least 6 fold. This is because there is no question that the
foreskin
> > has an important role in the biology of sexual transmission of HIV.
>
> There is a question about that. In fact several questions. At least one
> reliable study has found that it was 3 out of 5 uncircumcised men to 2 out
> of 5 circumcised men in some high risk group. I'm looking for that study
to
> quote.
>
Hang on sister/ What exactly is the question? The question is the DEGREE of
the protective effect of male circumcision and not whether there is any
protective effect at all.
There are around 35 studies out there. Most are observational studies that
is why RCT's are required to confirm the level of protective effect provided
by circumcision before deciding whether to introduce it as a public health
requirement like vaccinations.
> I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
>
I have my doubts about that as it is really not possible for anyone to be so
dim as not to understand that simple truth in the sentence above other than
through a mental block through having some other agenda.
> > What is outstanding are the results of the randomized controlled trials
> > currently underway to confirm the findings of the previous 35 studies
that
> > have found a significant association (a two- to eightfold greater risk)
> > between HIV risk and lack of male circumcision. This is needed not to
> > confirm that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect as that
is
> > clear but before circumcision is actively promoted as a public health
> > requirement. You can see the difference now can't you?
>
> I acknowledged, not once, but twice, that the evidence is in favour of
> circumcision having some protective value. I merely said that the jury
was
> out on how much. You asserted something about 6 times less likely in
> another post, now you state that it is somewhere between two and
eightfold.
> Make up your mind. Either the protective factor is known as you claim, or
> it is not known exactly as I claim.
>
I don't have to make up my mind sister. It is the medical studies that need
to nail down the level of pretective effect provided by male circumcision.
It has been known since Cameron's study in 1989 that the uncircumcised have
a higher risk of HIV infection. What is characteristic is how at first the
finding were cast as incorrect and as a result of doubtful science and as
such just blatantly wrong and now once the evidence is overwhelming the spin
has changed to OK maybe but "the jury is still out" on how much and what
should be done about it.
Also as evidenced by your approach is to fix on one of the 35 studies and
one that happens to have rather benighn findings at that.
Being a widely read person who has been active in HIV/AIDS matters for years
and has been shagged by an HIV+ man you did read the following article?
Viewpoint: Male Circumcision and HIV Infection: 10 Years and Counting
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.4613
You did read the psi.org document didn't you ar is your mind still firmly
closed?
Again for those who may have missed it first time around,
http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
> > The protective effect is clear. What is needed are the results of the
> RCT's
> > before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against
HIV
> > infection.
>
> > Read this and free your mind:
>
> > http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
>
> My mind is free on the subject of circumcision, and as a woman, so are my
> genitals. I have no agenda on this issue. It seems that your motives may
> not be as "pure".
>
> Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>
Sorry I don't buy that sister. When you post your one and only reference to
this issue from a skin freak website then a person can justifiably have
doubts as to the integrity of that statement. So shall we say "the jury is
still out" as to whether you are a liar, a purveyor of half truths or
someone arrogant to the extent that you climb into a debate before you have
the facts. As David Edwards said you must stop pulling stuff out of your ass
sister.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> news:cbdsdh$cev$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> >
>
that she is a nun or a nursing sister? Do you make a habit of calling all
women 'sister'? If so, whence this peculiar habit?
--
"The moral of the tale is this: whoever allows himself to be
whipped, deserves to be whipped.
"The blows, as you see, have agreed with me; the roseate supersensual
mist has dissolved, and no one can ever make me believe again that
these 'sacred apes of Benares' or Plato's rooster are the image of God." -
Venus in Furs
by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch
Peter H.M. Brooks
news:<cbcgsj$dqk$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> ...
> > The protective effect is clear. What is needed are the results of the
RCT's
> > before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against
HIV
> > infection.
>
> What is unethical is assuming that others want this surgery and
> forcing it on them, especially on children.
>
term surgery.
It is possible that somebody not familiar with morality or medicine might
try to link this sort of mutilation to other procedures carried out on
children without their consent. Since circumcision is certain to maim
children for life (we are, of course, talking of circumcision of both
sexes), and other procedures (tonsilectomy, vaccination, hare-lip corrective
surgery etc. etc.) is almost certain not to, the comparision is void.
Still, to be fair, one has to expect that victims of circumcision (again,
either sex) will wish to believe that they are not, in fact, maimed. We
should allow them this conceit, but it ought not in any way alter the facts
of the matter. It is a criminal assault. The sooner doctors, or anybody else
assaulting children in this way, are disbarred and prosecuted for maiming
children in this manner the better.
--
'Happiness lies in conquering one's enemies, driving them in front of
oneself, in taking their property, in savouring their despair, in outraging
their wives and daughters.' - Genghis Khan
Moira de Swardt
> > Sorry I don't buy that sister.
> This seems a peculiar form of address. Is Moira your sister? Do you think
> that she is a nun or a nursing sister? Do you make a habit of calling all
> women 'sister'? If so, whence this peculiar habit?
I am grateful not to be related to Mr Jim Bell.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
> > It is not a half truth. I have been actively involved in the field of
HIV
> > and AIDS for at least a decade and a half and personally interested in
the
> > subject since having a boyfriend who told me he had AIDS in 1984. He
died
> > in 1985. I read a great deal about the subject and not simply that
which
> > relates to circumcision.
> Yes it is a half truth. I was being kind to you there sister because it
> really was just another lie. But I suppose you are going to rise up in
> righteous indignation because maybe you present youself on this list as
> being a knowledgeable person with honesty and integrity.
"I present myself as being a knowledgeable person with honesty and
integrity". I see you've Googled my posting history over the last five
years.
> I notice from your CV that you have no academic basis for your claim to
> possessing expert knowledge on this matter so all it amounts to is that
you
> were at one time screwed by someone HIV+ and that you have read a lot and
> maybe your active involvement is that you hang out with lots of gay
people.
> BTW I hope you are not a fag hag as they are truly sad and pitifull
people.
Yes, you definitely have done your Google search correctly.
Academic evidence also available on Google. I am a BAA and EMA (American
EMT and EMT Intermediate respectively) registered with the Health
Professions Council of South Africa and licenced to practice in both South
Africa and Swaziland. I am an ordained minister of religion, with a
Bachelor of Theology degree as well as a Theological Diploma. I have
undertaken professional education and counselling courses in HIV and AIDS
through UNISA and through ATICC in South Africa. I have worked, and
currently work, exclusively in the field of HIV and AIDS in both Swaziland
at a clinic and in South Africa for two religious NGO's.
> So bottomline sister, you don't speak with authority on the subject so
> support what you say with evidence.
I have supplied the evidence and the reasoning.
> Being a widely read person who has been active in HIV/AIDS matters for
years
> and has been shagged by an HIV+ man you did read the following article?
No, I have decided that you aren't worth reading anymore, so neither are
your cites.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
> > I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
> You might find it interesting to read up about it and develop an opinion.
> The following site might help:
> http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/
> Any mutilation practiced without consent is a criminal assault. Babies
> cannot give consent. So circumcision is morally wrong, and ought to be
> criminal, when practiced against babies.
> Since circumcision reduces sexual enjoyment for life, those circumcised as
> babies ought to be able to get extensive damages from the doctor
> responsible.
I have a slight preference for circumcised men, actually. Not that I would
select a partner based on this preference, but I wouldn't react with dismay
to discover a circumcised state where religion wouldn't have made me assume
it.
> Barbaric and primitive religious practices may well be acceptable between
> consenting adults in private, but any civilised society ought to ban them
if
> forced on victims that have not consented.
Hmm.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
> > > I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
> > You might find it interesting to read up about it and develop an
opinion.
> > The following site might help:
> > http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/
> My God where did the bitch queen come from!
> I suppose every list has got one.
> Listen honey, where is your outrage over the rights of the child when they
> are subjected to vaccination without consent? Yes we know honey that your
> frustration has been all about your frustration in not finding enough
> succulent foreskins to tongue out before you spread for the man of the
> moment. The problem honey lies with you. In your own twisted mind.
The problem lies with your bias.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@phmb.biz> wrote in message
> > "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
>
> > > I have no circumcision or otherwise axe to grind.
>
> > You might find it interesting to read up about it and develop an
opinion.
> > The following site might help:
>
> > http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/
>
> > Any mutilation practiced without consent is a criminal assault. Babies
> > cannot give consent. So circumcision is morally wrong, and ought to be
> > criminal, when practiced against babies.
>
> > Since circumcision reduces sexual enjoyment for life, those circumcised
as
> > babies ought to be able to get extensive damages from the doctor
> > responsible.
>
> I have a slight preference for circumcised men, actually. Not that I
would
> select a partner based on this preference, but I wouldn't react with
dismay
> to discover a circumcised state where religion wouldn't have made me
assume
> it.
>
prosecuted for extreme, dangerous and demeaning assaults on each other,
including unnamed (in the reports) damaging mutilations. It wouldn't be my
cup of tea, but they were all very clearly adults and consenting, so I think
it no business of the law to interfere - if you want to kill or maim
yourself with drugs, razors or mind games that is your affair, if you are an
adult in posession of your faculties. So, if chaps want to circumcise
themselves to give people like you pleasure - or women to give men who like
circumcised women pleasure - then I have no problem with it, it is their
free choice, misguided and disturbing as it might be to others.
There is, however, no excuse whatsoever for inflicting such mutilation on
babies, children or people who are not able to be fully consenting adults
for any other reason.
--
The telephone current is a phenomenon of the ether, say the theorists. But
what is ether? No one knows. Sir Oliver Lodge has guessed that it is
"perhaps the only substantial thing in the material universe"; but no one
knows. - The History of the Telephone, Herbet Casson 1910
Moira de Swardt
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@phmb.biz> wrote in message
> "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> > I have a slight preference for circumcised men, actually. Not that I
> > would select a partner based on this preference, but I wouldn't react
with
> > dismay to discover a circumcised state where religion wouldn't have made
me
> > assume it.
> There was a case in the UK where a sadomasochistic homosexual club was
> prosecuted for extreme, dangerous and demeaning assaults on each other,
> including unnamed (in the reports) damaging mutilations. It wouldn't be my
> cup of tea, but they were all very clearly adults and consenting, so I
think
> it no business of the law to interfere - if you want to kill or maim
> yourself with drugs, razors or mind games that is your affair, if you are
an
> adult in posession of your faculties. So, if chaps want to circumcise
> themselves to give people like you pleasure - or women to give men who
like
> circumcised women pleasure - then I have no problem with it, it is their
> free choice, misguided and disturbing as it might be to others.
I'm so grateful I'm a woman. And that my religion doesn't demand that I
practice circumcision, male or female.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Steve Hayes
>
>"Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
>news:cbgdvr$sht$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>
>> "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:cbdsdh$cev$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Sorry I don't buy that sister.
>>
>This seems a peculiar form of address. Is Moira your sister? Do you think
>that she is a nun or a nursing sister? Do you make a habit of calling all
>women 'sister'? If so, whence this peculiar habit?
No, its addressed to the sister's solicitor, as in
Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice
Unless you get a good percentage of her price.
Xyzzy
> "Xyzzy" <mase...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37b6d3fa.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> news:<cbcgsj$dqk$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> > ...
> > > The protective effect is clear. What is needed are the results of the
> RCT's
> > > before circumcision can actively promoted as one of the tools against
> HIV
> > > infection.
> >
> > What is unethical is assuming that others want this surgery and
> > forcing it on them, especially on children.
> >
> Quite. Though mutilation, or, rather, criminal assault, hardly merits the
> term surgery.
Circumcision, to my mind, is an extreme body modification for babies.
Like a Prince Albert, but much more extensive. And irreversible.
> It is possible that somebody not familiar with morality or medicine might
> try to link this sort of mutilation to other procedures carried out on
> children without their consent.
Yes, a favorite tactic is to change the subject immediately,
preferring to discuss vaccinations, umbillical cord cutting,
fingernail cutting, etc etc.
> Since circumcision is certain to maim
> children for life (we are, of course, talking of circumcision of both
> sexes), and other procedures (tonsilectomy, vaccination, hare-lip corrective
> surgery etc. etc.) is almost certain not to, the comparision is void.
>
> Still, to be fair, one has to expect that victims of circumcision (again,
> either sex) will wish to believe that they are not, in fact, maimed. We
> should allow them this conceit, but it ought not in any way alter the facts
> of the matter.
> It is a criminal assault.
Absolutely. On the part of the doctor, mohel or otherwise.
Peter H.M. Brooks
You would have choice over the latter problem though. If you suffer from a
religious infection that demands you do damaging and irrational things to
yourself you only have to give it up and all is well.
--
"My dear Mr. Greech," said Lady Caroline, "we all know that Prime Ministers
are wedded to the truth, but like other wedded couples they sometimes live
apart." - Saki, The Unbearable Bassington
Jim Bell
The two queens converse such:
> > What is unethical is assuming that others want this surgery and
> > forcing it on them, especially on children.
> >
> Quite. Though mutilation, or, rather, criminal assault, hardly merits the
> term surgery.
>
This is the normal intro type stuff. It only takes a few minutes until they
get to the I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours bit.
