How do you explain the choice?
Taylor
The Case Against Circumcision
(reply) #2
by: gristastic
The subject didn't come up with our intact twins until they were 8 years
old, and they heard the word circumcision in a Lutheran sermon (of all
places!). They asked what the word meant, and we matter-of-factly
explained that it meant to cut off the foreskin. They both said "OUCH!
Why would anyone want to do THAT!??"
So we had to further explain that most men don't choose it for
themselves; their parents have it done to them when they are babies.
They were shocked and horrified - they simply couldn't imagine a parent
doing such a thing.
So we gave them two examples - their sitter, whose 4-month-old son was
circ'ed (response: "Oh, Poor Nicholas!!"), and their Dad, who was
circ'ed at birth (response: "Poor Dad! He's missing the best part!").
We talked a bit more about their Dad. One of my sons said that he had
assumed that his Dad just kept his foreskin retracted for some reason -
it had NEVER occured to him that it had actually been cut off (why
should it?).
Neither of my sons asked to be circ'ed "to look like Dad".
In the 3 years since then, we have talked about it a few times, and they
share our belief that circumcision is a bad thing to do to a baby. They
are both very attached to their foreskins (pun intended), and I truly
doubt they will ever have a problem being intact. They are in 6th grade,
and as far as I know, they have no idea which boys in their class are
circ'ed and which are not - not even their best friends. It just isn't
something they think about.
When they start becoming sexually active, they may face some "fear of
the unknown", since we live in an area with a very high circ rate. But I
trust that they will have the self-confidence to deal with those issues.
It is something we will discuss when they get older.
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=394113
sdan...@nyc.rr.com
deld...@yahoo.com
Without saying a word, he reared his backhand and gave me a
teeth-jarring WHACK! across the face.
With tears welling up in my eyes, I asked him why he slapped me. He
answered, "When you can figure that out, you'll know why I had you
circumsized."
The answer came to me years later, when I was pounding some smart-ass'
face in for mouthing off to me. Pain. Sometimes it's the best teacher.
Roy
Tom
Paul Raposo
> When I was very young, I asked my father why he had me circumsized.
> Without saying a word, he reared his backhand and gave me a
> teeth-jarring WHACK! across the face.
Yeah, a real sweetheart. This explains your rather violent outburst.
> With tears welling up in my eyes, I asked him why he slapped me. He
> answered, "When you can figure that out, you'll know why I had you
> circumsized."
So, just your vile old man inflicting pain on you? What a piece of shit
your pop was.
> The answer came to me years later, when I was pounding some smart-ass'
> face in for mouthing off to me. Pain. Sometimes it's the best teacher.
And I'm sure he was much smaller than you and you had many friends around
to back you up.
> Roy
Taylor
Tom wrote:
> He sounds like a nice guy.
>
I hope he's severely paralyzed so he can't abuse another human being.
Nog
The choice is because a circumcised penis is a better looking penis.
Society
"Nog" <q4wt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:V8Exf.1545$GJ4.670@trndny08...
>
> Taylor reported...
>>
>> The Case Against Circumcision
>> (reply) #2
>> by: gristastic
>>
>> The subject didn't come up with our intact twins
>> what the word meant, and we matter-of-factly
>> explained that it meant to cut off the foreskin.
>> They both said "OUCH! Why would anyone
>>
>> http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=394113
>
> The choice is because a circumcised penis
> is a better looking penis.
I disagree with your remark, Nog, on two grounds:
(a) historically, making a penis "better looking" has not
been a reason advanced for performing penile
circumcision and (b) a circumcised penis is not widely
said to be "better looking".
If you have links to reliable sources that can present
data to support your claims, Nog, put 'em up or shut up.
--
Men are people too.
Mary_...@tvo.org
looking penis.
Mary snorts I think Chinese men used to make the same comment about
foot binding.
When surgical alteration has a cultural element, suddenly the body part
in its natural state is seen as ugly. Witness various cultures where
tattoing or patterned scars, lip plugs, neck rings that result in
deformity, head binding to alter shape in babies etc. etc.
M.
Nog
You can't get accurate data on a taboo subject. I would, though, like to
know exactly where the "Hill of Foreskins" actually is that is talked about
in the bible.
One fact is that they use stem cells in foreskins to treat burn victims.
Tom
that doesn't mean it is ethical to go around taking body parts from
unconsenting people, does it?
why do you find the foreskin ugly? is Michaelangelo's The David ugly?
Is the Sistine Chapel ceiling ugly? when was the last time you saw a
sculpture or a painting which featured a circumcised penis?
it is ok to think of a circumcised penis as beautiful. they are.
there is nothing ugly about a penis with a foreskinl. it is the way we
are made, as with all mammals.
jake Waskett
> so what if they use stem cells in foreskins to treat burn victims?
> that doesn't mean it is ethical to go around taking body parts from
> unconsenting people, does it?
Of course it doesn't by itself, Tom, but here's an interesting thought for
you. If one accepts that something is going to be done anyway, and one
presumes for purpose of argument that it is ethical to do so, is it
ethical to use a product of that action to do good?
Tom
It is not ethical to remove healthy body parts from a non-consenting
individual.
jake Waskett
Tom
were presuming I am.
If I am, would that change things, and somehow make it ethical to
remove healthy body parts from a non-consenting individual?
jake Waskett
It's quite apparent from the answer that you are, Tom.
Paul Raposo
Not if the only reason the *thing* is being done is to benefit the
organizations involved, thus giving them reason to perpetuate the *thing*
being done, so as to avoid the unwanted low supply vs. high demand.
Nog
I don't think it's ethical to suck an uncircumcised cock. Yuck!
Tom
Tom
Tom
non-consenting individual?
jake Waskett
> Jake, do you feel it is ethical to remove healthy body parts from a
> non-consenting individual?
It depends upon the situation, Tom.
ags...@yahoo.com
> > is a better looking penis.
>
> I disagree with your remark, Nog, on two grounds:
> (a) historically, making a penis "better looking" has not
> been a reason advanced for performing penile
> circumcision and (b) a circumcised penis is not widely
> said to be "better looking".
>
> If you have links to reliable sources that can present
> data to support your claims, Nog, put 'em up or shut up.
I have to agree with Nog's perception. If the majority of society does
something, then the norm becomes more appealing. Now my experience
comes from information I gathered from my girlfriends. To test this
theory, one needs to take a survey from women and homosexual men or
look into gay magazines or playboy. I am not "up" for the challenge.
The only other argument (besides religion) for circumcision is smegma.
However, the counter argument is that it can be cleaned in the shower
on a daily basis.
One last argument is that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS and
other STDs. I have not seen conclusive research that backs this theory.
Regards...
A Work In Progress
Society
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137273810.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Society wrote:
>>
>> Nog claimed...
>> >
>> > The choice is because a circumcised penis
>> > is a better looking penis.
>>
>> I disagree with your remark, Nog, on two grounds:
>> (a) historically, making a penis "better looking" has not
>> been a reason advanced for performing penile
>> circumcision and (b) a circumcised penis is not widely
>> said to be "better looking".
>>
>> If you have links to reliable sources that can present
>> data to support your claims, Nog, put 'em up or shut up.
>
> I have to agree with Nog's perception.
Then where's your links to support Nog's "perception"
(translation: "fee-yul-ing").
Free clue: A "feeling" is not a means of cognition.
> If the majority of society does something, then the
> norm becomes more appealing.
Nice try, agsf_57, but you've put the cart before
the horse, as the saying goes. Nog's claims a circumcised
penis is "better looking" and, presumably, that is the
excuse for genitally mutilating men and boys. You, OTOH,
are claiming that because men and boys are genitally
mutilated by penile circumcision, many people come
to accept a circumcised penis as "better looking." See
the reversal you've made?
> Now my experience comes from information I gathered
> from my girlfriends. [...]
You obviously need a better class of girlfriends.
I hope you can upgrade.
Also, your anecdotes regarding your supposed "girlfriends"
do nothing to add validity to your claim. But I do find
your attempt to play My Anecdotes Can Beat Up
Your Anecdotes to be very boyish and cute.
> The only other argument (besides religion) for circumcision
> is smegma.
This argument also supports circumcising the female
genitalia. Yet few circumcision advocates will go there.
So one must ask why genital mutilation of men and boys
is specifically advocated. Clearly, a deep-seated
anti-male attitude on the part of the circumcision
advocates must be suspected.
> However, the counter argument is that it can
> be cleaned in the shower on a daily basis.
That's an obvious counter-argument, yes.
> One last argument is that circumcision reduces
> the risk of AIDS and other STDs. I have not seen
> conclusive research that backs this theory.
You haven't seen "conclusive research" of that sort
because there is none. The "research" that has been
conducted to support the claim that "(male) circumcision
reduces the risk of AIDS and other STDs" is sloppy
and poorly done. For example, such studies fail to
control for differences in socio-economic status (SES)
among the circumcised and intact populations studies.
Because in Africa the circumcision of boys is largely
an emulation of a British Victorian-era practice, cutting
of boys most often occurs among the more affluent,
Westernized population -- a population likely to be
able to reduce its risk of contracting AIDS and other
STD in many other ways.
I also suggest you review the fradulent way AIDS is
diagnosed in most African countries that is documented
in Tom Bethell's book _The Politically Incorrect Guide
to Science_. In Africa, a diagnosis of AIDS may be
made without a positive result on a standard AIDS
antibody (or virus) test. Instead, AIDS may be diagnosed
based on the patient presenting with symptoms common
to poor diet, malnutrition, dysentery, malaria, and other
illnesses common to areas without modern sanitation
and plentiful food.
--
Men are people too.
>
> Regards...
>
ags...@yahoo.com
Society wrote:
> <ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1137273810.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Society wrote:
> >>
> >> Nog claimed...
> >> >
> >> > The choice is because a circumcised penis
> >> > is a better looking penis.