> It is possible that somebody not familiar with morality or medicine might
> try to link this sort of mutilation to other procedures carried out on
> children without their consent. Since circumcision is certain to maim
> children for life (we are, of course, talking of circumcision of both
> sexes), and other procedures (tonsilectomy, vaccination, hare-lip
corrective
> surgery etc. etc.) is almost certain not to, the comparision is void.
>
Now are we supposed to assume that you two queens are "familiar" with
morality and medicine? You main are of focus is the ano-genital area on
males so give us a break about how clever you want people to think you area
and concentrate on tonguing out some succulent foreskins.
The comparison that is void is that which compares Female Genital Mutilation
with male circumcision. -- see below.
You see babycakes your confusion comes from the fact that you say about the
physical when what you mean is the mental.
Because you get beside yourself with disappointment at not finding a juicy
foreskin to tongue out you project your loss of pleasure on the person with
the circumcised penis. Its in your mind and not in anyone else's mind or
body.
Another study found no adverse effect from circumcision. Read it and weep
you queens, maybe you need to get the fag hag to pull some more out of her
ass to kelp your cause.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
EFFECTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON MALE PENILE SENSITIVITY
Clifford B Bleustein*, Haftan Eckholdt, Joseph C Arezzo, Arnold Melman,
Bronx,
NY
Introduction and Objective:
Controversy continues to exist about the effect of circumcision on penile
sensitivity and sexual satisfaction. This study was designed to evaluate
penile
sensitivity in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. We evaluated both
large
and small axon nerve fibers using vibration, pressure, spatial perception,
and
warm and cold thermal thresholds. Measurements both in functional men and
men
with erectile dysfunction (ED) were obtained to evaluate for differences in
penile sensitivities.
Methods:
Seventy-nine patients were evaluated. In the cohort evaluated, 54% (43/79)
were
uncircumcised, while 46% (36/79) were circumcised. All patients completed
the
erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function
(IIEF)
questionnaire. Patients were subsequently tested on the dorsal midline glans
of
the penis. In uncircumcised males, the foreskin was retracted for testing.
Vibration (Biothesiometer), pressure (Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments),
spatial
perception (Tactile Circumferential Discriminator), and warm and cold
thermal
thresholds (Physitemp NTE-2) were measured. Bivariate relationships were
assessed using chi square, t test, and Pearson correlations. Composite null
hypotheses were assessed with mixed models repeated measures analysis of
variance allowing us to covary for age, diabetes, and hypertension.
Results:
Functional group t test analysis only demonstrated a significant (p= 0.048)
difference for warm thermal thresholds with a higher threshold (worse
sensation)
for uncircumcised men. However, significance was lost when we controlled for
age, hypertension, and diabetes. For the dysfunctional groups ttest analysis
only demonstrated a significant (p= 0.01) difference for vibration
(biothesiometry) with a higher threshold (worse sensation) for uncircumcised
men. Again, this also lost significance (p=0.08) when controlling for age,
hypertension, and diabetes. We also found that overall race is related to
circumcision status with Caucasian men 25 times and African American men 8
times
more likely to be circumcised than Hispanics.
Conclusions:
We present a comparative analysis between uncircumcised and circumcised men
using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the
spectrum
of small to large axon nerve fibers. We demonstrated that there are no
significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and
uncircumcised men with respect to vibration, spatial perception, pressure,
warm
and cold thermal thresholds in both patients with and without erectile
dysfunction.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Still, to be fair, one has to expect that victims of circumcision (again,
> either sex) will wish to believe that they are not, in fact, maimed. We
> should allow them this conceit, but it ought not in any way alter the
facts
> of the matter. It is a criminal assault. The sooner doctors, or anybody
else
> assaulting children in this way, are disbarred and prosecuted for maiming
> children in this manner the better.
>
OK so this is how it goes then. If I am circumcised and I don't believe that
I have been maimed then I must be in denial, right?
In what country in the world is male circumcision a criminal assualt? Sorry
you skin freaks have it as a figment of your imagination.
What is in fact needed is the true source of anti-circumcision activism to
be exposed for what it really is -- nothing more than a psychosexual
motivation of a gay dominated fringe group.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FGM
The following was taken off fgm.org website which seems to now be defunct.
The message is however clear. The people who do good work in bringing fgm to
an end resent anti-circumcision oragnisations trying to tie male
circumcision to FGM. As they say, "The kindest thing women can do for you is
to tell you to grow up. Your Mommies are busy, our plates are full."
From: Earlyyears...@btopenworld.com
Subject: FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001
Recently a member of a male anti-circumcision organization wrote a letter to
my local editor addressing the issue of circumcision. While truthfully
stating the fact that all forms of circumcision performed on minors are a
violation of human rights and medical ethics, the writer was gravely
misleading and self serving in equating Female Genital Mutilation ("female
circumcision") with male circumcision. Furthermore, his choice of wording
gave the mistaken impression that FGM has been both adequately addressed and
"solved."
Male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure performed for conformist,
hygienic and cosmetic reasons. With female "circumcision," these reasons are
often cited to mollify critics and, after thousands of years, have become
accepted superficially. The main reason, however, that young girls are
sexually mutilated, is to ensure their virginity and chastity by severely
damaging or entirely inhibiting their ability to enjoy sexual relations.
This is to prepare them to become "proper wives." It is done because men
insist, no matter how promiscuous themselves, on virginal, "circumcised"
brides. No such correlation exists with male circumcision. No boy is
circumcised to "keep him virginal" until marriage, or with the deliberate
intent decrease his sexual appetite. In addition, as males, boys exist as
part of the status quo, while girls still struggle for basic rights.
Female genital mutilation is performed to prepare a woman for proper
marriage, and ranges from clitoridectomy, to the hacking, slicing or burning
off of all external female genitalia (excision), and infibulation, where the
girl's entire outer genitals are sliced off, with the resulting wound bound
together with thorn, thread, cowhide thong or sutures. Her legs are then
lashed together for 1-6 weeks while she heals. Often water is refused her to
discourage urination. She is sewn almost completely shut, leaving small
(match head size), inadequate openings for passage of urine and menses. This
is mostly done under less than sterile circumstances, with rudimentary
instruments (razor, knife, glass, tin can) and no anesthesia. Girls are
generally subjected to this between the ages of 3 to 15 years of age,
although it varies significantly among regions and sub-groups. These
procedures result in complications ranging from shock, chronic infection,
post traumatic stress disorders, hemorrhage, severe scarring (both internal
and external genitals), urinary tract problems, incontinence, infertility,
infant/mother mortality, fibroids, fistula, sexual dysfunction,
psychological disturbance, and not infrequently, death. For my infibulated
friends, a simple ob/gyn exam is pure torture, resulting in days of bleeding
and bed rest. For many, even a child-size speculum is too large and
examination and treatment are difficult.
For male circumcision to be equivalent to even the most simple form of FGM
(Type I, clitoridectomy) the head of the penis (not just the foreskin) would
have to be cut off.
FGM is no longer limited to African, Malaysian and Middle Eastern nations
and is now not uncommon in the U.S., Canada and Europe.
If a girl's parents object to this practice, it is not unusual for a girl to
be kidnapped and forcibly "circumcised" by relatives or members of the
community. Women who speak out about this issue are often ostracized or
punished. Even for women who do not fear being ostracized, this is a highly
personal and difficult topic to discuss. This is not the case with male
circumcision, which has become an open and frequent topic on health radio
and television shows and parent support networks, as well as in print and
online media.
FGM is only the beginning of women's suffering: a lifetime of endless labor,
early, arranged marriage - often to much older men - and few basic rights,
including the right to education and economic independence. Even today,
girls enjoy few of the freedoms their brothers take for granted: movies with
friends, outings, school field trips, use of the telephone.
It is highly unethical and reprehensible to appropriate the enormous
suffering of 150 million girls worldwide to attack the very real, but far
less complicated issue of infant male circumcision; to do so trivializes the
disproportionate agony of women. Can male circumcision not be abolished on
it's own lack of merit? Any comparison between the two is enormously
exaggerated, simplified, and overlooks the misogynous intentions of FGM.
As women we have so many of our own health issues to address - under funded
and under assisted, and a health care system with undervalues and
demoralizes us. We must prioritize ourselves. Some anti-male circ activists
resort to a type of manipulation: women should actively use their time to
support their cause because 'circumcised men are angry men, and angry men
commit more violence.' While it is true that angry men are often violent
men, and that some men are angry about their circumcisions, it is quite a
stretch to blame the long historic and global fact of violence and
oppression against women and girls on the practice of male circumcision. By
their own statistics, anti male circ activists have noted that America is a
lonely hold out in maintaining this practice, and yet a January 2000 report
by Johns Hopkins, based on a ten year global study, revealed that 1 in 3
women on this planet have been raped, beaten or otherwise severely abused.
According to anti male circ activists own stats, the majority of these women
are being abused by uncircumcised males. It is a violent nature in the first
place that tends to originate these practices, including circumcision.
What really needs to happen is that men need to grow up and address their
own health needs by themselves. Consider this: the majority of capital and
resources on this planet is still controlled by men; the majority of
appointed and elected policy makers are still men; the vast majority of
hospital administrators and policy makers are men; the majority of insurance
policy makers (who pay for male circ) are men. Men have time to design
Stealth bombers, run for office, take over corporations, but cannot schedule
the time (often) to book their own doctor's appointments. The kindest thing
women can do for you is to tell you to grow up. Your Mommies are busy, our
plates are full.
Jim Bell
>
> "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> news:cbgdvr$sht$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:cbdsdh$cev$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > >
> > > "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > Sorry I don't buy that sister.
> >
> This seems a peculiar form of address. Is Moira your sister? Do you think
> that she is a nun or a nursing sister? Do you make a habit of calling all
> women 'sister'? If so, whence this peculiar habit?
>
Now what business is that of the resident bitch queen?
Being all protective of your fag hag?
Jim Bell
>
> "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> > "Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
>
> > > It is not a half truth. I have been actively involved in the field of
> HIV
> > > and AIDS for at least a decade and a half and personally interested in
> the
> > > subject since having a boyfriend who told me he had AIDS in 1984. He
> died
> > > in 1985. I read a great deal about the subject and not simply that
> which
> > > relates to circumcision.
>
> > Yes it is a half truth. I was being kind to you there sister because it
> > really was just another lie. But I suppose you are going to rise up in
> > righteous indignation because maybe you present youself on this list as
> > being a knowledgeable person with honesty and integrity.
>
> "I present myself as being a knowledgeable person with honesty and
> integrity". I see you've Googled my posting history over the last five
> years.
>
Sorry, I don't take the time to do that with wannabe experts, sister.
Your knowledge in this particular aspect of the HIV issue is pretty limited
if you can only remember one study but can't find it to site when needed. It
is people like you who claim to be "knowledgeable" and pass on half truths
and disinformation that are a positive danger to people who may take you for
an expert. But hey, why you worry?
It is such a hoot that people who get caught with their fingers in the
cookie jar always are prepared to swear on a stack of bibles that they are
people of "honesty and integrity".
> > I notice from your CV that you have no academic basis for your claim to
> > possessing expert knowledge on this matter so all it amounts to is that
> you
> > were at one time screwed by someone HIV+ and that you have read a lot
and
> > maybe your active involvement is that you hang out with lots of gay
> people.
> > BTW I hope you are not a fag hag as they are truly sad and pitifull
> people.
>
> Yes, you definitely have done your Google search correctly.
Not necessary sister. You said it all in your posts to this discussion.
>
> Academic evidence also available on Google. I am a BAA and EMA (American
> EMT and EMT Intermediate respectively) registered with the Health
> Professions Council of South Africa and licenced to practice in both South
> Africa and Swaziland. I am an ordained minister of religion, with a
> Bachelor of Theology degree as well as a Theological Diploma. I have
> undertaken professional education and counselling courses in HIV and AIDS
> through UNISA and through ATICC in South Africa. I have worked, and
> currently work, exclusively in the field of HIV and AIDS in both Swaziland
> at a clinic and in South Africa for two religious NGO's.
>
Not good enough to claim expert status on HIV in general or the connection
with circumcision in particular. Read my lips sister, you need to support
your claims with E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E , you need to cite your references, you
need to stop pulling stuff out of your ass and claiming it is fact. Geddit?
> > So bottomline sister, you don't speak with authority on the subject so
> > support what you say with evidence.
>
> I have supplied the evidence and the reasoning.
>
You are a hoot sister. Does your form of evidence and reasoning amount "I'm
looking for that study to quote."?
But it seems to be sadly true that you are a fag hag. What with being all
close and cuddly with the list's resident bitch queen and Xyzzy the little
boy with the ugly dick who does not get to use that thang for sex.
>
> No, I have decided that you aren't worth reading anymore, so neither are
> your cites.
>
That's what I expected sister. Close the ears and eyes and run screaming
from the facts.
So are you still going to claim to be an "expert" even though you refuse to
read the facts? That is also pretty predictable, sister.
Jim Bell
>
> The problem lies with your bias.
>
And that is?
Jim Bell
>
> There was a case in the UK where a sadomasochistic homosexual club was
Now why would it be so obvious that the resident bitch queen would have such
information at her fingertips?