> >>
> >> I disagree with your remark, Nog, on two grounds:
> >> (a) historically, making a penis "better looking" has not
> >> been a reason advanced for performing penile
> >> circumcision and (b) a circumcised penis is not widely
> >> said to be "better looking".
> >>
> >> If you have links to reliable sources that can present
> >> data to support your claims, Nog, put 'em up or shut up.
> >
> > I have to agree with Nog's perception.
>
> Then where's your links to support Nog's "perception"
> (translation: "fee-yul-ing").
>
> Free clue: A "feeling" is not a means of cognition.
You need links for common sense? Ok, here is one that looked at all the
research done in regards to this issue:
"The general statement from women all over England, Singapore, North
America, and other places is that circumcised penis wins. Why did I say
that we could safely assume but not definitely conclude? To carve it in
stone would be too risky, indeed. There are other studies (done by
equally intelligent and capable professionals) that concluded in favor
of the uncircumcised. The outcome of these researches is that women are
actually more at ease with what they are better acquainted with (and
that is the natural)."
> > If the majority of society does something, then the
> > norm becomes more appealing.
>
> Nice try, agsf_57, but you've put the cart before
> the horse, as the saying goes. Nog's claims a circumcised
> penis is "better looking" and, presumably, that is the
> excuse for genitally mutilating men and boys. You, OTOH,
> are claiming that because men and boys are genitally
> mutilated by penile circumcision, many people come
> to accept a circumcised penis as "better looking." See
> the reversal you've made?
I understand your point. But until more men go around uncircumcized and
women (and homosexual men) get used to seeing that as their norm, my
point still stands.
> > Now my experience comes from information I gathered
> > from my girlfriends. [...]
>
> You obviously need a better class of girlfriends.
> I hope you can upgrade.
No way, I got blowjobs because of my uncirmcised penis. You need
girlfriends, regardless of class, so you don't go around making
ignorant claims.
> Also, your anecdotes regarding your supposed "girlfriends"
> do nothing to add validity to your claim. But I do find
> your attempt to play My Anecdotes Can Beat Up
> Your Anecdotes to be very boyish and cute.
I agree, that's why I stated that one would need to do surveys and look
into magazines that cater to women and homosexual men. Maybe you should
learn not to circumcise my post.
> > The only other argument (besides religion) for circumcision
> > is smegma.
>
> This argument also supports circumcising the female
> genitalia. Yet few circumcision advocates will go there.
Because we are talking about boys, not girls. If you want to start your
own thread as to why or why not we should circumcise girls, go ahead.
> So one must ask why genital mutilation of men and boys
> is specifically advocated. Clearly, a deep-seated
> anti-male attitude on the part of the circumcision
> advocates must be suspected.
I don't see it that way. In some cultures, it is a right of passage.
I totally agree with you. I looked into the research that was recently
published and found that the controls in place were inconclusive to the
results of the outcome. You want a true study, you need to do something
along the lines of getting a woman with AIDS and have her sleep with
200 men (100 cut and 100 natural) and see what percentage gets AIDS
from both groups.
Look, I am not agruing any stance on this subject, I am just pointing
out the obvious. Good luck to you in trying to change the social norms
of today's society.
Regards...
John Royer
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:11sjal8...@corp.supernews.com...
Slice of life: the circumcision debate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Cecil:
My wife and I are expecting a baby boy. Soon we will face the prickly
question: to circumcise or not to circumcise? As far as we can determine,
the dispute has not been settled which is healthier. As youngsters we heard
that circumcision fosters cleanliness. Then we heard that this argument is
feeble in a society familiar with the concept of soap. Then we heard of
correlations between uncircumcised penises and cancers of the prostate and
vagina. Then we heard that these reports are bunk. If you can resolve these
questions, great.
But it's the sexual angle that most intrigues us at the moment. Which choice
is the right one in terms of the sex life of the boy and a future partner?
Some argue that circumcision is cruel because a circumcised penis is less
sensitive, providing the man less sexual stimulation. Others counter that
this is a good argument FOR circumcision: a reduction in circumcision delays
male climax, providing both partners more satisfaction. What say you,
Cecil? --J.B., Chicago
Dear J.B.:
I say it doesn't make much difference, on average. Which is not to say it
doesn't make much difference. It's just that individual reactions to
circumcision run the gamut and there's no telling how things are going to
turn out for your kid.
Cecil knows this because he has been inquiring once again on the
Internet--not the most scientific technique in the world, but how else are
you going to find out about things like this? I turned up four men who were
circumcised as adults and were thus in a position to compare. Two said sex
was better before, two said it's better now. The two who bitched said that
over time the foreskinless glans (the tip of the penis) became less
sensitive. This may be due to abrasion from clothing. It certainly isn't
because the foreskin contains the greatest concentration of nerve endings,
as some circumcision opponents allege; from an anatomical standpoint, God's
little mudguard is basically ordinary skin.
Of the two satisfied customers, one was circumcised because he had a tight
foreskin that split and bled copiously during his first attempt at
intercourse--admittedly (and mercifully) not a common problem. The other guy
just didn't like the way his stalk looked. Now, he says, not only is he more
sensitive, he doesn't have problems with odors, splash when urinating, or
get his foreskin caught in his zipper. Your kid's prospective partners (in a
moment of heterosexism, Cecil assumed they would be women) are also divided
in their views; several said an uncircumcised man had more to play with,
while others prefer the streamlined look.
This isn't really helping you, is it? It gets worse. One cost-benefit
analysis (Ganiats et al, 1991) found that circumcision had a "net discounted
lifetime cost" of $102 and a health cost of 14 hours of healthy life. In
other words, you wound up poorer and sicker--but only slightly. "These
results suggest that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages
of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other and that factors other
than cost or health outcomes must be used in decision making," the
researchers wrote. But I guess you knew that.
In English-speaking countries routine circumcision of newborns began in the
latter 19th century as a quack medical technique intended to curb
masturbation and other ills. Circumcision opponents, a passionate lot, decry
the practice as "ritual genital mutilation." Those unhappy with their
circumcised members (a common complaint is that the skin is too tight,
making intercourse and, yes, masturbation painful without lubrication)
sometimes resort to "foreskin restoration," in which the skin is stretched
with clamping devices. Sounds awful, but they say it works.
The medical establishment first began questioning the wisdom of routine
circumcision in 1949; since 1971 the American Academy of Pediatrics has
opposed it. Apart from cultures where it is done for ritual purposes, it
remains common only in the U.S. but is dropping in popularity there--from 86
percent in 1975 to 71 percent in 1984, according to one study.
So chuck it, eh? Not so fast. In 1989 the AAP withdrew its opposition to
circumcision because accumulating evidence suggests it does have health
benefits, preventing penile cancer and reducing urinary tract infections in
infants. And circumcisees do wind up with a basically maintenance free tool.
Bottom line? Your kid will survive either way. Flip a coin.
FOLLOW-UP: CIRCUMCISION SUCKS
Dear Cecil:
Your column about infant circumcision contained erroneous information. The
enclosed remarks by Dr. John Taylor should clarify that "God's little
mudguard" is not basically ordinary skin. It is a high specialized organ
that serves several distinct and important purposes.
Arguments about penile cancer and urinary tract infections may be enough to
scare American physicians into perpetuating this dubious practice, but the
fact is that 85 percent of the world's males are uncircumcised. Enclosed are
two articles from just 35 years ago which seriously promoted female
circumcision. It will not be long before we look back with equal horror on
male circumcision. Violating the genital integrity of an innocent child of
either sex by submitting him or her to unnecessary surgery when s/he cannot
consent is genital mutilation and a violation of human rights. --Tim
Hammond, National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of
Males (NOHARMM), San Francisco
Circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity 50 to 75 percent. No one has the
right to do this. --Cliff P., Mabelvale, Arkansas
There was talk at my old job that circumcised men had something like one
eighth the chance an uncircumcised man has of catching AIDS through
unprotected intercourse with an infected woman. My recollection is that
catching any venereal disease is less for circumcised than uncircumcised
men. My own father was circumcised at eight (very painful) because of
smegma, inflammation, etc.--and his was a household that was quite familiar
with soap and water; this was not a hygiene problem. Suggested advice: don't
be a dunce, uncover that schwuntz. --Dave Schutz, Washington, D.C.
Cecil replies:
We do have a diversity of opinions here, don't we? To address the points
raised in these and similar letters:
- The foreskin is not ordinary skin, but rather is "replete with nerve
endings of sexual pleasure."
The chief evidence for this seems to be research by John Taylor. Dr. Taylor
opposes circumcision, has not formally published his research, and is not a
specialist in neurology. His remarks on the structure and purpose of the
foreskin are highly conjectural and include such statements as, "We haven't
done a strict quantitative study [but] to my mind [certain nerve endings]
are rather more commonly found here in the prepuce than they are in the
glans of the penis." It would be foolish on the basis of such work to make
any definite statements about the foreskin's contribution to sexual
sensitivity or anything else.
- The medical arguments in favor of circumcision are specious; circumcision
causes more medical problems than it prevents.
Not true. Complications from circumcision are low, approximately 0.2 to 0.6
percent. A total of three deaths have been ascribed to circumcision since
1954. In contrast, more than 1,000 U.S. men develop penile cancer each year,
225-317 of whom die. Circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer. Of
60,000 cases since 1930, fewer than 10 have involved circumcised men.
Circumcision also eliminates foreskin problems such as inflammation, failure
to retract, etc. These persist in non-circumcising nations such as the UK
despite presumed familiarity with proper foreskin hygiene.
- Circumcision is performed without anesthesia and is painful.
Anesthesia presents a greater danger to infants. Circumcised infants
remember nothing of the operation later in life. There is no evidence for
the claim that this early trauma conditions the infant to a life of sexual
violence.
- Male circumcision is a violation of human rights comparable to female
circumcision. Infants cannot give informed consent; the operation should be
delayed until they can.
Female circumcision often destroys the woman's capacity for sexual pleasure;
male circumcision does not. Parents routinely consent to operations on
behalf of their minor children. Post-infancy circumcision is far more
traumatic and expensive.
- Circumcision reduces the chances of getting AIDS and other venereal
diseases.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the evidence for this is
conflicting.
The gist of my original column was that no compelling argument could be made
either way regarding circumcision. Having read the above, does anybody still
have doubts?>>
>
>
winding...@aol.com
Society wrote:
> Because in Africa the circumcision of boys is largely
> an emulation of a British Victorian-era practice, cutting
> of boys most often occurs among the more affluent,
> Westernized population -- a population likely to be
> able to reduce its risk of contracting AIDS and other
> STD in many other ways.
Do you have any evidence that African male circumcision is "largely an
emulation of British victorian era practice"? In what countries is
this so? In north Africa and parts of northwest and northeast
Africa, circumcision is a muslim practice, long pre-dating British
colonialism. In central and southern Africa circumcision is
invariably an ancient tribal initiation ritual, also pre-dating British
colonialism.
>In Africa, a diagnosis of AIDS may be
> made without a positive result on a standard AIDS
> antibody (or virus) test. Instead, AIDS may be diagnosed
> based on the patient presenting with symptoms common
> to poor diet, malnutrition, dysentery, malaria, and other
> illnesses common to areas without modern sanitation
> and plentiful food.
Are you claiming some or all of the foreskin-HIV researchers in Africa
didnt bother to test their subjects with a standard test? If so,
which researchers do you have in mind?
Lars
> Society wrote:
>
> Are you claiming some or all of the foreskin-HIV researchers in Africa
> didnt bother to test their subjects with a standard test? If so,
> which researchers do you have in mind?
Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that conducts rigorous
assessments of healthcare, examined 34 African HIV studies, and concluded
that none met the standards of a fully random clinical trial that took into
account religious or behavioural factors.
They concluded:
"We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of
male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."
They also warned that researches cultural bias may influence their
interpretation of the findings.
jake Waskett
> On 15 Jan 2006 11:13:43 -0800, winding...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Society wrote:
>>
>> Are you claiming some or all of the foreskin-HIV researchers in Africa
>> didnt bother to test their subjects with a standard test? If so,
>> which researchers do you have in mind?
>
> Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that conducts rigorous
> assessments of healthcare, examined 34 African HIV studies, and concluded
> that none met the standards of a fully random clinical trial that took into
> account religious or behavioural factors.
>
> They concluded:
> "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of
> male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."
This was in 2003. Since then, Auvert's randomised controlled trial has
been published:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
winding...@aol.com
> Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that conducts rigorous
> assessments of healthcare, examined 34 African HIV studies, and concluded
> that none met the standards of a fully random clinical trial that took into
> account religious or behavioural factors.
Correct, none of the studies at that time were RCTs. They were
studies using various methods, almost all of which suggested a link
between hiv and foreskins. Since then there has been one RCT, which
showed a significant protective effect from circumcision. This
effect was so pronounced that the trial was stopped, to prevent the
uncut men from further jeopardy.
> They concluded:
> "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of
> male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."
That conclusion is out of date in view of the subsequent RCT.
You also left out the Cochrane Collaboration's sentence that followed
the one you cited above. It reads:
"The results from existing observational studies show a strong
epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of
HIV, especially among high-risk groups. "
> They also warned that researches cultural bias may influence their
> interpretation of the findings.
This is true of any research. Also, bias can be in any direction;
yet almost all the studies found a link between hiv and foreskins.
Two more RCT studies are currently underway. Based on the existing
RCT and the other 30+ studies from different parts of the world, it is
probable that foreskins will again be implicated in HIV. If that
happens, it not just probable, but actually certain, that the foreskin
fetishists will still refuse to accept the evidence staring them in the
face -- regardless of its implications for human health and human life.
Paul Raposo
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
>
> >
> > They also warned that researches cultural bias may influence their
> > interpretation of the findings.
Four disturbing portions of that ridiculous study:
"Another limitation concerns the timescale of this study. Participants were followed up for a short
period of time, and, therefore, this study did not explore the long-term protective effect of MC."
Hey, it works today, so lets forget the condoms and the expensive medications that people want to
send to these countries. Circs are dirt cheap!
"Our study does not allow for identification of the mechanism(s) of the protective effect of MC on
HIV acquisition."
We dunno how she works, but lets make it seem that it's a great idea for prevention.
"MC does not provide full protection and, if perceived as full protection, could lead to reduction
of protection of men who, for example, decrease their condom use or otherwise engage in riskier
behavior."
But we won't really tell people that, cuz then they won't do it and we'll have to pull out the "How
To" booklet and roll a condom onto a banana. And our AMEX can't handle all them 'spensive drugs for
"those" people.
"However, there are examples showing that the prevalence of MC can be changed. For example, in South
Korea 50 years ago, almost no men were circumcised; today some 85% of Korean men 16–29 y old are
circumcised."
Tel 'em it is cure all, like having sex with child virgins, or being "cured" by a healer and they'll
all be lining up!
If circs are so damned preventative, then why does the UK have aprox. 58,300 people with HIV (ca.
2004) and the US has aprox. 950,000 people (ca. 2003) with HIV?
Paul Raposo
> If that
> happens, it not just probable, but actually certain, that the foreskin
> fetishists will still refuse to accept the evidence staring them in the
> face -- regardless of its implications for human health and human life.
You're disgusting. You of all people should read these studies with a grain of
salt. Or are you one of those assholes who would tell people in the early
nineties that you were "clean"?
winding...@aol.com
Translation: this fellow is a foreskin fetishist who will
automatically reject ANY and ALL future research that shows a link
between HIV and foreskins.
Lars
> Two more RCT studies are currently underway. Based on the existing
> RCT and the other 30+ studies from different parts of the world, it is
> probable that foreskins will again be implicated in HIV. If that
> happens, it not just probable, but actually certain, that the foreskin
> fetishists will still refuse to accept the evidence staring them in the
> face -- regardless of its implications for human health and human life.
Few points:
- Study performed in the part of the Africa with 32% HIV prevalence
among females, with vastly different lifestyles and hygienic standards
than in the U.S., where transmission of HIV through heterosexual
contact is more prevelant, does little for promotion of circumcision in
the U.S. where a life-long risk of HIV is under 0.15% and where vast
majority of HIV transmissions are not due to heterosexual contacts.
- Study done by Naval Health Research Center of U.S. military in 2004.
found that circumcision is not a risk factor for HIV or other sexually
transmitted infections.
http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/show.asp?abstract_id=2176002
After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors lack
of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR =
0.9; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.52, 2.26). The
odds of HIV infection were 2.6 higher for irregular condom users,
5 times as high for those reporting STI, 6.2 times higher for
those reporting anal sex, 2.8-3.2 times higher for those with 2-7+
partners, nearly 3 times higher for Blacks, and 3.5 times as high
for men who were single or divorced/separated.
Conclusions: Although there may be other medical or cultural
reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or
STI prevention in this U.S. military population.
- Where even clean water is a luxury, let alone sterility, should
surgery be proposed when condoms are safer?
- Studies suggest medical procedures are themselves a vector for HIV in
Africa. South African medical experts have showed concern that the
repeated use of unsterilised blades in the ritual circumcision of
adolescent boys is spreading HIV. According to reports in some tribes
around 20% of boys who have undergone circumcision were infected with
HIV.
- If the male genital mucosa provides a portal for HIV, it is likely
the much larger female mucosa does also.
- Another study, posted on the same conference, demonstrated that
female circumcision shows a protective effect against HIV (Stallings
2005). If more studies confirm this connection I take it you will
embrace this procedure with same vigor as you do male circumcision?
- Study does not prove an effective long-term protection from HIV.
- Public promotion of "circumcision prevents HIV" is likely to make
circumcised men overstate protection provided by circumcision and
engage in riskier sexual behaviours, resulting in them spreading more
HIV than their circumcision prevents. This is especially the case in
Africa, where such nonsence as sex with virgins is believed to cure HIV
and is practiced accordingly.
- Vaccine to prevent and cure HIV infection could be available by the
time today's newborns become sexually active. Gori et al. reported
progress in developing a therapeutic vaccine to maintain CD4 counts in
HIV+ patients. The latest Merck trials, 10/05, show promising
protection against variants of HIV that are responsible for 75% of the
strains in circulation. They claimed that immunity vaccine could be
available to the public within several years.
- Infant circumcision poses bioethical problems, especially when other
methods of disease control are available, proven and affordable, and
the tissue has protective and sexual functions. Bioethics obliges that
less intrusive method of disease control. Since condoms and sex
education are less invasive than circumcision, and more effective, they
should be preferred.
Dinah
Paul Raposo wrote:
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
> > http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
> >
> > >
> > > They also warned that researches cultural bias may influence their
> > > interpretation of the findings.
>
> Four disturbing portions of that ridiculous study:
>
> "Another limitation concerns the timescale of this study. Participants were followed up for a short
> period of time, and, therefore, this study did not explore the long-term protective effect of MC."
How are 181 months a short period of time??
> Hey, it works today, so lets forget the condoms and the expensive medications that people want to
> send to these countries. Circs are dirt cheap!
>
> "Our study does not allow for identification of the mechanism(s) of the protective effect of MC on
> HIV acquisition."
>
> We dunno how she works, but lets make it seem that it's a great idea for prevention.
>
> "MC does not provide full protection and, if perceived as full protection, could lead to reduction
> of protection of men who, for example, decrease their condom use or otherwise engage in riskier
> behavior."
>
> But we won't really tell people that, cuz then they won't do it and we'll have to pull out the "How
> To" booklet and roll a condom onto a banana. And our AMEX can't handle all them 'spensive drugs for
> "those" people.