Jim Bell
>
> Circumcision, to my mind, is an extreme body modification for babies.
> Like a Prince Albert, but much more extensive. And irreversible.
>
Glad you said to your mind. Well that statement does give an insight into
what is obviously a sick and twisted one at that.
This is good stuff that should be retained for reproduction should anyone
ever start to believe that the skin freaks are sane and should be taken
seriously.
Heard from another one just the other day. Claimed that he had a vivid
memory from the time in the womb, through circumcision experience and so on.
Strangely it could not remember what it had for lunch yesterday. This skin
freak phenomenon is going to make for a wonderful case study of modern
mental illness. the studies are starting to come out.
Mohl, P. C., Adams, R., Greer, D. M. and Sheley, K. A.: Prepuce restoration
seekers: psychiatric aspects. Arch. Sex. Behav., 10: 383, 1981.
Sad, sick people.
At one time a so-called anti-circumcision and foreskin restoration group
name Uncirc published a poll on their membership composition. It was as
follows:
80% homosexual
10% bisexual
10% heterosexual
65% uncircumcised
30% circumcised
5% partially circumcised
You gotto know who your dealing with here.
>
> Yes, a favorite tactic is to change the subject immediately,
> preferring to discuss vaccinations, umbillical cord cutting,
> fingernail cutting, etc etc.
>
Well yes that response does presuppose that there is a principle involved
that the silly billies should realize that with the skin freaks there is no
principle, there are no principles it is merely the desperate defense of the
object of their psychosexual fetish.
Why don't you explain to everyone how this particular skin freak arrived at
this conclusion?
"The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."
Thomas J. Ritter, MD
Paul A Abeles
Read this moron.
Circumcision
Opponents of routine circumcision of the male infant will greet with
pleasure the appearance of the article by Annunziato and Goldblum (p 1187)
and the one by Sussman et al (p 1189) on unusual complications of the
operation. Those who favor routine circumcision will be quick to point out
that Fournier's syndrome and the scalded skin syndrome are very rare
complications that should not deter parents from requesting circumcision for
the newborn boy.
Circumcision of the newborn continues for the following reasons: it
may be routine because of religious beliefs, and parents and physicians have
for years accepted the procedure on the basis that arguments that the
circumcised male is at less risk of having cancer develop, and that a
malignant neoplasm in the genital tract of women married to circumcised men
is less frequent than in women married to uncircumcised men. It is an
uncontestable fact at this point that there are more deaths from
complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.
It is unlikely that a listing of the hazards of circumcision will
deter parents who insist on circumcision of their infant for religious
reasons. However, for all other parents, physicians should become more
vociferous than they have been in discouraging circumcision of the newborn.
They have been slow to do so because they have not been convinced that
circumcision is of little benefit. Yet, today, especially, the circumcised
infant is at greater risk than ever before. He is clustered in large newborn
nurseries (because small units are too costly) and is therefore exposed to
even greater numbers of organisms that have been altered by their own
exposure to multiple antibiotics. He has enough portals of entry as it
is-his nose, mouth, conjunctivas, and the end of his umbilicus. It seems
totally unnecessary to aid and abet lurking bacteria by adding a raw wound
to his genitalia.
Finally, I should like to cast my vote against the use of the term
Fournier's syndrome and beg that the condition be referred to as gangrene of
penis, scrotum, or perineum. There are already far too many syndromes. The
reader in two weeks or even less will be hard put to recall the meaning of
the name, but he is unlikely to be confused by the term gangrene. Down, I
say, with both circumcision and Fournier's syndrome.
SYDNEY S. GELLIS, MD
Department of Pediatrics
New England Medical Center Hospital
20 Ash St
Boston, MA 02111
Steve Hayes
Evident in your childish responses, your use of terms like "skinfreaks" etc.
Jim Bell
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40dd4cdf...@news.saix.net...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:46:25 -0700, "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> >news:cbgsak$qik$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> >>
> >> The problem lies with your bias.
> >>
> >
> >
> >And that is?
>
> Evident in your childish responses, your use of terms like "skinfreaks"
etc.
>
Well Mr uncircumcised maybe you are not a skin freak yourself but then again
maybe you are one of thousands of married men who lurk in the closet but
just can't afford to "come out" so they find a good reason -- so they
think -- to sit around and discuss dicks. Maybe a little show and tell and
then they must reluctantly leave the rest to fantasy. Are you one of these?
Or maybe you are just an ugly duckling that did not get to grow into a swan.
A smelly, stinky thing as everyone knows but to be laughed at and pointed at
is hurtful. Is that why you now want to get your own back?
So to call a spade a spade, a skin freak is exactly what they are. You
should know you get judged by the company you keep. So it is you, the bitch
queen, sister and the jism licker. What a bunch!
MPCathmor
>
> "Xyzzy" <mase...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37b6d3fa.0406...@posting.google.com...
>> Implicit in these HIV/circumcision discussions is a sideways attempt
>> at justifying genital surgery for healthy children by pressing the
>> AIDS-fear button. People can and should choose to alter their own
>> genitalia. Or not. They overwhelmingly do not. Not of their own
>> volition.
>
> Why would any religious or traditional community have to justify
> anything to you? Who are you? Who do you think you are?
>
> In Africa at adolescence and older they line up by the million to be
> circumcised out of personal choice and on their own volition.
>
I am very much against any mutilation of human beings. I don't think
anything God has supplied us with is God's mistake or miscalculation of
anykind. I don't think we should be cutting out or off any part of the
human body, whether it's a foreskin, a tongue, a finger, a nose or an ear.
If it's there, it's there for a purpose.
MPC
Steve Hayes
So much for the "truth", that you so nobly claimed to espouse.
Now that we know where you're really coming from, your opinions about
circumcision and Aids are shown to be completely worthless.
conciliator
with any intelligent postings. So why don't you carry on your boring
monologue, and delete soc.culture.south-africa from the multitude of
NG's you seem to publish your BS on.
"Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
news:cbj9ka$1ap$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
conciliator
anything without being insulting, and thereby proving your ignorance?
It;s those that don't know much that aggressively attack people. By the
way, sexual perversion, and the intimate knowledge thereof as you have
so adequetly displayed makes one think where you get detailed
descriptions from. Lots of experience, Bell?news:cbgdv7$sgs$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
conciliator
And his obvious ignorance and filthy mind.
Jim Bell
> Another idiotic posting by the "know-all" Mr. Bell. Can you contribute
> anything without being insulting, and thereby proving your ignorance?
> It;s those that don't know much that aggressively attack people. By the
> way, sexual perversion, and the intimate knowledge thereof as you have
> so adequetly displayed makes one think where you get detailed
> descriptions from. Lots of experience, Bell?
What's getting up your nose papa?
You need to be careful not to talk of the acts of preference among some of
your fellow list members as "sexual perversion". For example your bitch
queen may or may not be a pervert as well. Conscenting adults and all that
you know. And the tail-gunner, that too is quite legal nowadays you know. So
cut the perversion line already and drop the child psychology. Hasn't worked
up to now unlikely to start to work now.
I will leave you with this factoid:
"In the USA at the same time the incidence of circumcision decreased from
84% to 74%, the incidence of urinary tract infections in boys increased 11%.
There was no increase in the incidence of urinary tract infections in girls
at the same time."
- Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT. Pediatrics
1987; 79: 338-41
Jim Bell
> >
> > The problem lies with your bias.
> >
> > Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>
> And his obvious ignorance and filthy mind.
>
Listen papa when you are out to catch pedophiles on the net one has to know
why they do what they do. Funny how some people always show up on certain
types of threads and in certain types of groups. Sometimes a kid can post to
a list with a sexology related issue and be silly enough to give his real
email. He is a kid right. Yea and that is what they are looking for. Bingo,
they zero in and offer all manner of intimate advice. Some seem to be
content to get off talking dirty to kids. Probably the married ones. The
real bad bastards try to set up a meet. Now none of you low life scum bags
you respond to vulnerable kid will know whether you are talking to a kid or
an officer of the law. But I want to you try your luck because this net is
not going to be a place of safety pedos to ply their trade for ever.
OK so where were we.
Oh yes, I'll leave you with this factoid:
"95% of all urinary tract infections in boys aged 5 days to 8 years are in
uncircumcised boys"
- Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH. Pediatrics 1982; 69: 409-12
- Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Pediatrics 1985; 75: 901-3
- Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Pediatrics 1989; 83: 1011-5
Jim Bell
"conciliator" <avoi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:I-ydnYj-0J9...@is.co.za...
> Apart from a few quotations and lots of insults, you haven't come up
> with any intelligent postings. So why don't you carry on your boring
> monologue, and delete soc.culture.south-africa from the multitude of
> NG's you seem to publish your BS on.
>
Sorry old timer but by now you should have learned that you can't always get
what you want.
I would have thought that with all the examples of people pulling stuff
right out of their ass without any thought you would have avoided that same
pitfall. But alas.
Lets start from here then shall we?
Take a look papa. Down the left hand box. The person who started the thread
was the well known troll and bum bandit Paul Abeles on 11 June. Now trace
down Bill Evans' post on 19 June. At that stage the groups on the list were:
alt.politics.usa, alt.religion.christian, aus.politics, soc.culture.israel,
soc.culture.jewish. Then trace the dotted line to your man Steve Hayes who
then posted to the following lists: alt.politics.usa,
alt.religion.christian, aus.politics, soc.culture.israel,
soc.culture.jewish, soc.culture.south-africa, soc.culture.african,
sci.anthropology. So what you see there dad? He adds the following:
soc.culture.south-africa, soc.culture.african, sci.anthropology. You
following this papa or do you want to call the kitchen girl in to help you?
Some 118 in the thread hardly make it a monologue or is it that your cute
little clique in soc SA are threatening to put me in the kill file
..bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. That's going to hurt me real bad daddy. But why
not promise to let Steve Hayes get a gander at your dick if he promises not
to bring seemingly unwanted threads into your private list? Hey?
Listen man I like the insults and I can take as good as I give so roll up
your sleeves and get down and dirty or fuck off.
As to the quotes the cites and the studies I may post the one thing about
them is that they are factual. I don't feel the need to pull stuff right out
of my ass to sell a low grade line of crap upon the dull and ignorant on
these lists. Unlike your sister the of the half truth fame and Steve Hayes
of the Botswana gaff infamy.
So daddy I leave you with this these sage words.
"The proponents of not circumcising stress that lifelong penile hygiene is
essential. This acknowledges that something harmful or unpleasant is
happening under the prepuce." - Russell T, Med Observer 1993 (1 Oct)
Steve Hayes
>Apart from a few quotations and lots of insults, you haven't come up
>with any intelligent postings. So why don't you carry on your boring
>monologue, and delete soc.culture.south-africa from the multitude of
>NG's you seem to publish your BS on.
For what it's worth, I saw this thread on another newsgroup, and crossposted
it to soc.culture.south-africa because someone alleged, erroneously I believe,
that the high rates of HIV/Aids infection correlated with the low rate of
circumcision in South Africa.
I questioned the bit about the low rate of circumcision -- I'm not sure
exactly what it is, but hoped that someone more knowledgeable might be able to
provide the answer. I know that some ethnic groups practise circumcision,
others don't, and some do partially.
Xhosas, Ndebeles and Jews practise circumcision.
Zulus and Afrikaners generally don't.
English-speaking South Africans do to some extent.
I'm not sure about other ethnic and cultural groups, Tswana, Sotho, Venda etc.
Though I remember an anthropology lecturer at Wits, John Blacking, describing
how his taking a bath in a Venda area occasioned a number of spectators, "they
wanted to see if I was circumcised, of course; which, by the way, I am".
I don't know whether any studies have been made among the various ethnic
groups to see if there is any correlation between the rates of circumcision
and the rates of HIV infection, but Jim Bell's idiotic rantings have certainly
thrown no light on the subject, but have deminstrated, in my view, that he is
unlikely to be a source of reliable information on the subject.
Steve Hayes
>I will leave you with this factoid:
>
>"In the USA at the same time the incidence of circumcision decreased from
>84% to 74%, the incidence of urinary tract infections in boys increased 11%.
>There was no increase in the incidence of urinary tract infections in girls
>at the same time."
>- Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT. Pediatrics
>1987; 79: 338-41
And the definition of a "factoid" is a lie that is repeated often enough to
make it sound true.
Paul A Abeles
>
> "conciliator" <avoi...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:I-ydnYj-0J9...@is.co.za...
> > Apart from a few quotations and lots of insults, you haven't come up
> > with any intelligent postings. So why don't you carry on your boring
> > monologue, and delete soc.culture.south-africa from the multitude of
> > NG's you seem to publish your BS on.
> >
>
>
> Sorry old timer but by now you should have learned that you can't always
get
> what you want.
>
> I would have thought that with all the examples of people pulling stuff
> right out of their ass without any thought you would have avoided that
same
> pitfall. But alas.
>
> Lets start from here then shall we?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2s8xh
>
> Take a look papa. Down the left hand box. The person who started the
thread
> was the well known troll and bum bandit Paul Abeles on 11 June.
If we relied on mindless morons like you to start interesting threads we'd
never have any.
Idiots like you continue to use fallacious medical polemics to support a
religious rite that is both barbaric and senseless.
The vast majority of doctors oppose circumcision. Get used to it.
If you wish to mutilate your own children, its on your head.
Jim Bell
>
> For what it's worth, I saw this thread on another newsgroup, and
crossposted
> it to soc.culture.south-africa because someone alleged, erroneously I
believe,
> that the high rates of HIV/Aids infection correlated with the low rate of
> circumcision in South Africa.
Well no apology to the others on the list from bring this clearly unwelcome
thread into the discussion?
If you don't even know who does or doesn't circumcise or where it is
traditionally done and all -- despite the psi article being posted then you
it is surely a case of "there are none so blind as those who just will not
see".
But yet you despite being unable to produce any proof or even a cite of a
study believe the connection between the lack of circumcision and a higher
rate of HIV infection among the uncircumcised and their wives/partners to be
"erroneous"?
How's that for logic? Like sister stating that "jury is still out" when she
has no facts at he fingertips.
If you truly are after the truth in this matter and not as I suspect another
skin freak or worse then read the literature or zip your lip.
One more time then -
Male Circumcision: Current Epidemiological and Field Evidence
http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
Viewpoint: Male Circumcision and HIV Infection: 10 Years and Counting
Daniel T Halperin, Robert C Bailey. The Lancet, 354 (9192): pp. 1813-15.
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.4613
Those following this thread should not that this person first posted
disingenuous innuendo about Botswana's circumcision rate which happens to be
below 20% and now no longer offers any support of his position other than a
mere statement that it is "erroneous". Some debater, some case. Experience
has taught that in such cases there is no scientific basis for the expressed
opposition to circumcision because the opposition is purely "emotional" in
nature. Like "what's wrong with my cock?" From this sort of defensive
comment the opposition extends to those who have a distinct pyschosexual
interest in foreskins. It is the latter that keep the pot boiling and the
ugly ducklings just rally around to shout "me too"?
>
> I questioned the bit about the low rate of circumcision -- I'm not sure
> exactly what it is, but hoped that someone more knowledgeable might be
able to
> provide the answer.
What you admit is that you don't know diddly squat yet you pronounce upon
the findings of 35 studies as being erroneous?
Time to fess up mister. What is the REAL reason for you so enthusiastically
jumping to the conclusion that the findings are "erroneous"? Time to come
out of the closet pal.
> I know that some ethnic groups practise circumcision,
> others don't, and some do partially.
>
> Xhosas, Ndebeles and Jews practise circumcision.
>
> Zulus and Afrikaners generally don't.
>
> English-speaking South Africans do to some extent.
>
> I'm not sure about other ethnic and cultural groups, Tswana, Sotho, Venda
etc.
> Though I remember an anthropology lecturer at Wits, John Blacking,
describing
> how his taking a bath in a Venda area occasioned a number of spectators,
"they
> wanted to see if I was circumcised, of course; which, by the way, I am".
You are not sure about the Tswana? Yet you were willing to jump right in and
use the disingenuous innuendo about a high circumcision rate in Botswana to
try and undermine the findings of all the studies? You seem to be a pretty
slimy sort of guy.
>
> I don't know whether any studies have been made among the various ethnic
> groups to see if there is any correlation between the rates of
circumcision
> and the rates of HIV infection, but Jim Bell's idiotic rantings have
certainly
> thrown no light on the subject, but have deminstrated, in my view, that he
is
> unlikely to be a source of reliable information on the subject.
>
"Jim Bell's idiotic rantings" do not excuse your refusal to do some research
into the matter before posting your opinion. What you are guilty of is rank
intellectual dishonesty. There are many online scientific journals where you
can source information from to liberate you from your ignorance. In fact you
are not interested in that are you? In fact you are now attempting to cast
doubt on the findings because "Jim Bell" posted them. Usual tactics, may
work on the dull and ignorant but you always get found out in the end.
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk
Another god botherer who lies I see. Thought Christians were supposed to be
truthful?
Jim Bell
Rebut it then sunshine.
While you are about that here is another one.
"There is four-fold increase in the risk of cervical cancer in female
parters of uncircumcised men, due to the increased risk of transmission of
types 16 and 18 human papilloma virus."
- Galalakshmi CK, Shanta V. Acta Oncol 1993; 32: 617-20
- Agarwal SS, Sehgal A, Sardana S, Kumar A, Luthra UK. Cancer 1993; 72:
1666-9
Jim Bell
"Paul A Abeles" <abe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lgMDc.68207$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
> news:cbn3i9$3g$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "conciliator" <avoi...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:I-ydnYj-0J9...@is.co.za...
> > > Apart from a few quotations and lots of insults, you haven't come up
> > > with any intelligent postings. So why don't you carry on your boring
> > > monologue, and delete soc.culture.south-africa from the multitude of
> > > NG's you seem to publish your BS on.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sorry old timer but by now you should have learned that you can't always
> get
> > what you want.
> >
> > I would have thought that with all the examples of people pulling stuff
> > right out of their ass without any thought you would have avoided that
> same
> > pitfall. But alas.
> >
> > Lets start from here then shall we?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2s8xh
> >
> > Take a look papa. Down the left hand box. The person who started the
> thread
> > was the well known troll and bum bandit Paul Abeles on 11 June.
>
> If we relied on mindless morons like you to start interesting threads we'd
> never have any.
>
This an interesting thread? Perhaps it is as it demonstrates that the people
driving the anti-circumcison campaign are in the main bum bandits.
Fess up honey, you got a cute little fetish for 4kins ;-)
> Idiots like you continue to use fallacious medical polemics to support a
> religious rite that is both barbaric and senseless.
>
Rebut them, if they are fallacious.
Whether for religious, cultural or traditional male circumcision remain a
perfectly acceptable parental decision.
> The vast majority of doctors oppose circumcision. Get used to it.
>
What I have never got used to the the constant stream of lies you slin
freaks push out.
As to the doctor bit ... prove it.
> If you wish to mutilate your own children, its on your head.
>
Well I would never do that. But I must admit as a side benefit to all the
medical benefits to male circumcision it has a decided cosmetic advantage.
Maybe not what you want to come across in the mens room but hey that's your
problem.
ending with a factoid:
"There have been 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the USA since the early
1930s. 30,000 (60%) were malignant, resulting in 10,000 deaths (20%). Only
10 cases were in circumcised men, of which only 4 (40%) were malignant and
none were fatal."
- Schoen EJ. CA Cancer J Clin 1991; 41: 306-9
- Lafferty PM, MacGregor FB, Scobie WG, Arch Dis Childhood 1991; 66: 696-7.
conciliator
>
>
> > >
> > > The problem lies with your bias.
> > >
> > > Moira, the Faerie Godmother
> >
> > And his obvious ignorance and filthy mind.
> >
>
>
> Listen papa when you are out to catch pedophiles on the net one has to
know
> why they do what they do.
No, you listen, filthy scumbag. You have just shown your colours, and
are probably trying to hide the fact by acting the Mr. Know All, and in
the meantime contributing a lot of filth into this NG. No investigator,
trying to catch pedophiles would broadcast this like you did, so don't
pretend to be one.
I can imagine you being a sickly, dirty unwashed little nobody, that
gets his highs from insulting all and sundry. Your "intimate" knowledge
of male body parts, and your obvious fascination with foreskins all
point into one direction - you're a faggot, who probably loves little
boys in the early teens or something, or whatever faggots go for.
> Funny how some people always show up on certain
> types of threads and in certain types of groups.
Yeah, sure IS funny, isn't it? You obviously have lots of experience of
such innocent kids.
> Sometimes a kid can post to
> a list with a sexology related issue and be silly enough to give his
real
> email. He is a kid right. Yea and that is what they are looking for.
Bingo,
> they zero in and offer all manner of intimate advice.
Again, it sounds like experience talking here. You dirty little bastard.
> Some seem to be
> content to get off talking dirty to kids. Probably the married ones.
The
> real bad bastards try to set up a meet.
You've had a go at that then, have you? And from the sounds of it, you
weren't sduccessful. Maybe your wheezing breaths or yellow stained teeth
put them off, if you ever got a chance to meet them.
> Now none of you low life scum bags you respond to vulnerable kid will
know whether you are talking to a kid
> or an officer of the law. But I want to you try your luck because this
net is not going to be a place of safety
> pedos to ply their trade for ever.
Your lack of education has come through loud and clear in that sentence.
I'm now inclined to think you're probably a bit of trailer trash as
well. That would indeed complete the picture. Self appointed policeman
of the net! HA! You make me laugh.
>
> OK so where were we.
>
> Oh yes, I'll leave you with this factoid:
>
That Bell is an absolute idiot, and a dirty little man as well.
conciliator
>
> > Another idiotic posting by the "know-all" Mr. Bell. Can you
contribute
> > anything without being insulting, and thereby proving your
ignorance?
> > It;s those that don't know much that aggressively attack people. By
the
> > way, sexual perversion, and the intimate knowledge thereof as you
have
> > so adequetly displayed makes one think where you get detailed
> > descriptions from. Lots of experience, Bell?
>
>
> What's getting up your nose papa?
You are, idiot. I'm a believer that anyone has a right to his point of
view on any subject in the world, and one can agree or disagree with
that if one wishes. But the absolute idiotic, brainless contribution
that you have made so far really beats the cake. And in case you wonder
why no one takes you seriously - if you came up with a reasonable
argument, and stopped your aggressive insulting of other contributors,
people might start a discussion with you. But the fact that you are
unable to do so, has classified you as an uneducated, stupid moron, that
thinks that by quoting a few excerpts from items he has heard about he
can tell everyone else that only he is right. Yeah, sure.
>
> You need to be careful not to talk of the acts of preference among
some of
> your fellow list members as "sexual perversion". For example your
bitch
> queen may or may not be a pervert as well. Conscenting adults and all
that
> you know. And the tail-gunner, that too is quite legal nowadays you
know. So
> cut the perversion line already and drop the child psychology. Hasn't
worked
> up to now unlikely to start to work now.
Your terminology is new to me, but I can follow your drift. Obviously
experience speaking. No, I am sure even child psychology wouldn't work
on you. You got to have a working brain for that, and that you sadly
lack.
>
> I will leave you with this factoid:
>
> "In the USA at the same time the incidence of circumcision decreased
from
> 84% to 74%, the incidence of urinary tract infections in boys
increased 11%.
> There was no increase in the incidence of urinary tract infections in
girls
> at the same time."
> - Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT.
Pediatrics
> 1987; 79: 338-41
Wow!
conciliator
>
> "conciliator" <avoi...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:I-ydnYj-0J9...@is.co.za...
> > Apart from a few quotations and lots of insults, you haven't come up
> > with any intelligent postings. So why don't you carry on your boring
> > monologue, and delete soc.culture.south-africa from the multitude of
> > NG's you seem to publish your BS on.
> >
>
>
> Sorry old timer but by now you should have learned that you can't
always get
> what you want.
>
> I would have thought that with all the examples of people pulling
stuff
> right out of their ass without any thought you would have avoided that
same
> pitfall. But alas.
>
> Lets start from here then shall we?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2s8xh
>
> Take a look papa. Down the left hand box. The person who started the
thread
> was the well known troll and bum bandit Paul Abeles on 11 June.
Never heard of him, until the time his postings replied to yours, and
also landed him into the NG I referred to. So, therefore I'm unable to
comment on his status in life. Neither will you, as you judge him
obviously by what you think he is, which is, I'm afraid, not very
reliable.
> Now trace
> down Bill Evans' post on 19 June. At that stage the groups on the list
were:
> alt.politics.usa, alt.religion.christian, aus.politics,
soc.culture.israel,
> soc.culture.jewish. Then trace the dotted line to your man Steve Hayes
who
> then posted to the following lists: alt.politics.usa,
> alt.religion.christian, aus.politics, soc.culture.israel,
> soc.culture.jewish, soc.culture.south-africa, soc.culture.african,
> sci.anthropology. So what you see there dad? He adds the following:
> soc.culture.south-africa, soc.culture.african, sci.anthropology. You
> following this papa or do you want to call the kitchen girl in to help
you?
Eish! No, my baas - haikona mina hazi.
> Some 118 in the thread hardly make it a monologue or is it that your
cute
> little clique in soc SA are threatening to put me in the kill file
> ..bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. That's going to hurt me real bad daddy. But
why
> not promise to let Steve Hayes get a gander at your dick if he
promises not
> to bring seemingly unwanted threads into your private list? Hey?
You see, once again you have provided evidence that the piece of bone on
top of your shoulders seems void of anything useful to humanity. And
when I see that idiotic "bwaaa" etc. I know we are dealing with a
sub-human. And once again, you have to bring personalities in here,
together with your filth. One track mind, buddy, and a dirt track to
boot.
>
> Listen man I like the insults and I can take as good as I give so roll
up
> your sleeves and get down and dirty or fuck off.
Obviously you can take the insults. People like you have hides as thick
as a rhinoceros. But again, your lack of education is shown quite
clearly here - as soon as profanities start to surface, it is a clear
sign that the writer has nothing more intelligent to contribute, and
starts swearing, in a vain attempt to intimidate those that dare
disagree with him.