>
> "However, there are examples showing that the prevalence of MC can be changed. For example, in South
> Korea 50 years ago, almost no men were circumcised; today some 85% of Korean men 16-29 y old are
Dinah
Lars wrote:
> - Another study, posted on the same conference, demonstrated that
> female circumcision shows a protective effect against HIV (Stallings
> 2005). If more studies confirm this connection I take it you will
> embrace this procedure with same vigor as you do male circumcision?
Cite?
Paul Raposo
> Paul Raposo wrote:
> > winding...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > If that
> > > happens, it not just probable, but actually certain, that the foreskin
> > > fetishists will still refuse to accept the evidence staring them in the
> > > face -- regardless of its implications for human health and human life.
> >
> > You're disgusting. You of all people should read these studies with a grain of
> > salt. Or are you one of those assholes who would tell people in the early
> > nineties that you were "clean"?
>
> Translation: this fellow is a foreskin fetishist
Someone who does not reduce a person to what is between their legs? Yes. Someone
who dismisses anyone who does not fit his narrow view of beauty? No.
> who will
> automatically reject ANY and ALL future research that shows a link
> between HIV and foreskins.
905,000 vs. 54,000.
Briar Rabbit
He just seems to go on and on with this. Parental consent to newborn
circumcision is legal, ethical and acceptable (and no matter how much
the skin freaks rant and rave about it that will not change).
It is always interesting to compare their attitude towards infant
vaccinations (which a growing number of people believe to be the
destruction of the individuals immune system) to the removal of their
beloved (sex toy) the foreskin.
This lack of consistency clearly indicates a psychosexual motivation
behind their supposed "concern" about the ethics of a new born
circumcision decision. Sick puppies.
Notchalk
>
> <ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1137273810.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> The only other argument (besides religion) for circumcision
>> is smegma.
I hate to get in on these debates but isn't smegma the natural cleaning
agent to protect from infection?
Jo
--
Woman, Wife, Mother, Midwife
jake Waskett
No. In fact, if allowed to build up, it tends to cause infection.
jake Waskett
Are you serious? You're comparing a randomised controlled trial with an
observational study? An observational study with a much smaller sample
(effectively reduced further through multivariate analysis), using
controls from a ship (closed environment), and determining circumcision
status differently in cases and controls!
>
> - Where even clean water is a luxury, let alone sterility, should
> surgery be proposed when condoms are safer?
Surgery should be proposed when it can be done safely.
>
> - Studies suggest medical procedures are themselves a vector for HIV in
> Africa. South African medical experts have showed concern that the
> repeated use of unsterilised blades in the ritual circumcision of
> adolescent boys is spreading HIV. According to reports in some tribes
> around 20% of boys who have undergone circumcision were infected with
> HIV.
Hardly surprising. Tribal circumcisions tend to reuse the blades. There's
an obvious solution.
>
> - If the male genital mucosa provides a portal for HIV, it is likely
> the much larger female mucosa does also.
Nope. Try reading Patterson's study which determined differences between
the types of mucosa.
>
> - Another study, posted on the same conference, demonstrated that
> female circumcision shows a protective effect against HIV (Stallings
> 2005). If more studies confirm this connection I take it you will
> embrace this procedure with same vigor as you do male circumcision?
Another observational study?
>
> - Study does not prove an effective long-term protection from HIV.
Strongly implied, however.
>
> - Public promotion of "circumcision prevents HIV" is likely to make
> circumcised men overstate protection provided by circumcision and
> engage in riskier sexual behaviours, resulting in them spreading more
> HIV than their circumcision prevents. This is especially the case in
> Africa, where such nonsence as sex with virgins is believed to cure HIV
> and is practiced accordingly.
A possible risk, but education is the answer.
>
> - Vaccine to prevent and cure HIV infection could be available by the
> time today's newborns become sexually active. Gori et al. reported
> progress in developing a therapeutic vaccine to maintain CD4 counts in
> HIV+ patients. The latest Merck trials, 10/05, show promising
> protection against variants of HIV that are responsible for 75% of the
> strains in circulation. They claimed that immunity vaccine could be
> available to the public within several years.
I think you're mistaken.
>
> - Infant circumcision poses bioethical problems, especially when other
> methods of disease control are available, proven and affordable, and
> the tissue has protective and sexual functions.
That's ok, that idea's just a myth.
> Bioethics obliges that
> less intrusive method of disease control. Since condoms and sex
> education are less invasive than circumcision, and more effective, they
> should be preferred.
That's just anti-circ 'bioethics'. Try reading Benatar for a sensible look
at the situation.
jake Waskett
> If circs are so damned preventative, then why does the UK have aprox. 58,300 people with HIV (ca.
> 2004) and the US has aprox. 950,000 people (ca. 2003) with HIV?
1. Your figures are incorrect, but it's true that the US prevalence is
higher
2. US population is 295,734,134, UK population is 60,441,457.
3. HIV entered the US first - hence it has had longer to spread.
4. Americans less likely to use condoms.
sdan...@nyc.rr.com
Notchalk
"In its fresh state, smegma is a wholesome and functional lubricant.
But, if allowed to accumulate in the foreskin cavity, it becomes
changed into an unpleasant, unhealthy, and bad-smelling substance."
and
"Remember that it is stale and accumulated smegma that is a source of
ill health for the penis. Freshly formed smegma, washed away regularly
and constantly replenishing itself, is a wholesome lubricant - making
for ease in erection and smoothness in sexual intercourse."
(http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/)
So the argument should be for clean penises, not surgically altered
ones? I just read somewhere too, that 'smegma' means 'soap' in ancient
Greek ;)
jake Waskett
Wouldn't a better argument be to look for facts rather than accepting
opinion pieces at face value?
Briar Rabbit
Interesting that the skin freaks have been trying to sell smegma as a
"natural" soap (cleaning agent). I wonder if they say the same about
that other bodily excrement ... crap. But seriously I have serious
doubts about the mental capacity of those who believe the skin freak
lies. Is this Jo woman stupid or what?
Briar Rabbit
More desperate than serious. It is really hilarious that having demanded
a ramdomised controlled trial (RCT) and rejected mere observational
studies the skin freaks when faced with a RCT which does not support the
object of their psychosexual fetish try to thump the findings with an
observational study. They are really desperate ... obvious for all to
see. Pathetic really.
winding...@aol.com
> Study performed in the part of the Africa with 32% HIV prevalence
> among females, with vastly different lifestyles and hygienic standards
> than in the U.S., where transmission of HIV through heterosexual
> contact is more prevelant, does little for promotion of circumcision in
> the U.S. where a life-long risk of HIV is under 0.15% and where vast
> majority of HIV transmissions are not due to heterosexual contacts.
The REASON there is so little heterosexual transmission in the US,
particularly in the white heterosexual population, is probably the fact
that circumcision rates are so high in this group already! The
remarkably low rate among white heterosexuals -- after decades of
rampant infection among other sectors of the American population -- is
an argument for continued circumcision.
> Study done by Naval Health Research Center of U.S. military in 2004.
> found that circumcision is not a risk factor for HIV or other sexually
> transmitted infections.
To cite this single study of select US military personnel, when more
than 30 other studies show the opposite (including the only RCT to
date), is disingenous.
> Where even clean water is a luxury, let alone sterility, should
> surgery be proposed when condoms are safer?
Surgery is a one time event; condoms have to be present and used
thousands of times in a lifetime.
> South African medical experts have showed concern that the
> repeated use of unsterilised blades in the ritual circumcision of
> adolescent boys is spreading HIV. According to reports in some tribes
> around 20% of boys who have undergone circumcision were infected with
> HIV.
This is nonsense. If you have these "reports" about 20 % of boys
being infected with HIV, please provide them. Perhaps you are
confused by reports that Xhosa boys have died of septicemia from
unsterilized instruments after circumcision by unlicensed
practitioners. Traditional ritual requires the boys to remain
together in a hut for several days after the procedure, isolated from
any medical intervention. In this situation some succumb to bacterial
infections -- typically under 100 boys in any given year. The
reference to "20 %" is to boys in a specific hut dying of bacterial
infections -- not 20 percent of whole the tribe getting HIV infection!
Local authorities are cracking down on unlicensed practitioners to
ensure that future circumcisions are done in a sterile environment.
> Public promotion of "circumcision prevents HIV" is likely to make
> circumcised men overstate protection provided by circumcision and
> engage in riskier sexual behaviours, resulting in them spreading more
> HIV than their circumcision prevents.
No public authority will spread the message that "circumcision prevents
HIV", but they are morally obliged to spread the message about
anything, circumcision included, that reduces the chances of HIV
infection. The same kind of argument has been made against retroviral
drugs: that infected people will become asymptomatic, and that they or
their partners will overstate the protection offered by these drugs and
indulge in riskier behaviors. In any event, the RCT study found that
even though the circumcised men had MORE sex than the uncut men, they
STILL had a lower rate of infection:
"The study, performed in collaboration
with Adrian Puren of
South Africa's National Institute
for Communicable Diseases and
funded by France's Agence
Nationale de Recherches sur le
SIDA (ANRS), suggests that circumcision
can offer 65% protection
from infection. Only 18 men
in the circumcised group acquired
new HIV infections, as opposed to
51 in the uncircumcised group.
Further bolstering the results, men
in the circumcised group reported
18% more sexual contacts than
controls. "It's extremely exciting,"
says King Holmes, an expert in
sexually transmitted diseases at
the University of Washington,
Seattle. "It's essentially an
anatomic vaccine for life."
>This is especially the case in
> Africa, where such nonsence as sex with virgins is believed to cure HIV
> and is practiced accordingly.
You make it sound as if Africa is one country with common sexual
practices and beliefs. It is actually a continent of over 50
countries, with a variety of cultures. I know of only one African
country, South Africa, where this belief exists at all, and it is
certainly not a common practice.
> Vaccine to prevent and cure HIV infection could be available by the
> time today's newborns become sexually active.