> As to the quotes the cites and the studies I may post the one thing
about
> them is that they are factual. I don't feel the need to pull stuff
right out
> of my ass to sell a low grade line of crap upon the dull and ignorant
on
> these lists. Unlike your sister the of the half truth fame and Steve
Hayes
> of the Botswana gaff infamy.
Yeah, Mr. Knowall - as long as you believe all the crap you write, and
it makes you happy, go for it. Your underdeveloped grey matter obviously
needs very little stimulation to keep you happy.
> So daddy I leave you with this these sage words.
>
So glad my son didn't turn out like you. I really feel sorry for your
Daddy, if there is such a person, and you ever knew him.
conciliator
Jimmy Ding Dong did mention that a search made by him (isn't he
clever??) pointed out you were indeed the one that added "our" NG to the
list. Not a bad move, as we do have some people here that are quite
knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS, and another slant on the subject matter
would always be interesting. Jimmy boy's only knowledge on the subject
seems to be quotations he manages to dig up, some as much as 20 odd
years old. That is obviously where his knowledge stops. From then on
it's a long stream of insults to all and sundry that oppose his
"brilliant medical contributions", which to me makes it quite clear that
he has run out of logical arguments, knows he has been caught short, and
blast away at everyone that makes a contribution his retarded brain
cannot understand. If that makes him happy, so be it. I just feel so
sorry for his poor parents - what on earth must they think of that
lovely little baby they brought into the world. :>)
conciliator
>
> >
> > For what it's worth, I saw this thread on another newsgroup, and
> crossposted
> > it to soc.culture.south-africa because someone alleged, erroneously
I
> believe,
> > that the high rates of HIV/Aids infection correlated with the low
rate of
> > circumcision in South Africa.
>
> Well no apology to the others on the list from bring this clearly
unwelcome
> thread into the discussion?
>
> If you don't even know who does or doesn't circumcise or where it is
> traditionally done and all -- despite the psi article being posted
then you
> it is surely a case of "there are none so blind as those who just will
not
> see".
It's a tribal thing amongst the black S.A., and probably the rest of
Africa, that a moron like you wouldn't understand. Unless a person has
studied, and is an expert in tribal folklore, one wouldn't know what the
numerous tribe have been accustomed to doing for centuries.
> But yet you despite being unable to produce any proof or even a cite
of a
> study believe the connection between the lack of circumcision and a
higher
> rate of HIV infection among the uncircumcised and their wives/partners
to be
> "erroneous"?
>
> How's that for logic? Like sister stating that "jury is still out"
when she
> has no facts at he fingertips.
Now haven't I read that stupid comment before, once, or twice, or many
times? Boring, Jimmy, very boring.
>
> If you truly are after the truth in this matter and not as I suspect
another
> skin freak or worse then read the literature or zip your lip.
>
> One more time then -
>
> Male Circumcision: Current Epidemiological and Field Evidence
> http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/male-circ.pdf
>
> Viewpoint: Male Circumcision and HIV Infection: 10 Years and Counting
> Daniel T Halperin, Robert C Bailey. The Lancet, 354 (9192): pp.
1813-15.
<Rest of ancient, outdated BS snipped>
conciliator
Oh yes - written by Indian fella, 11 years ago.
Steve Hayes
>Jimmy Ding Dong did mention that a search made by him (isn't he
>clever??) pointed out you were indeed the one that added "our" NG to the
>list. Not a bad move, as we do have some people here that are quite
>knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS, and another slant on the subject matter
>would always be interesting. Jimmy boy's only knowledge on the subject
>seems to be quotations he manages to dig up, some as much as 20 odd
>years old. That is obviously where his knowledge stops. From then on
>it's a long stream of insults to all and sundry that oppose his
>"brilliant medical contributions", which to me makes it quite clear that
>he has run out of logical arguments, knows he has been caught short, and
>blast away at everyone that makes a contribution his retarded brain
>cannot understand. If that makes him happy, so be it. I just feel so
>sorry for his poor parents - what on earth must they think of that
>lovely little baby they brought into the world. :>)
I don't think him, or his "contributions" are worth discussing, since they are
so inaccurate.
My contribution to the thread was in response to Bill Evans
<wee...@bigpong.com>, who doesn't seem to have added anythibng since, and I
was questioning statements he made about the correlation between Aids and
circumcision rates in South Africa.
Jim Bell
>
> Jimmy Ding Dong did mention that a search made by him (isn't he
> clever??) pointed out you were indeed the one that added "our" NG to the
> list. Not a bad move, as we do have some people here that are quite
> knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS,
Correction papa, this thread is about foreskins and the removal thereof -
that is why there is so much interest in the matter from some quarters. As
to the knowledge about AIDS it is only sister who claims any but with regard
to the connection between the lack of circumcision and a higher rate of HIV
infection she has got her tits in a tangle.
> and another slant on the subject matter
> would always be interesting.
You really want Paul and the resident bitch queen to flood the list with
"tales from the toilets of the world". These girls get around it seems.
> Jimmy boy's only knowledge on the subject
> seems to be quotations he manages to dig up, some as much as 20 odd
> years old.
You are right. I found the other day that was 50 years old. Said smoking is
harmful. Guess we can trash that one as well?
Nice thinking papa, you sure seem to have had a long day. But as you know
there is no fool like an old fool.
> That is obviously where his knowledge stops.
As you wish daddy. The facts speak for themselves. No need to embellish them
with innuendo and half truths like your friends the skin freaks do.
> From then on
> it's a long stream of insults to all and sundry that oppose his
> "brilliant medical contributions",
Yea that makes sense. Long day you said?
> which to me makes it quite clear that
> he has run out of logical arguments, knows he has been caught short, and
> blast away at everyone that makes a contribution his retarded brain
> cannot understand. If that makes him happy, so be it. I just feel so
> sorry for his poor parents - what on earth must they think of that
> lovely little baby they brought into the world. :>)
>
Thats not a very good put done papa. The bitch queen would have done a much
better job.
Maybe you want to ask sister why she has picked and sticks to the lowest
findings results? What is her issue and what is her agenda?
A parting fact...
Pyelonephritis and renal scarring from Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas
infection occurs in 7.5% of uncircumcised males and in less than 0.1% of
circimcised males due to a particular affinity of these bacteria to the
foreskin.
- Fussell EN, Kaak BM, Cherry R, Roberts JA. J Urol 1988; 140: 997-1001
- Glennon J, Ryan PI, Keane CT, Rees JPR. Arch Dis Child 1988; 63: 556-7
- Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM Jr, Jones SK. J Pediat 1988; 113: 442-6
Jim Bell
> > ... and Steve Hayes
> > of the Botswana gaff infamy.
>
> Yeah, Mr. Knowall - as long as you believe all the crap you write, and
> it makes you happy, go for it. Your underdeveloped grey matter obviously
> needs very little stimulation to keep you happy.
>
Well papa it does not take much to know more than the dipshits around here.
Take the maybe bisexual for example. He posts innuendo about Botswana which
he pulled right out of this ass.
Any way here is an update on Botswana scene.
81% will voluntarily get circumcised if it was in a hospital setting and for
free. So much for the foreskin then.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Male circumcision: an acceptable strategy for HIV prevention in Botswana.
Kebaabetswe P, Lockman S, Mogwe S, Mandevu R, Thior I, Essex M, Shapiro RL.
The Botswana-Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership, Private Bag BO 320,
Bontleng, Gaborone, Botswana.
BACKGROUND: Male circumcision is known to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV,
but few studies have been performed to assess its acceptability among either
children or adults in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional survey in nine geographically
representative locations in Botswana to determine the acceptability of male
circumcision in the country, as well as the preferred age and setting for
male circumcision. Interviews were conducted using standardised
questionnaires both before and after an informational session outlining the
risks and benefits of male circumcision.
RESULTS: Among 605 people surveyed, the median age was 29 years (range 18-74
years), 52% were male, and >15 ethnicities were represented. Before the
informational session, 408 (68%) responded that they would definitely or
probably circumcise a male child if circumcision was offered free of charge
in a hospital setting; this number increased to 542 (89%) after the
informational session. Among 238 uncircumcised men, 145 (61%) stated that
they would definitely or probably get circumcised themselves if it were
offered free of charge in a hospital setting; this increased to 192 (81%)
after the informational session. In a multivariate analysis of all
participants, people with children were more likely to favour circumcision
than people without children (adjusted odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4).
Most participants (55%) felt that the ideal age for circumcision is before 6
years, and 90% of participants felt that circumcision should be performed in
the hospital setting.
CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision appears to be highly acceptable in Botswana.
The option for safe circumcision should be made available to parents in
Botswana for their male children. Circumcision might also be an acceptable
option for adults and adolescents, if its efficacy as an HIV prevention
strategy among sexually active people is supported by clinical trials.
Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Jun;79(3):214-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12794204
Jim Bell
> > "In the USA at the same time the incidence of circumcision decreased
> from
> > 84% to 74%, the incidence of urinary tract infections in boys
> increased 11%.
> > There was no increase in the incidence of urinary tract infections in
> girls
> > at the same time."
> > - Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT.
> Pediatrics
> > 1987; 79: 338-41
>
> Wow!
>
Yea papa, WOW!!!
But that is not all.
Here a year 2000 study which finda as follows -
CONCLUSIONS: Newborn circumcision results in a 9. 1-fold decrease in
incidence of UTI during the first year of life as well as markedly lower
UTI-related medical costs and rate of hospital admissions. Newborn
circumcision during the first year of life is, thus, a valuable preventive
health measure, particularly in the first 3 months of life, when
uncircumcised males are most likely to be hospitalized with severe UTI.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and costs of urinary tract
infections during the first year of life.
Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, Ray GT.
Departments of Genetics and Pediatrics, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care
Program of Northern California, Oakland, CA 94611, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of newborn circumcision on the incidence and
medical costs of urinary tract infection (UTI) during the first year of life
for patients in a large health maintenance organization.
SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California
(KPNC).
PATIENTS: The population consisted of members of KPNC. The study group
consisted of a cohort of 28 812 infants delivered during 1996 at KPNC
hospitals; of the 14 893 male infants in the group, 9668 (64.9%) were
circumcised. A second cohort of 20 587 infants born in 1997 and monitored
for 12 months was analyzed to determine incidence rates.
DESIGN: Retrospective study of all infants consecutively delivered at 12
facilities.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of UTI was determined from the KPNC computerized
database using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision
code for inpatients and KPNC Outpatient Summary Clinical Record codes for
outpatients. A sample of 52 patient charts was reviewed to confirm the
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and KPNC Outpatient
Summary Clinical Record codes and provide additional data.
RESULTS: Infants <1 year old who were born in 1996 had 446 UTIs (292 in
females; 154 in males); 132 (86%) of the UTIs in males occurred in
uncircumcised boys. The mean total cost of managing UTI was 2 times as high
in males ($1111) as in females ($542). This higher total cost reflected the
higher rate of hospital admission in uncircumcised males with UTIs (27.3%)
compared with females (7.5%); mean age at hospitalization for UTI was 2.5
months old for uncircumcised boys and 6.5 months old for girls. In 1996,
total cost of managing UTI in uncircumcised males ($155 628) was 10 times
higher than for circumcised males ($15 466) despite the fact that
uncircumcised males made up only 35.1% of the male patient base in 1996,
reflecting the more frequent occurrence of UTI in uncircumcised males (132
episodes) than in circumcised males (22 episodes), and the larger number of
hospital admissions in uncircumcised males (38) than in circumcised males
(4). The incidence of UTI in the first year of life was 1:47 (2.15%) in
uncircumcised males, 1:455 (.22%) in circumcised males, and 1:49 (2. 05%) in
females. The odds ratio of UTI in uncircumcised:circumcised males was 9.1:1.
CONCLUSIONS: Newborn circumcision results in a 9. 1-fold decrease in
incidence of UTI during the first year of life as well as markedly lower
UTI-related medical costs and rate of hospital admissions. Newborn
circumcision during the first year of life is, thus, a valuable preventive
health measure, particularly in the first 3 months of life, when
uncircumcised males are most likely to be hospitalized with severe UTI.
Pediatrics. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):789-93.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10742321&dopt=Abstract
Jim Bell
> > "There is four-fold increase in the risk of cervical cancer in female
> > parters of uncircumcised men, due to the increased risk of
> transmission of
> > types 16 and 18 human papilloma virus."
> > - Galalakshmi CK, Shanta V. Acta Oncol 1993; 32: 617-20
> > - Agarwal SS, Sehgal A, Sardana S, Kumar A, Luthra UK. Cancer 1993;
> 72:
> > 1666-9
>
> Oh yes - written by Indian fella, 11 years ago.
>
Oh is that a problem for you?