Lets hope so. But its not a certainty, for that claim has been made
several times before. Some 17 years ago, the US Secretary for Health,
Margaret Heckler, announced that an AIDS vaccine would be ready for
testing in two years. Every proposed vaccine, like every anti aids
drug, has been outwitted sooner or later by this rapidly evolving
virus. Many of todays newborns will become sexually active in a dozen
years or so. We cannot bet on an effective vaccine being tested,
proved, and universally available by then.
> - Infant circumcision poses bioethical problems, especially when other
> methods of disease control are available, proven and affordable,
Other methods can hardly be called "provable" when we have millions of
new infections every year. Over a lifetime condoms and education are
much more expensive
than a one-time snip.
> Since condoms and sex
> education are less invasive than circumcision, and more effective, they
> should be preferred.
What is the evidence that they are more effective? They work only to
the extent that people are educated about prevention and condoms AND
act on that education and use the condoms. It is not a question of
"preferring" one kind of strategy over another. We need to use all
available strategies against this disease.
Tom
no harm" are you missing with circumcision? It is considered ethical in
the US, not because it actually *is* ethical, but because the medical
community looks the other way when their cash cow is being threatened.
Funny, how it becomes a psychosexual motivation when you can't come up
with a good answer, eh Briar Rabbit? Please, humor me for a moment.
Name one other body part which can be removed without the consent of
the person, which is legal. Please, name another body part which is
removed when it is healthy, from an unconsenting person, and sold
without parental consent, to make someone else money. I await your
answer with baited breath.
Tom
healthy body parts from a non-consenting individual. Just one, besides
circumcision, will satisfy me.
Paul Raposo
> He just seems to go on and on with this. Parental consent to newborn
> circumcision is legal, ethical and acceptable
Because the people who continue to perform the surgery, have convinced
the uneducated that it's a good idea.
> (and no matter how much
> the skin freaks rant and rave about it that will not change).
As opposed to the butchers who desperately want to continue an arcane
ritual?
> It is always interesting to compare their attitude towards infant
> vaccinations (which a growing number of people believe to be the
> destruction of the individuals immune system)
Proof?
> to the removal of their
> beloved (sex toy) the foreskin.
Better to play with a comfy blanket, then a toadstool.
> This lack of consistency clearly indicates a psychosexual motivation
> behind their supposed "concern" about the ethics of a new born
> circumcision decision.
Sure, sunshine.
> Sick puppies.
How many circ's have you witnessed?
Paul Raposo
> 1. Your figures are incorrect, but it's true that the US prevalence is
> higher
How are my numbers incorrect?
> 2. US population is 295,734,134, UK population is 60,441,457.
And?
> 3. HIV entered the US first - hence it has had longer to spread.
Bullshit. Patient Zero was from outside the States. And since it started in third world countries
first, it's dubious to claim first status as an excuse for the higher numbers.
> 4. Americans less likely to use condoms.
Need help holding all those straws?
Paul Raposo
:...if allowed to build up..." Remove that chance and smegma is a benign,
beneficial product of the bodies self-cleansing apparatus.
Briar Rabbit
Just what is it that you don't understand about the concept of parental
consent?
Briar Rabbit
Now lets take a look at that other bodily excrement ... shit. Is this
also benign? It is certainly the body's way of "cleansing itself" of
waste products (which is what smegma is). It is interesting that you
skin freaks talk lovingly of smegma while saying nothing of the other.
It confirms the level of psychosexual obsession when a bodily excrement
is elevated to the status of being a "beneficial product" by those with
a peculiar interest in foreskins.
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> 1. Your figures are incorrect, but it's true that the US prevalence is
>> higher
>
> How are my numbers incorrect?
In the sense of being wrong. US adult HIV prevalence is about 0.6%, while
the UK's is about 0.4%.
>
>> 2. US population is 295,734,134, UK population is 60,441,457.
>
> And?
So with a larger population, you'd expect to see more HIV cases.
>
>> 3. HIV entered the US first - hence it has had longer to spread.
>
> Bullshit. Patient Zero was from outside the States. And since it started in third world countries
> first, it's dubious to claim first status as an excuse for the higher numbers.
As I recall, AIDS (or GRID as it was known) was first documented in San
Francisco. It entered the UK later on. And the UK is not a third world
country.
>
>> 4. Americans less likely to use condoms.
>
> Need help holding all those straws?
It's a documented fact, Paul. All you have to do is ask, and I can supply
evidence.
Tom
understand, is how the medical community and public use one set of
'ethics' for the foreskin, and another set for the entire rest of the
human body. Can you even acknowledge that there is a double standard
there?
Tom
in wikipedia.
jake Waskett
reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%),
Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater
for births to younger teenagers." - and what is necessary in order to have
a child? Why, unprotected sex, of course.
"The age of sexual debut varies little across countries, yet American
teenagers are the most likely to have multiple partners." - definitely a
risk factor.
"A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at
either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than
reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21%
and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively)." - no
contraceptive use.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
"More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in
the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought
EC."
"More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception
(38% v 28%)."
"Cross-national comparisons of teenage sexual and reproductive behavior
in five Western industrialized countries show vast differences in teenage
pregnancy rates and birthrates. The lowest rates are found in Sweden and
France, moderate rates in Canada and Great Britain, and the highest in the
USA."
"Sweden and France offer the most positive attitudes to sexuality
combined with a clear expectation that teenagers can make responsible
decision about sexuality and delay childbearing. Societal acceptance of
teenage sexuality is reflected in open-minded sexuality education and easy
access to contraceptive services. In contrast the official message in USA
is to delay childbearing until marriage by abstinence only, and use of
contraceptives is not supported. Differences in societal support for
employment and education also played a major role."
Notchalk
> Paul Raposo wrote:
>>
>>
>> :...if allowed to build up..." Remove that chance and smegma is a benign,
>> beneficial product of the bodies self-cleansing apparatus.
>>
>>
>
>
> Now lets take a look at that other bodily excrement ... shit. Is this
> also benign? It is certainly the body's way of "cleansing itself" of
> waste products (which is what smegma is). It is interesting that you
> skin freaks talk lovingly of smegma while saying nothing of the other.
> It confirms the level of psychosexual obsession when a bodily excrement
> is elevated to the status of being a "beneficial product" by those with
> a peculiar interest in foreskins.
Ok, smegma doesn't have any 'bad' bacteria in it when it is first
formed, while shit does. Smegma has a purpose - to lubricate the glans
during erections and sex.
Your argument hints that because you believe smegma is icky, you should
cut off the foreskin? Shit is icky, too, but do you sew up the anus?
God, it's just a bit of skin! Just like your arm - you lift it up, and
clean under it or it gets stinky.
winding...@aol.com
Notchalk wrote:
> Smegma has a purpose - to lubricate the glans
> during erections and sex.
>
So you believe the uncut penis should NOT be washed before sex, right?
Tom
known cases of AIDS. What you posted contradicted what I saw in
wikipedia.
Paul Raposo
> In the sense of being wrong. US adult HIV prevalence is about 0.6%, while
> the UK's is about 0.4%.
Bullshit.
> So with a larger population, you'd expect to see more HIV cases.
America is about five times larger than the UK, but has over 17 times more infected people. The numbers
don't jive, Jake.
> As I recall, AIDS (or GRID as it was known)
Homophobic shit. You have the mendacity to accuse people who oppose circs of being anti-Semitic, but you
throw out Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome as if it's relevant to this discussion?
> was first documented in San
> Francisco.
Cite your source, you anti-gay cunt.
> It entered the UK later on.
Prove it.
> And the UK is not a third world
> country.
And what's your point, you Fred Phelps carbon copy shithead.
> It's a documented fact, Paul. All you have to do is ask, and I can supply
> evidence.
Supply it then, you fucking useless asswipe. You're true colours are finally showing.
Paul Raposo
> "Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women
> reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%),
> Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater
> for births to younger teenagers." - and what is necessary in order to have
> a child? Why, unprotected sex, of course.
Populations stats and unwed pregnancies are your evidence, you dunce? How many of those children are
have more than one child? Babies having babies, that's all you've proven.
> "The age of sexual debut varies little across countries, yet American
> teenagers are the most likely to have multiple partners." - definitely a
> risk factor.
And? Most likely? I'm most likely to be a wagon if I had wheels, but not really.
> "A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at
> either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than
> reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21%
> and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively)." - no
> contraceptive use.
Pathetic excuses for evidence, Jake. It's amazing, you claimed Americans use more Viagra, not because
their circ's leave them impotent, but because they use more pharmaceuticals than other countries. Yet,
those same Americans don't use condoms at such massive levels as their pill popping? I wonder why?
Hmm. Maybe because they pathetic cut penis is incapable of registering any significant sensations during
intercourse?
Now, since America is so much bigger than the UK, as you pointed out, those numbers are meaningless
simply because Yanks outnumber the English, so of course their citizens will have higher numbers of
people having unplanned pregnancies. Get it, sunshine?
> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
>
> "More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in
> the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought
> EC."
So American women are sluts?
> "More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception
> (38% v 28%)."
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12405237&dopt=Citation
>
> "Cross-national comparisons of teenage sexual and reproductive behavior
> in five Western industrialized countries show vast differences in teenage
> pregnancy rates and birthrates. The lowest rates are found in Sweden and
> France, moderate rates in Canada and Great Britain, and the highest in the
> USA."
Teenagers, teenagers, teenagers. Isn't it odd, that the countries with the lowest numbers of cut men,
also have the lowest numbers of unplanned pregnancies? I wonder why? Maybe because intact men don't
bitch an moan about condoms" reducing sensitivity" and gladly cover up their tallywacker.
> "Sweden and France offer the most positive attitudes to sexuality
> combined with a clear expectation that teenagers can make responsible
> decision about sexuality and delay childbearing. Societal acceptance of
> teenage sexuality is reflected in open-minded sexuality education and easy
> access to contraceptive services. In contrast the official message in USA
> is to delay childbearing until marriage by abstinence only, and use of
> contraceptives is not supported. Differences in societal support for
> employment and education also played a major role."
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12833743&dopt=Abstract
So., not only is America ass backwards when it comes to butchering the male penis, but it's a repressive
society that lets their children run rampant engaging in unsafe and unprotected sexual acts. Beautiful.
Paul Raposo
> Now lets take a look at that other bodily excrement ... shit. Is this
> also benign? It is certainly the body's way of "cleansing itself" of
> waste products (which is what smegma is).
I wonder what windinghighway has to say about your anti-gay tirade, br.
Paul Raposo
Do you believe the ass is rosy clean after a washing, or is it as
"disgusting" as a washed foreskin?
Briar Rabbit
But if you clean off the smegma then how would it help with lubrication?
Shit is icky so you wipe and wash your ass. Smegma is icky so you SHOULD
wipe and flush out the foreskin (Draino works best they say).
The bottom line is that no matter what the skin freaks, foreskin
fetishists and their fellow travelers say smegma is no more than a
bodily excrement.
Like those sick puppies who are into skat, the skin freaks are into
smegma and would die for the opportunity to tongue out a "nice" ripe
foreskin. Now that is sick.
Briar Rabbit
Now at least we are starting to get the environmental comparison right.
To compare the cleanliness of the anus and the cess pool which is found
is pretty accurate expect that the foreskin contains the filth to rot in
situ. Is it the rotting of the smegma that you find attractive?
rdu...@pdq.net
winding...@aol.com wrote:
> Lars wrote:
>
> > Study performed in the part of the Africa with 32% HIV prevalence
> > among females, with vastly different lifestyles and hygienic standards
> > than in the U.S., where transmission of HIV through heterosexual
> > contact is more prevelant, does little for promotion of circumcision in
> > the U.S. where a life-long risk of HIV is under 0.15% and where vast
> > majority of HIV transmissions are not due to heterosexual contacts.
>
>
> The REASON there is so little heterosexual transmission in the US,
> particularly in the white heterosexual population, is probably the fact
> that circumcision rates are so high in this group already!
The very low rates among heterosexuals in uncirced European is due
to what then??
Since there are many places where almost nobody is circed and
almost no female to male transmission occurs the rest of your argument
can safely be ignored.
jake Waskett
>> As I recall, AIDS (or GRID as it was known)
>
> Homophobic shit. You have the mendacity to accuse people who oppose circs of being anti-Semitic, but you
> throw out Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome as if it's relevant to this discussion?
Are you seriously suggesting I'm homophobic?
Clue: I'm gay.
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> "Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women
>> reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%),
>> Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater
>> for births to younger teenagers." - and what is necessary in order to have
>> a child? Why, unprotected sex, of course.
>
> Populations stats and unwed pregnancies are your evidence, you dunce? How many of those children are
> have more than one child? Babies having babies, that's all you've proven.
How does one go about getting pregnant, Paul?
>
>> "The age of sexual debut varies little across countries, yet American
>> teenagers are the most likely to have multiple partners." - definitely a
>> risk factor.
>
> And? Most likely? I'm most likely to be a wagon if I had wheels, but not really.
>
>> "A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at
>> either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than
>> reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21%
>> and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively)." - no
>> contraceptive use.
>
> Pathetic excuses for evidence, Jake. It's amazing, you claimed Americans use more Viagra, not because
> their circ's leave them impotent, but because they use more pharmaceuticals than other countries. Yet,
> those same Americans don't use condoms at such massive levels as their pill popping? I wonder why?
> Hmm. Maybe because they pathetic cut penis is incapable of registering any significant sensations during
> intercourse?
Guess not.
"Circumcised men were older and more likely to be Muslim. They were more
likely to report a history of condom use"
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v191n4/33047/33047.html
"Condom use in men was associated with being young, living in town, being
born in Kagera Region, high education and high income, being circumcised,
and having causal or steady (non- martial) partners."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7705853&query_hl=1
"Fewer uncircumcised men reported a history of condom use."
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v180n2/981351/981351.text.html
However, "There were no statistically significant differences between
circumcised men and uncircumcised men in marital status, lifetime number
of sex partners, number of non-spousal partners in the past 12 months,
one-off sexual contacts and contacts with sex workers in the past 12
months, alcohol consumption and condom use."
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200108004-00004.htm
>
> Now, since America is so much bigger than the UK, as you pointed out, those numbers are meaningless
> simply because Yanks outnumber the English, so of course their citizens will have higher numbers of
> people having unplanned pregnancies. Get it, sunshine?
Nope, because the numbers above are percentages, which it is meaningful to
compare.
>
>> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
>>
>> "More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in
>> the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought
>> EC."
>
> So American women are sluts?
That's a bit of a generalisation, don't you think?
>
>> "More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception
>> (38% v 28%)."
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12405237&dopt=Citation
>>
>> "Cross-national comparisons of teenage sexual and reproductive behavior
>> in five Western industrialized countries show vast differences in teenage
>> pregnancy rates and birthrates. The lowest rates are found in Sweden and
>> France, moderate rates in Canada and Great Britain, and the highest in the
>> USA."
>
> Teenagers, teenagers, teenagers. Isn't it odd, that the countries with the lowest numbers of cut men,
> also have the lowest numbers of unplanned pregnancies? I wonder why? Maybe because intact men don't
> bitch an moan about condoms" reducing sensitivity" and gladly cover up their tallywacker.
Evidently not, given the evidence I provided above.
A Work In Progress
stupid diatribe go back and forth over all of this, really I am!!!!!
Why don't both sides just GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!
It's really a shame that society decided that it was necessary to start
cutting off necessary, or unnecessary, body parts for various reasons.
However, once something is started, it takes a long damned time to get
rid of, so suffice it to say, circumcism is probably here for awhile
yet. Quite a shame, because it really is UNnecessary.
And as to whether or not a cut or uncut dick is 'cleaner' ... just
about all of you want to have a woman (or man) lick and suck said dick.
Believe me, I've been asked by many a man. And some even like having
their asshole licked as well. Now, how many of those women who grant
you this gift get the same in return from their men? LOLOLOLOLOLOL Uh
huh, that's what I thought, a very small number, ain't it?!?!?
Grow up boys.
-------------------
A woman who is getting her jollies listening to a bunch of stupid
dumb-assed men complain about whose wee-wee is better ...
rdu...@pdq.net
You seem more eager to get your jollies than to pay attention to
the course of this debate. You characterization of the "sides" is so
inaccurate that one suspects you are operating on the basis of pure
projection.
Paul Raposo
> How does one go about getting pregnant, Paul?
What does getting pregnant have to do with the number of HIV/AIDS cases in the US, Jake?
> Guess not.
>
> "Circumcised men were older and more likely to be Muslim. They were more
> likely to report a history of condom use"
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v191n4/33047/33047.html
American men, Jake. At this point it's clear you're not reading my replies, or questions. Just posting paragraphs
of replies that have nothing to do with what I asked.
> "Condom use in men was associated with being young, living in town, being
> born in Kagera Region, high education and high income, being circumcised,
> and having causal or steady (non- martial) partners."
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7705853&query_hl=1
Again, what does an African province have to do with American males?
> "Fewer uncircumcised men reported a history of condom use."
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v180n2/981351/981351.text.html
You do know where America is on this earth, don't you Jake? And isn't this interesting:
>Uncircumcised men were younger than circumcised men<
Now, your previous reply had links claiming that age had something to do with condom use and disuse in America.
Does that opinion still stand in regards to this study?
> However, "There were no statistically significant differences between
> circumcised men and uncircumcised men in marital status, lifetime number
> of sex partners, number of non-spousal partners in the past 12 months,
> one-off sexual contacts and contacts with sex workers in the past 12
> months, alcohol consumption and condom use."
> http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200108004-00004.htm
Uh huh.
> Nope, because the numbers above are percentages, which it is meaningful to
> compare.
Nope. try again.
> That's a bit of a generalisation, don't you think?
You tell me. You cited that as evidence.
> Evidently not, given the evidence I provided above.
The above links provided no evidence what so ever. All they provided was your intention to redirect this thread
and present results which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Paul Raposo
> Are you seriously suggesting I'm homophobic?
Yes
> Clue: I'm gay.
And? The GLBT community is filled with many anti-gay, gays.
Paul Raposo
> Now at least we are starting to get the environmental comparison right.
yeah, I figured you'd like that.
> To compare the cleanliness of the anus and the cess pool which is found
?
> is pretty accurate expect that the foreskin contains the filth to rot in
> situ.
Again, ?.
> Is it the rotting of the smegma that you find attractive?
Is that thought, something you find attractive? You seem quite opposed to
smegma, yet strangely obsessed with it.
Paul Raposo
> I am sitting here laughing my ass off listening to all of this very
> stupid diatribe go back and forth over all of this, really I am!!!!!
> Why don't both sides just GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!
Where's the fun in that?
> It's really a shame that society decided that it was necessary to start
> cutting off necessary, or unnecessary, body parts for various reasons.
> However, once something is started, it takes a long damned time to get
> rid of, so suffice it to say, circumcism is probably here for awhile
> yet. Quite a shame, because it really is UNnecessary.
Gasp! A woman who thinks circ's are unnecessary? Don't let some in
alt.circumcision read that, they'll make the Salem witch trials look like a
picnic.
> And as to whether or not a cut or uncut dick is 'cleaner' ...
You didn't answer your won question. Either, or the same?
> just
> about all of you want to have a woman (or man) lick and suck said dick.
> Believe me, I've been asked by many a man. And some even like having
> their asshole licked as well. Now, how many of those women who grant
> you this gift get the same in return from their men? LOLOLOLOLOLOL Uh
> huh, that's what I thought, a very small number, ain't it?!?!?