OK here is a newer one then -
Male Circumcision, Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical
Cancer in Female Partners
Xavier Castellsagué, M.D., F. Xavier Bosch, M.D., Nubia Muñoz, M.D., Chris
J.L.M. Meijer, Ph.D., Keerti V. Shah, Dr.P.H., Silvia de Sanjosé, M.D., José
Eluf-Neto, M.D., Corazon A. Ngelangel, M.D., Saibua Chichareon, M.D.,
Jennifer S. Smith, Ph.D., Rolando Herrero, M.D., Victor Moreno, M.D., Silvia
Franceschi, M.D., for the International Agency for Research on Cancer
Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group
ABSTRACT
Background It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of
penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical
cancer in his female partner.
Methods We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case-control
studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries.
Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was
confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or
absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay
in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9
percent).
Results Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6
percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After
adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners,
and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than
uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent
confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had
six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of
cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds
ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were
similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical
examination.
Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile
HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual
partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female
partners.
Jim Bell
>
> <Rest of ancient, outdated BS snipped>
>
Interesting that to those who will not hear 2002 is ancient. But then papa
when you don't want to hear it or read it any excuse is good enough hey? I
think that you have on of those long stinky things, your needs to get a
medal for bravery. Womderful creatures women, so brave in the face of
adversity.
Maybe you can get her to inspect your dick in case of the below -----
The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile
cancer.
Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby C, Machin G.
Department of Genetics, Pediatrics, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center,
Oakland, California 94611-5693, USA.
OBJECTIVE: We determined the relation between newborn circumcision and both
invasive penile cancer (IPC) and carcinoma in situ (CIS) among adult male
members of a large health maintenance organization.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Circumcision status was ascertained by a combination
of pathology reports, medical record review, and questionnaires for 213
adult male members of a large prepaid health plan who were diagnosed with
IPC or CIS.
RESULTS: Of 89 men with IPC whose circumcision status was known, 2 (2.3%)
had been circumcised as newborns, and 87 were not circumcised. Of 118 men
with CIS whose circumcision status was known, 16 (15.7%) had been
circumcised as newborns.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the highly protective effect of newborn
circumcision against IPC and the less protective effect against CIS.
Jim Bell
> My contribution to the thread was in response to Bill Evans
> <wee...@bigpong.com>, who doesn't seem to have added anythibng since, and
I
> was questioning statements he made about the correlation between Aids and
> circumcision rates in South Africa.
>
Whats your facts that lead you to question the correlation?
me
puberty to decide for themsleves.
How many of these "studies" were done by men who
were sexually altered, for life, as helpless infants.
Jewish doctors advocating infant mutilation? Gee.. What a surprise!!
Let boys decide for themselves. Why is that so hard for
the cock-choppers to accept?
"Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
news:cbqth8$110$4...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Roger Rabbit
Interested to hear the answer to this question.
Roger Rabbit
>
>
> I don't think him, or his "contributions" are worth discussing, since they are
> so inaccurate.
>
Jim Brown may well be in your face hostile but that doesn't make the
studies he posts inaccurate. You need to counter the studies he posts
other studies and not just think it adequate to express doubt or
whatever. You have got some facts at your disposal I suppose?
Jordi
we speak:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200406250707.html
Swaziland: Debate Over Male Circumcision
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
June 25, 2004
Posted to the web June 25, 2004
Mbabane
Male circumcision as a method to the reduce risk of HIV infection is
being hotly debated this week after a prominent politician announced
that his four sons had been circumcised, contrary to Swazi tradition.
"All male children should be circumcised. To show my seriousness, I have
taken all my sons for circumcision," MP and former House Speaker,
Marwick Khumalo, told his constituents at Lobamba, 20 km east of the
capital, Mbabane. Khumalo said he wondered why circumcision, despite the
evidence of its effectiveness, was not being stressed as a way to reduce
HIV infection.
Dr Alan Brody, national director of the UN Children's Fund, who supports
male circumcision as one precaution against HIV infection, said studies
on the effectiveness of the procedure have produced differing
statistics. "Depending on the report you read, the possibility of
infection is reduced by 25 percent to 50 percent in the circumcised
male. This is significant. The male child is best circumcised at an
early age, preferably in infancy," Brody said.
But traditionalists in this conservative country frown upon the
procedure, because it is not a Swazi custom. Some of Khumalo's
constituents at Lobamba, a stronghold of tradition that was the royal
village of King Mswati's long-reigning father, King Sobhuza, reacted
negatively to the idea of male circumcision.
"That is a custom of the EmaXhosa (an ethnic group in neighbouring South
Africa). They do it as a manhood ritual. Swazi men do not need to prove
themselves in that way," said Jason Simelane, a 55-year-old father of
three sons.
Simelane said he was unswayed by the medical argument in favour of
circumcision. "First, they say we must use a condom to stop AIDS, even
though a condom is unknown to Swazis. Now they say we must cut off our
foreskins. They should just leave our penises alone, and invent an
injection to stop AIDS."
The Ministry of Health has no policy on the promotion of male
circumcision (female circumcision is unknown in Swaziland) in a country
where close to 40 percent of adults are estimated to be HIV-positive.
However, most NGOs dealing with AIDS and health issues support the
procedure, and the health ministry intends to seek data on the
prevalence of circumcision in a Demographic and Health Survey, soon to
be conducted nationwide.
"We debated whether to include circumcision in the health data. The
survey looks into issues of family planning, HIV and AIDS, and sexually
transmitted infections," Rudolph Maziya, national director for the
Alliance of Mayors Initiative on Community Action on AIDS at the Local
Level (AMICAALL), told IRIN.
"We decided to ask families whether they have circumcised children, to
establish baseline data. The anecdotal evidence is that more and more
parents are asking for circumcision. They learned of it from South
Africa, which is our neighbouring state and has a large influence here,"
Maziya said.
Hannie Dlamini, president of the Swaziland AIDS Support Organisation
(SASO), a counselling and treatment centre for Swazis who are
HIV-positive or have AIDS, told IRIN, "We support circumcision as public
health policy. It is just one part of what is needed to reduce risk, but
it is not a substitute for using a condom, remaining faithful to a
single sexual partner, and taking other precautions."
Member of Parliament Hlobsile Ndlovu, who is also the communications
director for PSI Swaziland, an NGO which distributes condoms, is
strongly opposed to circumcision. "Circumcision must not be promoted,
because HIV infections will increase, and AIDS will spread. People will
stop using condoms. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to
listen to only half of a story, and they will believe that because a man
is circumcised, he cannot get infected."
She added: "[Swazi men] don't like using condoms, and they will also use
circumcision as a way to avoid them."
Jim Bell
> If what you say is true then let the young men wait until
What kind of bullshit logic is that kiddo?
Ok here is the deal. For males circumcised below the age of 12 they have
0.39 of the risk uncircumcised males have.
The foreskin is a public health risk, it has to be dealt with like
mosquitoes and the rats that carry the plague. Pull, cut, incinerate.
(see below for the study that found the age related protection levels - I
leave pulling stuff out of one's ass to skin freaks and their fellow
travelers.)
>
> How many of these "studies" were done by men who
> were sexually altered, for life, as helpless infants.
How much of the anti-circumcision movement is made up of uncircumcised men
who were laughed at in the school showers and now have a massive
psychosexual hang-up?
There a been a number of studies done that have found that there is no
sexual advantage either way. As this aspect is psychological, subjective and
purely a figment of each persons imagination then we should make sure not to
try to turn a psychological issue into a physiological one. Geddit?
>
> Jewish doctors advocating infant mutilation? Gee.. What a surprise!!
>
Hindu doctors opposing male circumcision? Gee.. What a surprise!!
Two can play the game called snap. Put some facts on the table kiddo not
puerile comments. (Of course you are welcome to mix the two ;)
> Let boys decide for themselves. Why is that so hard for
> the cock-choppers to accept?
>
Does that stand for vaccinations as well?
You see kiddo there are a number of reasons why the age at circumcision has
either religious, cultural and medical considerations. So whats you case
anyways, the foreskin is a dog anyway.
As the man says -
"The proponents of not circumcising stress that lifelong penile hygiene is
essential. This acknowledges that something harmful or unpleasant is
happening under the prepuce." - Russell T, Med Observer 1993 (1 Oct)
Stink on kiddo, stink on ...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Age of male circumcision and risk of prevalent HIV infection in rural
Uganda.
Kelly R, Kiwanuka N, Wawer MJ, Serwadda D, Sewankambo NK, Wabwire-Mangen F,
Li C, Konde-Lule JK, Lutalo T, Makumbi F, Gray RH.
Department of Population Dynamics, Johns Hopkins University, School of
Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether circumcision performed on postpubertal men
affords the same level of protection from HIV-1 acquisition as circumcisions
earlier in childhood.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of a population-based cohort. SETTING: Rakai
district, rural Uganda.
METHODS: A total of 6821 men aged 15-59 years were surveyed and venous blood
samples were tested for HIV-1 and syphilis. Age at circumcision was
dichotomized into men who were circumcised before or at age 12 years
(prepubertal) and men circumcised after age 12 years (postpubertal).
Postpubertal circumcised men were also subdivided into those reporting
circumcision at ages 13-20 years and > or = 21 years.
RESULTS: HIV-1 prevalence was 14.1% in uncircumcised men, compared with
16.2% for men circumcised at age > or = 21 years, 10.0% for men circumcised
at age 13-20 years, and 6.9% in men circumcised at age < or = 12 years. On
bivariate analysis, lower prevalence of HIV-1 associated with prepubertal
circumcision was observed in all age, education, ethnic and religious
groups. Multivariate adjusted odds ratio of prevalent HIV-1 infection
associated with prepubertal circumcision was 0.39 [95% confidence interval
(CI), 0.29-0.53]. In the postpubertal group, the adjusted odds ratio for men
circumcised at ages 13-20 years was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.28-0.77), and 0.78 (95%
CI, 0.43-1.43) for men circumcised after age 20 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Prepubertal circumcision is associated with reduced HIV risk,
whereas circumcision after age 20 years is not significantly protective
against HIV-1 infection. Age at circumcision and reasons for circumcision
need to be considered in future studies of circumcision and HIV risk.
Steve Hayes
>Jimmy Ding Dong did mention that a search made by him (isn't he
>clever??) pointed out you were indeed the one that added "our" NG to the
>list. Not a bad move, as we do have some people here that are quite
>knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS, and another slant on the subject matter
>would always be interesting. Jimmy boy's only knowledge on the subject
>seems to be quotations he manages to dig up, some as much as 20 odd
>years old. That is obviously where his knowledge stops. From then on
>it's a long stream of insults to all and sundry that oppose his
>"brilliant medical contributions", which to me makes it quite clear that
>he has run out of logical arguments, knows he has been caught short, and
>blast away at everyone that makes a contribution his retarded brain
>cannot understand. If that makes him happy, so be it. I just feel so
>sorry for his poor parents - what on earth must they think of that
>lovely little baby they brought into the world. :>)
I don't think him, or his "contributions" are worth discussing, since they are
so inaccurate.
My contribution to the thread was in response to Bill Evans
<wee...@bigpong.com>, who doesn't seem to have added anythibng since, and I
was questioning statements he made about the correlation between Aids and
circumcision rates in South Africa.
Steve Hayes
The fact that circumcision is pretty widespread among several ethnic groups in
Southernm Africa, and Aids is too.
Moira de Swardt
"Jordi" <jorda...@fun.net> wrote in message
> It is interesting that such a discussion is taking place in Swaziland as
> we speak:
> http://allafrica.com/stories/200406250707.html
> Male circumcision as a method to the reduce risk of HIV infection is
> being hotly debated this week after a prominent politician announced
> that his four sons had been circumcised, contrary to Swazi tradition.
Swaziland is currently the country with the highest rate of HIV in the
world. Recently taken over from Botswana. I worked there for a year in the
Msunduza Clinic, the HIV section.
> "All male children should be circumcised. To show my seriousness, I have
> taken all my sons for circumcision," MP and former House Speaker,
> Marwick Khumalo, told his constituents at Lobamba, 20 km east of the
> capital, Mbabane. Khumalo said he wondered why circumcision, despite the
> evidence of its effectiveness, was not being stressed as a way to reduce
> HIV infection.
Because it's not the most, or even a very effective way of curbing HIV.
> Dr Alan Brody, national director of the UN Children's Fund, who supports
> male circumcision as one precaution against HIV infection, said studies
> on the effectiveness of the procedure have produced differing
> statistics. "Depending on the report you read, the possibility of
> infection is reduced by 25 percent to 50 percent in the circumcised
> male. This is significant. The male child is best circumcised at an
> early age, preferably in infancy," Brody said.
Brody is American, nice person actually. His wife is from Ghana or Nigeria
or one of those countries up that side of Africa. His adult son is
circumcised. He and his wife use his (naked) baby photos on HIV posters.
Now I have repeated stated that I have no agenda regarding circumcision.
Maybe Brody doesn't even have a particular agenda in this regard. I
certainly know that he has an excellent track record of caring for children.
Now children should not be having sex so the protective factor of
circumcision is not relevant to children.
> But traditionalists in this conservative country frown upon the
> procedure, because it is not a Swazi custom. Some of Khumalo's
> constituents at Lobamba, a stronghold of tradition that was the royal
> village of King Mswati's long-reigning father, King Sobhuza, reacted
> negatively to the idea of male circumcision.
I agree about the question of circumcision not being a Swazi custom.
Circumcision is something permanent. Genital mutilation for those who like
the term, and certainly not a religious requirement for those who have
religious reasons for so doing.
> "That is a custom of the EmaXhosa (an ethnic group in neighbouring South
> Africa). They do it as a manhood ritual. Swazi men do not need to prove
> themselves in that way," said Jason Simelane, a 55-year-old father of
> three sons.
Brody is correct in stating that where circumcision is done it should be
done in infancy.
> Simelane said he was unswayed by the medical argument in favour of
> circumcision. "First, they say we must use a condom to stop AIDS, even
> though a condom is unknown to Swazis. Now they say we must cut off our
> foreskins. They should just leave our penises alone, and invent an
> injection to stop AIDS."
The argument that condoms are "unknown to Swazis" doesn't wash. Cell phones
are unknown to Swazis. Every Swazi wants a cell phone.
> The Ministry of Health has no policy on the promotion of male
> circumcision (female circumcision is unknown in Swaziland) in a country
> where close to 40 percent of adults are estimated to be HIV-positive.
> However, most NGOs dealing with AIDS and health issues support the
> procedure, and the health ministry intends to seek data on the
> prevalence of circumcision in a Demographic and Health Survey, soon to
> be conducted nationwide.
I feel that this is a waste of Swazi money which would better be spent in
funding a mammographer (or something else useful).
> Hannie Dlamini, president of the Swaziland AIDS Support Organisation
> (SASO), a counselling and treatment centre for Swazis who are
> HIV-positive or have AIDS, told IRIN, "We support circumcision as public
> health policy. It is just one part of what is needed to reduce risk, but
> it is not a substitute for using a condom, remaining faithful to a
> single sexual partner, and taking other precautions."
Agreed.
> Member of Parliament Hlobsile Ndlovu, who is also the communications
> director for PSI Swaziland, an NGO which distributes condoms, is
> strongly opposed to circumcision. "Circumcision must not be promoted,
> because HIV infections will increase, and AIDS will spread. People will
> stop using condoms. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to
> listen to only half of a story, and they will believe that because a man
> is circumcised, he cannot get infected."
I know the people. This is true.
> She added: "[Swazi men] don't like using condoms, and they will also use
> circumcision as a way to avoid them."
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Mark Richardson
>
> > If what you say is true then let the young men wait until
> > puberty to decide for themselves.
>
> What kind of bullshit logic is that kiddo?
>
> Ok here is the deal. For males circumcised below the age of 12 they have
> 0.39 of the risk uncircumcised males have.
>
> The foreskin is a public health risk, it has to be dealt with like
> mosquitoes and the rats that carry the plague. Pull, cut, incinerate.
It does raise an interesting question. Why did certain primitive societies
introduce circumcision in the first place. What stimulated them to do this?
It certainly does not present itself, prima facie, as a vital thing to do,
so why did they do it?
Mark Richardson
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Mark Richardson" <mwm...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:40e2c...@news1.mweb.co.za...
tried cutting off, piercing or partially mutilating ears, noses, fingers and
toes as well.
One theory for circimcision though was that it was designed to increase
fecundity. Since masturbation was more difficult and less pleasant those who
had been mutilated were more likely to seek companionable sexual relations.
Female circumcision was designed to ensure that men knew that a child must
be theirs (a common preoccupation for obvious reasons now no longer an issue
since genetic testing is available) as women would not be interested in sex
per se. These two complementary reasons are at least credible.
There are many such theories and we'll never know the exact reason why,
tribal marking must have been important, though you can't rule out an income
stream for the mutilators - certainly that is the main reason why so many
children have been mutilated over the years in the US.
--
Obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its
intrinsic simplicity. - Dawkins' Law of the Conservation of Difficulty,
stated in 'A Devil's Chaplain'
Danian
>
>
>>She added: "[Swazi men] don't like using condoms, and they will also use
>>circumcision as a way to avoid them."
>
>
> Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>
Thanks for your response. Sadly you did not comment on the last
sentence. Fact one, seems to be that "Swazi men"do not like using
condoms. Fact two, is that circumcised or not they are unlikely to use
condoms. Fact three, seems to be that if that is the case then
circumcision would indeed reduce the number of infections across such a
population. Seems to make a lot of sense, seems to be so logical, but ...
I think we need to return to that quote of Bertrand Russell's because it
seems so in place with the responses to this subject.
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into
his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a
man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"
And dear god once again behind this all we have Steve Hayes.
Moira de Swardt
"Danian" <dan...@jordi.net> wrote in message
> Moira de Swardt wrote:
> >>She added: "[Swazi men] don't like using condoms, and they will also use
> >>circumcision as a way to avoid them."
> Thanks for your response. Sadly you did not comment on the last
> sentence. Fact one, seems to be that "Swazi men"do not like using
> condoms. Fact two, is that circumcised or not they are unlikely to use
> condoms. Fact three, seems to be that if that is the case then
> circumcision would indeed reduce the number of infections across such a
> population. Seems to make a lot of sense, seems to be so logical, but ...
Circumcision of children means that it is going to take a long time before
these children are sexually active. Swazi's need to get a grip on the fact
that nearly 40% of their population is HIV positive and it is one of the
most promiscuous populations I have ever found. Very few Swazis are married
even by their own custom. Then polygamy is the order of the day with one
man having three or four common-law wives. Children become sexually active
very early. Many more young girls than young boys are HIV positive.
> I think we need to return to that quote of Bertrand Russell's because it
> seems so in place with the responses to this subject.
Perhaps. But in terms of HIV circumcision is an inferior and unreliable
option for prevention. Condoms are both superior and reliable. Now if one
has to persuade a population to do one and/or the other then condoms are
better than circumcision, circumcision is a lottery, and neither is a scary
thought and perhaps a death sentence.
> "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into
> his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a
> man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
> scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
> refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
> which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
> will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
> explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"
> And dear god once again behind this all we have Steve Hayes.
Behind HIV?
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Moira de Swardt wrote:
> >
>
> "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into
> his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a
> man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
> scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
> refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
> which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
> will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
> explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"
>
>
too few consider.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Moira de Swardt" <first...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:cbuvu4$hcq$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
>
> Circumcision of children means that it is going to take a long time before
> these children are sexually active.
>
circumcision of children retards their achievement of sexual maturity. I am
not aware of any evidence for this idea.
--
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you
end up being governed by your inferiors.". Plato
MIB529
Well, it probably has to do with phallic cults: Min began the universe
via masturbation, Enki dug the Tigris and Euphrates with his penis, and
YHWH was originally a sky god, complete with rain/semen metaphors.
MIB529
spontanously generate? You can't get it unless your
partner's infected.
jordi <jorda...@fun.net> stared at his navel and
entertained us . . .
> It is interesting that such a discussion is taking place in Swaziland as
> we speak:
And unless it's actual medical professionals, it's
about as useful as a visit to the phrenologist.
> http://allafrica.com/stories/200406250707.html
>
> Swaziland: Debate Over Male Circumcision
>
> UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
>
> June 25, 2004
> Posted to the web June 25, 2004
>
> Mbabane
>
> Male circumcision as a method to the reduce risk of HIV infection is
> being hotly debated this week after a prominent politician announced
> that his four sons had been circumcised, contrary to Swazi tradition.
And Mbeki thinks that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Conclusion: Politicians aren't doctors, except
for Howard Dean of course.
> "All male children should be circumcised. To show my seriousness, I have
> taken all my sons for circumcision," MP and former House Speaker,
> Marwick Khumalo, told his constituents at Lobamba, 20 km east of the
> capital, Mbabane. Khumalo said he wondered why circumcision, despite the
> evidence of its effectiveness, was not being stressed as a way to reduce
> HIV infection.
Because the "evidence" is just in the form of
"Muslims get it less than non-Muslims." There's
no laboratory evidence at all. The problem is,
here in the States, American Indians get it less
than whites, even though American Indians are
almost invariably uncircumcised and whites are
more often than not circumcised. Surprisingly,
this even applies to urban Indians.
> Dr Alan Brody, national director of the UN Children's Fund,
. . . who has a PhD in *snicker*
communications, not an MD. Maybe you can add a
few liberal arts professors to your list of
advocates too.
> who supports
> male circumcision as one precaution against HIV infection, said studies
> on the effectiveness of the procedure have produced differing
> statistics. "Depending on the report you read, the possibility of
> infection is reduced by 25 percent to 50 percent in the circumcised
> male. This is significant. The male child is best circumcised at an
> early age, preferably in infancy," Brody said.
25% to 50%? LOL! I seriously doubt it's that much,
seeing as most HIV isn't even contracted via the
penis. You see, when the list of risk factors
includes "men who have sex with men", they
basically mean men who have anal sex with men.
Studies have shown that the receptive partner is
some 8 times more likely to seroconvert than the
insertive partner. And for the receptive partner,
anal is 50 times riskier than fellatio.
> But traditionalists in this conservative country frown upon the
> procedure, because it is not a Swazi custom. Some of Khumalo's
> constituents at Lobamba, a stronghold of tradition that was the royal
> village of King Mswati's long-reigning father, King Sobhuza, reacted
> negatively to the idea of male circumcision.
>
> "That is a custom of the EmaXhosa (an ethnic group in neighbouring South
> Africa). They do it as a manhood ritual. Swazi men do not need to prove
> themselves in that way," said Jason Simelane, a 55-year-old father of
> three sons.
>
> Simelane said he was unswayed by the medical argument in favour of
> circumcision. "First, they say we must use a condom to stop AIDS, even
> though a condom is unknown to Swazis. Now they say we must cut off our
> foreskins. They should just leave our penises alone, and invent an
> injection to stop AIDS."
Or people could just have only one partner.
But there's no money in fidelity.
> The Ministry of Health has no policy on the promotion of male
> circumcision (female circumcision is unknown in Swaziland) in a country
> where close to 40 percent of adults are estimated to be HIV-positive.
> However, most NGOs dealing with AIDS and health issues support the
> procedure, and the health ministry intends to seek data on the
> prevalence of circumcision in a Demographic and Health Survey, soon to
> be conducted nationwide.
And sadly, like Dr Brody, most of them aren't doctors.
> "We debated whether to include circumcision in the health data. The
> survey looks into issues of family planning, HIV and AIDS, and sexually
> transmitted infections," Rudolph Maziya, national director for the
> Alliance of Mayors Initiative on Community Action on AIDS at the Local
> Level (AMICAALL), told IRIN.
Another non-doctor! LMAO!
> "We decided to ask families whether they have circumcised children, to
> establish baseline data. The anecdotal evidence is that more and more
> parents are asking for circumcision. They learned of it from South
> Africa, which is our neighbouring state and has a large influence here,"
> Maziya said.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and we all know how low South
Africa's seroprevalence rate is.</sarcasm>
> Hannie Dlamini, president of the Swaziland AIDS Support Organisation
> (SASO), a counselling and treatment centre for Swazis who are
> HIV-positive or have AIDS, told IRIN, "We support circumcision as public
> health policy. It is just one part of what is needed to reduce risk, but
> it is not a substitute for using a condom, remaining faithful to a
> single sexual partner, and taking other precautions."
Of course, if they remained faithful to a single
sexual partner, they wouldn't be at risk for HIV
anyway.
> Member of Parliament Hlobsile Ndlovu, who is also the communications
> director for PSI Swaziland, an NGO which distributes condoms, is
> strongly opposed to circumcision. "Circumcision must not be promoted,
> because HIV infections will increase, and AIDS will spread. People will
> stop using condoms. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to
> listen to only half of a story, and they will believe that because a man
> is circumcised, he cannot get infected."
Well, duhh . . . It's the same thing condoms
did here. Two decades later, MSMs still have
more AIDS than heterosexuals.
> She added: "[Swazi men] don't like using condoms, and they will also use
> circumcision as a way to avoid them."
And they'll also use it so they can still
fuck like rabbits.
Moira de Swardt
> > Circumcision of children means that it is going to take a long time
before
> > these children are sexually active.
> I suspect that you meant something else. You appear to be suggesting that
> circumcision of children retards their achievement of sexual maturity. I
am
> not aware of any evidence for this idea.
What I meant was that relying on circumcision of children for retardation of
HIV was a very long term process because they weren't likely to become
sexually active for a number of years.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> GAWD, couldn't they at least admit that HIV doesn't
> spontanously generate? You can't get it unless your
> partner's infected.
Close to 40% of Swazis are infected. Polygamy and promiscuity almost
guarantee an infected partner somewhere along the line except for the
fortunate and careful few.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Mark Richardson" <mwm...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
>news:40e2c...@news1.mweb.co.za...
>>
>> "Jim Bell" <jim...@netactive.com> wrote in message
>> news:cbsmsg$lvr$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> >
>> > > If what you say is true then let the young men wait until
>> > > puberty to decide for themselves.
>> >
>> > What kind of bullshit logic is that kiddo?
>> >
>> > Ok here is the deal. For males circumcised below the age of 12 they have
>> > 0.39 of the risk uncircumcised males have.