>
> Grow up boys.
> -------------------
> A woman who is getting her jollies listening to a bunch of stupid
> dumb-assed men complain about whose wee-wee is better ...
Of course my intact monster is better.
It's enormous, veined, lovely and wrapped in a sheath of the most sensuous
and sensitive skin. As my penis attains a rigidity capable of plowing
through granite and my throbbing purple head pushes gently through the soft
folds of skin placed there by nature and lovingly blessed with a moist
kiss, it takes on the grandeur and spectacle of a proud eagle soaring
through the heavens as it swoops down on it's prey.
My wee-wee is so big, it attacked Tokyo. My wee-wee is so massive, my
partner has to roll over twice to get off it. My wee-wee is so excessively
large, his ears pop when he gets on top of it. In fact, it's so ginormous,
you're all inside of it right now!
Paul Raposo
> But if you clean off the smegma then how would it help with lubrication?
Who said anything about lubrication?
> Shit is icky so you wipe and wash your ass.
Then wipe your mouth, because you're spewing a whole lotta verbal diarrhea.
> Smegma is icky so you SHOULD
> wipe and flush out the foreskin
Nooo! Really?
> (Draino works best they say).
It's didn't work during your abortion. Then again, maybe it did. Any chance
your mum threw out the baby and circumcised the placenta?
> no more than a
> bodily excrement.
That's what the doctor said during your birth.
> Like those sick puppies who are into skat,
Hmm. Angry, anti-foreskin and judgmental. Well, I'm half right. You're a
poor judge and very mental.
> the skin freaks are into
> smegma and would die for the opportunity to tongue out a "nice" ripe
> foreskin.
Stop, you're getting us hard.
> Now that is sick.
So you spend much time thinking about it?
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> How does one go about getting pregnant, Paul?
>
> What does getting pregnant have to do with the number of HIV/AIDS cases in the US, Jake?
Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual reproduction have something in
common. Do you need me to tell you?
>
>> Guess not.
>>
>> "Circumcised men were older and more likely to be Muslim. They were more
>> likely to report a history of condom use"
>> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v191n4/33047/33047.html
>
> American men, Jake. At this point it's clear you're not reading my replies, or questions. Just posting paragraphs
> of replies that have nothing to do with what I asked.
Simple, Paul. If you're correct, and circumcised men use condoms less
frequently because of this huge loss of sensation, then logically this
should apply anywhere. There's no logical reason why it should be true in
America but nowhere else.
>
>> "Condom use in men was associated with being young, living in town, being
>> born in Kagera Region, high education and high income, being circumcised,
>> and having causal or steady (non- martial) partners."
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7705853&query_hl=1
>
> Again, what does an African province have to do with American males?
See above.
>
>> "Fewer uncircumcised men reported a history of condom use."
>> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v180n2/981351/981351.text.html
>
> You do know where America is on this earth, don't you Jake?
See above.
> And isn't this interesting:
>
>>Uncircumcised men were younger than circumcised men<
>
> Now, your previous reply had links claiming that age had something to do with condom use and disuse in America.
> Does that opinion still stand in regards to this study?
I don't know. It strikes me as something likely to vary in different
societies, unlike a physical change which is the same anywhere.
>
>> However, "There were no statistically significant differences between
>> circumcised men and uncircumcised men in marital status, lifetime number
>> of sex partners, number of non-spousal partners in the past 12 months,
>> one-off sexual contacts and contacts with sex workers in the past 12
>> months, alcohol consumption and condom use."
>> http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200108004-00004.htm
>
> Uh huh.
>
>> Nope, because the numbers above are percentages, which it is meaningful to
>> compare.
>
> Nope. try again.
Yes they are, Paul. 50% of a population is one half, whatever its size.
>
>> That's a bit of a generalisation, don't you think?
>
> You tell me. You cited that as evidence.
No, I cited some evidence, from which you formed an opinion.
Paul Raposo
> Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual reproduction have something in
> common. Do you need me to tell you?
Yes Jake, please tell me what teen pregnancy numbers and HIV/AIDS transmission have in common. And more importantly, how
unplanned pregnancies have anything to do with this thread.
> > Now, your previous reply had links claiming that age had something to do with condom use and disuse in America.
> > Does that opinion still stand in regards to this study?
>
> I don't know. It strikes me as something likely to vary in different
> societies, unlike a physical change which is the same anywhere.
Oh, I see. So now it varies, does it? So a young cut man in the US, with little experience and trolling for sex, is
nothing like a young man in Africa, with little experience trolling for sex? And an older cut man in America with more
experience is nothing like an older cut man in Africa with more experience? Indeed.
> Yes they are, Paul. 50% of a population is one half, whatever its size.
And percentages are not what I wrote about. Over 900k vs. over 54k, Jake.
> No, I cited some evidence, from which you formed an opinion.
And your reason for citing that report? What was your intent?
Anywho, back to your bit about cut men in Africa washing their penis more often than intact men. A Muslim co-worker told
me that in Muslim law, they have daily wash rituals and you must wash your genitals thoroughly after using the
john--every time. Since these men in Africa are in most cases cut because of their faith in an invisible cloud being, it
stands to reason that they would clean their cut penis more often than an intact man, if they must do so after each
squirt. Which explains why my co-worker never uses the toilet at work and why he loathes urinals.
winding...@aol.com
jake Waskett wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:18:20 -0500, Paul Raposo wrote:
> >
> >> Nope, because the numbers above are percentages, which it is meaningful to
> >> compare.
> >
> > Nope. try again.
>
> Yes they are, Paul. 50% of a population is one half, whatever its size.
Jake, this poor fellow will never understand that. He quite
literally does not understand the differences between amounts, rates,
and percentages -- he has even assured us that where he comes from,
"rate" is used to mean "amount"! I believe him to be ineducable about
these concepts, let alone the basic elements of research methodology.
However, you have far more patience than I, and perhaps you can
explain the basics to him. I fear, though, that any such attempt
will merely attract the usual torrent of abuse, leaving him as ignorant
as before.
Ian
have that kind of patience.
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual reproduction have something in
>> common. Do you need me to tell you?
>
> Yes Jake, please tell me what teen pregnancy numbers and HIV/AIDS transmission have in common. And more importantly, how
> unplanned pregnancies have anything to do with this thread.
Unplanned pregnancies occur because people are having sex without
protection (often condoms). (Sexual) HIV transmission occurs because
people are having sex without protection. High teen pregnancy rates in a
population suggest that risky sexual behaviour is commonplace.
>
>> > Now, your previous reply had links claiming that age had something to do with condom use and disuse in America.
>> > Does that opinion still stand in regards to this study?
>>
>> I don't know. It strikes me as something likely to vary in different
>> societies, unlike a physical change which is the same anywhere.
>
> Oh, I see. So now it varies, does it? So a young cut man in the US, with little experience and trolling for sex, is
> nothing like a young man in Africa, with little experience trolling for sex? And an older cut man in America with more
> experience is nothing like an older cut man in Africa with more experience? Indeed.
That's not what I said, Paul.
>
>> Yes they are, Paul. 50% of a population is one half, whatever its size.
>
> And percentages are not what I wrote about. Over 900k vs. over 54k, Jake.
Let me refresh your memory, Paul. Here's what we were talking about: ""A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at
either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than
reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21%
and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively)." - no
contraceptive use." http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
>
>> No, I cited some evidence, from which you formed an opinion.
>
> And your reason for citing that report? What was your intent?
To demonstrate that Americans, statistically speaking, indulge in riskier
behaviour.
>
> Anywho, back to your bit about cut men in Africa washing their penis more often than intact men. A Muslim co-worker told
> me that in Muslim law, they have daily wash rituals and you must wash your genitals thoroughly after using the
> john--every time. Since these men in Africa are in most cases cut because of their faith in an invisible cloud being, it
> stands to reason that they would clean their cut penis more often than an intact man, if they must do so after each
> squirt. Which explains why my co-worker never uses the toilet at work and why he loathes urinals.
Refresh my memory. What 'bit' are you talking about?
jake Waskett
> I nominate Jake for an award for patience and tolerance. I know I don't
> have that kind of patience.
Thanks, Ian. No comment. :-)
Tom
beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Ian
Paul Raposo
> Unplanned pregnancies occur because people are having sex without
> protection (often condoms). (Sexual) HIV transmission occurs because
> people are having sex without protection. High teen pregnancy rates in a
> population suggest that risky sexual behaviour is commonplace.
But it says nothing about HIV/AIDS transmission. Provide a study linking the two, Jake.
> That's not what I said, Paul.
No, it's what I wrote, based on the paragraph you cited from a study.
> Let me refresh your memory, Paul. Here's what we were talking about: ""A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at
> either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than
> reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21%
> and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively)." - no
> contraceptive use." http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
And again, we were talking about the US having a higher number of cut men, but still having a higher number of HIV infections, which proves
your hope that circ's as a barrier against HIV is patently ridiculous, as are all those studies claiming this.
If circs are a barrier against HIV and the US has a higher number of cases of unprotected sex, then clearly, circs are not a protective
agent. Jesus, Jake, your own posts refutes what you seem to believe.
> Refresh my memory. What 'bit' are you talking about?
Go back and read your posts, you'll figure it out, Jake.
Paul Raposo
> Jake, this poor fellow will never understand that. He quite
> literally does not understand the differences between amounts, rates,
> and percentages -- he has even assured us that where he comes from,
> "rate" is used to mean "amount"!
Rates=numbers. If you have to lie in your attempt to paint me unintelligent, then
clearly I'm the only intelligent one here.
> I believe him to be ineducable about
> these concepts, let alone the basic elements of research methodology.
> However, you have far more patience than I, and perhaps you can
> explain the basics to him. I fear, though, that any such attempt
> will merely attract the usual torrent of abuse, leaving him as ignorant
> as before.
You must have a serious hard-on for me if you keep going on and on and on about me,
windinghighway. Just so you know, you can look like Matt Battaglia, I'm still not
the least bit interested in fucking you.
Paul Raposo
> I nominate Jake for an award for patience and tolerance. I know I don't
> have that kind of patience.
Or tolerance.
Paul Raposo
> Ian, you also don't have any tolerance. Your posts here prove that,
> beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Ya beat me to it, Tom 8^)
Ian
Winding..., you don't even need invisible paint.
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> Unplanned pregnancies occur because people are having sex without
>> protection (often condoms). (Sexual) HIV transmission occurs because
>> people are having sex without protection. High teen pregnancy rates in a
>> population suggest that risky sexual behaviour is commonplace.
>
> But it says nothing about HIV/AIDS transmission. Provide a study linking the two, Jake.
>
>> That's not what I said, Paul.
>
> No, it's what I wrote, based on the paragraph you cited from a study.
Yes. Your opinion.
>
>> Let me refresh your memory, Paul. Here's what we were talking about: ""A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at
>> either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than
>> reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21%
>> and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively)." - no
>> contraceptive use." http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
>
> And again, we were talking about the US having a higher number of cut men, but still having a higher number of HIV infections, which proves
> your hope that circ's as a barrier against HIV is patently ridiculous, as are all those studies claiming this.
>
> If circs are a barrier against HIV and the US has a higher number of cases of unprotected sex, then clearly, circs are not a protective
> agent. Jesus, Jake, your own posts refutes what you seem to believe.
Illogical, Paul. Since there are several risk factors for HIV, you cannot
meaningfully deduce the effect (or non-effect) of circumcision when other
risk factors differ. That's comparing apples with oranges.
>
>> Refresh my memory. What 'bit' are you talking about?
>
> Go back and read your posts, you'll figure it out, Jake.
Sigh, that old chestnut.
Paul Raposo
> As requested:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15581523&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
What exactly does this study say, Jake? You don't use a condom, you can get an STD, or preggers. BFD. It still doesn't explain why a country
with a high number of cut males still has a high number of HIV cases. And it still doesn't explain your correlation between the two unrelated
occurrences.
> Illogical, Paul. Since there are several risk factors for HIV, you cannot
> meaningfully deduce the effect (or non-effect) of circumcision when other
> risk factors differ. That's comparing apples with oranges.
So why do you keep presenting a patently ridiculous study that claims circs as meaningful protection against HIV, when clearly the opposite is
true, especially in the States? Are you trying to say unplanned pregnancies cause AIDS?
Briar Rabbit
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:29:00 -0500, Paul Raposo wrote:
>
>
>>jake Waskett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual reproduction have something in
>>>common. Do you need me to tell you?
>>
>>Yes Jake, please tell me what teen pregnancy numbers and HIV/AIDS transmission have in common. And more importantly, how
>>unplanned pregnancies have anything to do with this thread.
>
>
> Unplanned pregnancies occur because people are having sex without
> protection (often condoms). (Sexual) HIV transmission occurs because
> people are having sex without protection. High teen pregnancy rates in a
> population suggest that risky sexual behaviour is commonplace.
>
That's pretty straightforward Jake. But the skin freak has a deliberate
mental block.
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> As requested:
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15581523&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> What exactly does this study say, Jake? You don't use a condom, you can get an STD, or preggers.
Glad you understand this point, Paul. Now, if more people are getting
pregnant, this implies that sex without condoms is more frequent.
> BFD. It still doesn't explain why a country
> with a high number of cut males still has a high number of HIV cases. And it still doesn't explain your correlation between the two unrelated
> occurrences.
It does, taking the statistics into account.
>
>> Illogical, Paul. Since there are several risk factors for HIV, you cannot
>> meaningfully deduce the effect (or non-effect) of circumcision when other
>> risk factors differ. That's comparing apples with oranges.
>
> So why do you keep presenting a patently ridiculous study that claims circs as meaningful protection against HIV, when clearly the opposite is
> true, especially in the States? Are you trying to say unplanned pregnancies cause AIDS?
No, I'm saying that the same activity - unprotected sex - can cause both
unplanned pregnancies and the transmission of HIV. If you get
a lot of unplanned pregnancies in a community, you would also
expect to see a lot of STD transmission. Consequently, we can use teen
pregnancy statistics as an indicator of, or marker for, sexual activities
that are risky for HIV transmission.
Paul Raposo
> Glad you understand this point, Paul. Now, if more people are getting
> pregnant, this implies that sex without condoms is more frequent.
And if 70% of the male population in the US is cut, then why does the US have such a high number of HIV cases? IF circs have proven to be a barrier
against HIV, then what went wrong in the US?
> It does, taking the statistics into account.
No it doesn't. Some people are getting pregnant, some are getting HIV. Now, I think it's safe to say a circ won't stop an unplanned pregnancy. So
why are circs being offered as a way to stop HIV?
> No, I'm saying that the same activity - unprotected sex - can cause both
> unplanned pregnancies and the transmission of HIV.
So even if you're cut, you can cause a pregnancy, or become HIV+? So in other words, Jake, it's not the circ that is preventing HIV in those
studies. It's the fact that the men couldn't have sex for 4-6 weeks and had to wear a condom during their recovery and even afterwards. So circs
haven't stopped shit. They just convinced men--convinced religious zealots--to use condoms.
> If you get
> a lot of unplanned pregnancies in a community, you would also
> expect to see a lot of STD transmission.
And if most of the men in the US are cut, why do they have high numbers of HIV cases?
> Consequently, we can use teen
> pregnancy statistics as an indicator of, or marker for, sexual activities
> that are risky for HIV transmission.
What sexual activities? Jesus, Jake, you've really lost it. You blathered on about circs being a way to stop HIV and now you're back tracking and
saying that in a country with 70% of males circ'd, a country with a very high number of HIV cases, that it doesn't work.
Paul Raposo
So in other words, circ's don't protect against anything--especially HIV?AIDS.
jake Waskett
> jake Waskett wrote:
>
>> Glad you understand this point, Paul. Now, if more people are getting
>> pregnant, this implies that sex without condoms is more frequent.
>
> And if 70% of the male population in the US is cut, then why does the US have such a high number of HIV cases? IF circs have proven to be a barrier
> against HIV, then what went wrong in the US?
As I've shown you, what 'went wrong' was that Americans - probably due to
poor sex education - are less likely to use condoms.
>
>> It does, taking the statistics into account.
>
> No it doesn't. Some people are getting pregnant, some are getting HIV. Now, I think it's safe to say a circ won't stop an unplanned pregnancy. So
> why are circs being offered as a way to stop HIV?
Because they reduce the risk of transmission.
>
>> No, I'm saying that the same activity - unprotected sex - can cause both
>> unplanned pregnancies and the transmission of HIV.
>
> So even if you're cut, you can cause a pregnancy, or become HIV+? So in other words, Jake, it's not the circ that is preventing HIV in those
> studies. It's the fact that the men couldn't have sex for 4-6 weeks and had to wear a condom during their recovery and even afterwards. So circs
> haven't stopped shit. They just convinced men--convinced religious zealots--to use condoms.
Incorrect. Condom use was controlled for, and the testing at (from memory)
months 12 and 21 showed a remarkably stable protective effect. This
demonstrates that the protective effect is *not* due to the 4-6 week
period following surgery.
>
>> If you get
>> a lot of unplanned pregnancies in a community, you would also
>> expect to see a lot of STD transmission.
>
> And if most of the men in the US are cut, why do they have high numbers of HIV cases?
I've already answered that question, Paul.
>
>> Consequently, we can use teen
>> pregnancy statistics as an indicator of, or marker for, sexual activities
>> that are risky for HIV transmission.
>
> What sexual activities? Jesus, Jake, you've really lost it. You blathered on about circs being a way to stop HIV and now you're back tracking and
> saying that in a country with 70% of males circ'd, a country with a very high number of HIV cases, that it doesn't work.
Paul, unprotected sex is risky, whether you're circumcised or not.
Nobody disputes that. In the US, you've got about 70% circumcised, which
reduces the risk, but unfortunately there's less frequent condom use,
which increases the risk. So you can't tell whether circ 'works' or not,
because of the other differences.
Paul Raposo
> As I've shown you, what 'went wrong' was that Americans - probably due to
> poor sex education - are less likely to use condoms.
Yes, Jake, I see that, Jake and I understand your point, Jake. But why do Americans--with a higher number of cut males--still have a higher number of HIV
cases, if circs are suppose to be a barrier against HIV? Why does the UK, with a higher number of intact males, have a lower number of HIV cases in their
population. Clearly, from your response, it's not the circs, it's the condoms.
> Because they reduce the risk of transmission.
Everywhere except America?
> Incorrect. Condom use was controlled for, and the testing at (from memory)
> months 12 and 21 showed a remarkably stable protective effect. This
> demonstrates that the protective effect is *not* due to the 4-6 week
> period following surgery.
So why did it work in this study and not in America? Did the participants continue using condoms, or not?
> I've already answered that question, Paul.
Nope, you've danced around it, but you haven't answered it.
> Paul, unprotected sex is risky, whether you're circumcised or not.
Yes.
> Nobody disputes that. In the US, you've got about 70% circumcised, which
> reduces the risk, but unfortunately there's less frequent condom use,
> which increases the risk.
Up is down, down is up. Welcome to the Bizarro world. You wrote that circs reduce the risk. Then you wrote that not using condoms increases risk.
Which one is it? A circ with a condom? Then why are people in the UK healthier?
> So you can't tell whether circ 'works' or not,
> because of the other differences.
You claim circs reduce the risk of transmission. Then you write that Americans are less inclined to use condoms, thus the higher number of HIV in the
US. The you say that condom use was controlled in the study and there was a remarkably stable protective rate. Yet American males are cut and the US has
high numbers of HIV cases, because apparently, they're less inclined to use condoms. So what is it, condoms, or circs?