>> >
>> > The foreskin is a public health risk, it has to be dealt with like
>> > mosquitoes and the rats that carry the plague. Pull, cut, incinerate.
>>
>> It does raise an interesting question. Why did certain primitive societies
>> introduce circumcision in the first place. What stimulated them to do
>this?
>> It certainly does not present itself, prima facie, as a vital thing to do,
>> so why did they do it?
>>
>For some reason mutilation appeals to the primitive mind. They probably
>tried cutting off, piercing or partially mutilating ears, noses, fingers and
>toes as well.
Not to mention shrunken feet, lengthened necks, ear lobes with cotton reels,
staftey puns and other stuff in them, navel rings, tongue rings, front teeth
knocked out....
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40e2f78a...@news.saix.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:55:15 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >> It does raise an interesting question. Why did certain primitive
societies
> >> introduce circumcision in the first place. What stimulated them to do
> >this?
> >> It certainly does not present itself, prima facie, as a vital thing to
do,
> >> so why did they do it?
> >>
> >For some reason mutilation appeals to the primitive mind. They probably
> >tried cutting off, piercing or partially mutilating ears, noses, fingers
and
> >toes as well.
>
> Not to mention shrunken feet, lengthened necks, ear lobes with cotton
reels,
> staftey puns and other stuff in them, navel rings, tongue rings, front
teeth
> knocked out....
>
you mention more, though, you remind me of the scarification popular with
some, tattooing (popular with the Maori), bones through the nose (popular
with, I think, Amazonian Indians), and branding.
Peter H.M. Brooks
pointed out, increases the chance of AIDS (as well as other infections and
death), as well as blighting the life of the child.
In any event it still would not justify the criminal assault on children -
adults, or even pubescent children, could, if convinced by the argument,
elect to have themselves mutilated with precisely the same effect.
Castration would have an even more powerful effect, something that appears
not to have been pointed out here. Odd, really, if you're going in for mass
mutilation, why not go the whole hog?
Danian
>
> Because the "evidence" is just in the form of
> "Muslims get it less than non-Muslims." There's
> no laboratory evidence at all.
>
>
> 25% to 50%? LOL! I seriously doubt it's that much,
> seeing as most HIV isn't even contracted via the
> penis.
>
Interestingly there were no facts or studies posted only comments. The
above two comments need to be questioned.
In an earlier post to this thread the following study was cited:
Susceptibility to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection of Human
Foreskin and Cervical Tissue Grown in Explant Culture
http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/161/3/867
And looking through the references that follow that study there appears
to be more "laboratory evidence".
My second point is about your just laughing off the projected reduction
in infections. Why is it that you have no scientific basis to counter
the findings of numerous studies yet are able to just "laugh off" the
findings of many others? There is something non-scientific about your
attitude towards this issue isn't there?
Finally, that your claim that most HIV is not contracted via the penis
is a genuine comment or a deception?
Most gay and heterosexual infections have a penis involved in the
infection. Women get infected by men. Gay men get infected by gay men.
I hope that it is not that you are claiming that vertical and needle
injections are the greatest cause of infections?
It does your credibility no good when you post nonsense. Not only that
but also when the nonsense has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Danian
>
> Circumcision of children means that it is going to take a long time before
> these children are sexually active. Swazi's need to get a grip on the fact
> that nearly 40% of their population is HIV positive and it is one of the
> most promiscuous populations I have ever found. Very few Swazis are married
> even by their own custom. Then polygamy is the order of the day with one
> man having three or four common-law wives. Children become sexually active
> very early. Many more young girls than young boys are HIV positive.
>
Let me quote the Kelly study:
"Multivariate adjusted odds ratio of prevalent HIV-1 infection
associated with prepubertal circumcision was 0.39 [95% confidence
interval (CI), 0.29-0.53]. In the postpubertal group, the adjusted odds
ratio for men circumcised at ages 13-20 years was 0.46 (95% CI,
0.28-0.77), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.43-1.43) for men circumcised after age
20 years."
What they found was that the highest level of protection against
infection was afforded if the boy was less than 12 at circumcision.
Meaning he had 40% of the risk of an uncircumcised person. For the age
group 13-20 the risk 50% of that of uncircumcised persons while over 20
the risk was 80% of that of an uncircumcised person.
Now there are really two options here. Either I am reading this study
wrong or you are chosing to selectively interpret this studies findings.
If it is the first please please set me straight. If it is the second
the least said the better.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40e2f78a...@news.saix.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:55:15 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
>> wrote:
>> >For some reason mutilation appeals to the primitive mind. They probably
>> >tried cutting off, piercing or partially mutilating ears, noses, fingers
>and
>> >toes as well.
>>
>> Not to mention shrunken feet, lengthened necks, ear lobes with cotton
>reels,
>> staftey puns and other stuff in them, navel rings, tongue rings, front
>teeth
>> knocked out....
>>
>Thank you, yes, I try not to think of all the mutilations carried out! Now
>you mention more, though, you remind me of the scarification popular with
>some, tattooing (popular with the Maori), bones through the nose (popular
>with, I think, Amazonian Indians), and branding.
Could you expand a bit on the "primitve mind"?
What are its characterstics?
And where are non-primitive minds to be found?
Bodily mutilations seem to be popular in all kinds of cultures and
sub-cultures, and the huge variety of such cultures seems to make it difficult
to pin down a common characteristic luke "primitive".
Peter H.M. Brooks
primitive mind is notable for its supersition. The OED, in definition 1b of
'primitive' gives 'Applied to behaviour or mental processes that apparently
originate in unconscious needs or desires and have not been effectived by
objective logical resaoning' - that is as good a definition as I have seen.
Many anthropologists have studied the phenomenon as well so there it is much
documented - avoid the fraud Margaret Mead though!
An example given in the OED again, is the title of an 1885 book by W.F.
Evans 'Healing by Faith; or, Primitive Mind-cure'.
This should answer your question as to where you find the primitive mind.
Non-primitive minds are found where learning, scholarship, science and other
rational exploration of the world takes first place - the ancient Greek
philospohers didn't have primitive minds and fought against primitivism -
the Romans at their peak were rationalists but primitivism took over
producing the Dark Ages. The Rennaissance was a defeat for the primitive
mind, but, sadly not a complete one. So it is now that we have islands of
rationality in a sea of primitivism in much of the world - worse in some
places like the US than in more civilised European countries, but
nevertheless there as well.
>
> Bodily mutilations seem to be popular in all kinds of cultures and
> sub-cultures, and the huge variety of such cultures seems to make it
difficult
> to pin down a common characteristic luke "primitive".
>
It seems to me that body mutilation is highly characteristic of
primitivism - the mutilation is a ritual and the resultant stigma is,
effectively, a symbol, or fossilisation, of the ritual. Rituals are a form
of magic, where the form of the ritual is intended to bring about some
change, so, being irrational, are primitive.
Moira de Swardt
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> That makes more sense! However the very act of mutilation, as has been
> pointed out, increases the chance of AIDS (as well as other infections and
> death), as well as blighting the life of the child.
That's why circumcision is only effective to the minor degree it is when it
is done in early childhood. My boss, an HIV positive priest, and I were
discussing this this morning. For what it's worth he's circumcised.
> In any event it still would not justify the criminal assault on children -
> adults, or even pubescent children, could, if convinced by the argument,
> elect to have themselves mutilated with precisely the same effect.
> Castration would have an even more powerful effect, something that appears
> not to have been pointed out here. Odd, really, if you're going in for
mass
> mutilation, why not go the whole hog?
Now that would curb the problem. Mark Richardson has been suggesting it for
Moira de Swardt
"Danian" <dan...@jordi.net> wrote in message
> Now there are really two options here. Either I am reading this study
> wrong or you are chosing to selectively interpret this studies findings.
> If it is the first please please set me straight. If it is the second
> the least said the better.
Circumcision for the prevention of the transmission of HIV is not adequate
protection. Regardless of at what age it took place.
Deal with it.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Steve Hayes
wrote:
I don't know of any reputable anthropologist who would take Frazer's armchair
musings seriously, though.
Oh, it makes interesting reading, but so does "Faucault's peendulum". Useful
material for a study in the superstitions of Britain when it was an imperial
power!
>An example given in the OED again, is the title of an 1885 book by W.F.
>Evans 'Healing by Faith; or, Primitive Mind-cure'.
>
>This should answer your question as to where you find the primitive mind.
>Non-primitive minds are found where learning, scholarship, science and other
>rational exploration of the world takes first place - the ancient Greek
>philospohers didn't have primitive minds and fought against primitivism -
>the Romans at their peak were rationalists but primitivism took over
>producing the Dark Ages. The Rennaissance was a defeat for the primitive
>mind, but, sadly not a complete one. So it is now that we have islands of
>rationality in a sea of primitivism in much of the world - worse in some
>places like the US than in more civilised European countries, but
>nevertheless there as well.
That tends to confirm my suspicion that "the primitive mind" is a Victorian
superstition, which was a nice rationalisation for their imperialism.
>> Bodily mutilations seem to be popular in all kinds of cultures and
>> sub-cultures, and the huge variety of such cultures seems to make it
>difficult
>> to pin down a common characteristic luke "primitive".
>>
>It seems to me that body mutilation is highly characteristic of
>primitivism - the mutilation is a ritual and the resultant stigma is,
>effectively, a symbol, or fossilisation, of the ritual. Rituals are a form
>of magic, where the form of the ritual is intended to bring about some
>change, so, being irrational, are primitive.
So the prevalence of male circumcision in the USA is a manifestation of
primitivism, and foot binding in China was the same?
If you see anyone with pierced ears, do you automatically write them off as
irrational?
Moira de Swardt
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> If you see anyone with pierced ears, do you automatically write them off
as
> irrational?
I left home at seventeen, but refrained from having my ears pierced until I
was twenty one because I "knew" how my father was going to react. My sister
once sold the furniture in the lounge because it was old and ugly (read
antique and valuable) and she similarly refrained from having her ears
pierced until she was twenty one. Curiously enough all he said to me was
"And are you going to put a bone through your nose next?" My sister got
away with an irritated shrug. But we both knew he didn't approve.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:18:18 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
> > >>
> >> Could you expand a bit on the "primitve mind"?
> >>
> >> What are its characterstics?
> >>
> >> And where are non-primitive minds to be found?
> >>
> >The best exploration of it is probably Fraser's 'The Golden Bough'. The
> >primitive mind is notable for its supersition. The OED, in definition 1b
of
> >'primitive' gives 'Applied to behaviour or mental processes that
apparently
> >originate in unconscious needs or desires and have not been effectived by
> >objective logical resaoning' - that is as good a definition as I have
seen.
> >Many anthropologists have studied the phenomenon as well so there it is
much
> >documented - avoid the fraud Margaret Mead though!
>
> I don't know of any reputable anthropologist who would take Frazer's
armchair
> musings seriously, though.
>
Greek and earlier sources. In terms of understanding the succession of the
priesthood at the temple of Diana, the actual aim of the work, he was spot
on and his analysis of magic has not been bettered - though Keith Thomas'
'Religion and the Decline of Magic' takes up the theme brilliantly but he
deals with the early middle ages.
>
> >An example given in the OED again, is the title of an 1885 book by W.F.
> >Evans 'Healing by Faith; or, Primitive Mind-cure'.
> >
> >This should answer your question as to where you find the primitive mind.
> >Non-primitive minds are found where learning, scholarship, science and
other
> >rational exploration of the world takes first place - the ancient Greek
> >philospohers didn't have primitive minds and fought against primitivism -
> >the Romans at their peak were rationalists but primitivism took over
> >producing the Dark Ages. The Rennaissance was a defeat for the primitive
> >mind, but, sadly not a complete one. So it is now that we have islands of
> >rationality in a sea of primitivism in much of the world - worse in some
> >places like the US than in more civilised European countries, but
> >nevertheless there as well.
>
> That tends to confirm my suspicion that "the primitive mind" is a
Victorian
> superstition, which was a nice rationalisation for their imperialism.
>
Spart' column, isn't it.
>
> >> Bodily mutilations seem to be popular in all kinds of cultures and
> >> sub-cultures, and the huge variety of such cultures seems to make it
> >difficult
> >> to pin down a common characteristic luke "primitive".
> >>
> >It seems to me that body mutilation is highly characteristic of
> >primitivism - the mutilation is a ritual and the resultant stigma is,
> >effectively, a symbol, or fossilisation, of the ritual. Rituals are a
form
> >of magic, where the form of the ritual is intended to bring about some
> >change, so, being irrational, are primitive.
>
> So the prevalence of male circumcision in the USA is a manifestation of
> primitivism, and foot binding in China was the same?
>
Yank mutilations as the doctors sieze the opportunity to catch a woman in a
vulnerable state and squeeze some extra cash out of her. The act is
primitive as, indeed was foot binding in China - as are the extra long
finger nails grown by bus drivers in South America.
>
> If you see anyone with pierced ears, do you automatically write them off
as
> irrational?
>
silly and wrong. All of us are irrational sometimes and many people suffer
tattoos and piercings because of drunken mistakes in adolescence.
People who are generally irrational are in need of help - it is one of the
things that a good educational system is supposed to cure - not of writing
off.