I guess the old hygiene argument about circumcision was correct after all. Men can be so sensitive about their privates (myself included). I am surprised that more men aren’t adopting something that can increase their safety. This isn’t the first time officials pushed the case for across-the-board circumcision for men living in high-risk areas. I wonder what laws would have been mandated by now if it had turned out expanding female circumcision curtailed AIDs?
In a report issued on 28 March, the World Health Organization and UNAIDS issued a series of recommendations to increase rates of circumcision in countries where the HIV problem is most serious.
“We reviewed all the evidence, and the evidence is compelling,” says Kim Dickson, coordinator of the joint WHO/UNAIDS working group that produced the report.
Studies in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya have recently shown that circumcised men are on average 60 per cent less likely than uncircumcised men to pick up the virus (New Scientist, 25 November 2006, p 8).
Would the religious right consider circumcision to reduce potential spread of venereal disease a behavior that promotes promiscuity?
If a person doesn’t want to catch HIV/AIDS, they should not screw around indiscriminately. The more random, mindless sex, the better the chances of disease. That simple.
As for circumcision, nobody removes ANY of my body parts – period! And, that most especially includes my genitalia.
Don’t want the clap? Stick with monogamy or (brrr!) chastity.
Easier said than done, I admit, but that’s the only 100% effective method, folks; sorry.
Considering that most nations, states and medical organizations assert that circumcision is a negative, rather than a positive, It is interesting to see that a study of a backward culture is being used to promote this primative practice in advanced cultures.
One could make a stronger case that the removal of breasts from female babes would be of greater benefit, as breast cancer is the number one cause of female deaths.
Apparently Kenneth has never had a cavity!
How do you circumcise a whale?
Send down 4 skin divers!
Ah, yes, the teeth … they had to go. No choice, there. But, keep your knives off my Gizmo! Only one I’ve got, and I like it as is. Pure. Unsullied. Intact. In need of washing … 😉
Mr. Potter has a view point that is, ah, … interesting. About so sensible, IMO, as “female circumcision” or whacking away at my poor, sad, lonely Gizmo.
*sigh* What a solitary life he’s led of late, he who once was named Columbus, for exploring new … venues.
#31 – Kenneth Johnson
How simple, how true, how widely ignored and passed over.
I once heard it expressed in a way that has stuck with me: People who are mentally, emotionally and physically healthy do not have multiple sex partners nor do they have sex with others who do.
Like Named said at the top, it’s a disease for stupid people.
#32 – Tom Potter
“…It is interesting to see that a study of a backward culture is being used to promote this primative practice in advanced cultures.”
Ah – well, you see, militant multiculti political correctness denies that the behavior of the sub-Saharan African pop is any different from, say Sweden, or Japan. We must play-act as though different ethnic pops are equally at-risk instead of focusing on the problem at the source.
In that light, a significant segment of the gay community has finally, vocally denounced PC denial of the fact that it is primarily, in all non-African cultures, a) transmitted sexually, as opposed to via the needle-sharing and maternal-blood transmission vectors, and b) concentrated in the white male homosexual pop.
There is now a much-needed honesty among gays who are rejecting the previous willingness to let AIDS deniers and buck-passers impede progress in halting further spread of the disease. The operative phrase is “AIDS / HIV is a gay disease. Own it. End it,”
Yet the evil, delusional PCers, starting to lose on the domestic front, now suggest, as you astutely noted, that males from all pops should submit to this, for most, totally unnecessary disfigurement. The alternative, which they will go to any length of pathological denial and deception to avoid having to face, is to acknowledge racial differences in behavior. Rape, polygamy, incest, covert homosexual anal intercourse – all of these behaviors are significantly more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere. But try saying it in the media! In microseconds, the PC screeching will commence:
“No, NO! Racism!!! It isn’t possible!!! It can’t be!!! Everyone everywhere is absolutely identical!!!”
#35,
People who are mentally, emotionally and physically healthy do not have multiple sex partners nor do they have sex with others who do.
No, that sounds more like fat, ugly people that have a difficult time finding any partner. Normal people who enjoy sex and do not have a difficult time finding another partner will have several partners during their lifetimes. I worry about the mental stability of those who swear celibacy. Monogamy after marriage though is commendable.
The operative phrase is “AIDS / HIV is a gay disease. Own it. End it,”
Geeze you are a sick ignorant puppy. AIDs will infect and affect anyone who comes in contact with the virus.
Rape, polygamy, incest, covert homosexual anal intercourse – all of these behaviors are significantly more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere. But try saying it in the media! In microseconds, the PC screeching will commence:
“No, NO! Racism!!! It isn’t possible!!! It can’t be!!! Everyone everywhere is absolutely identical!!!”
There you go with your racist blather again. This article isn’t about race, it concerns the transmission of a disease. AIDs and HIV, and other STDs, are not culture or race selective, they will infect all cultures, all races, and all sexes (male, female, and other). Every person who contracts AIDs is one more person who can no longer donate blood or organs, and is a potential innocent transmitter. This won’t stop all STD transmission, the article makes that plain, but it might have a small impact. And that small impact may be in Sweden or Japan as well.
I can understand your feeling of inadequacy pressuring your opinion. Yes, even losing a few millimeters would make quite a few men shudder. That is still not a good reason
to put your head so far up your ass asto use this article as yet another opportunity to spew your hatred.phuk the slow down cowboy when this is the first post today.
Does anybody have scientific facts?
THE MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, Volume 1, Pages 1102-1103
I think it is a extreme measure for a desperate situation. I don´t see a reason for a person who has accesses to condoms and that takes the everyday shower to cut a part of his own body.
#2
Oh really? since when was cutting off parts of female genitals that don’t grow back any different from cutting off parts of male genitals that don’t grow back? (both from unconsenting minors) The only difference is how much is cut, and with female circumcision that varies much more than with male circumcision.
I still remember getting grief in grade school for not being cicumcised.What a great idea.Lets cut off the end of everyones penis then we would all be the same.What about the Hippocratic oath?
#36 – Mr. Fusedbrain
“I worry about the mental stability of those who swear celibacy. Monogamy after marriage though is commendable.”
Even though I omitted the word ‘simultaneous’ after the word ‘multiple’, few people would be so dense as to totally miss the central point without it being spelled out as precisely as you would have it. Who the fuck mentioned celibacy? Are you really that dim, or is it an act?
Here it is in a form that with any luck, you might be capable of grasping: Healthy people are not promiscuous and they don’t have sex with promiscuous people. Does that register? Without promiscuity, as Kenneth J pointed out, there would be no STDs. Capisce?
“Geeze you are a sick ignorant puppy. AIDs will infect and affect anyone who comes in contact with the virus.”
Thank you so much for your oversimplified and inaccurate thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately for you, the facts now re-emerging confirm what medical and social science has said all along, whilst being drowned out for some years by the screechers like yourself, foisting off off your PC litany of denial on the general public.
For someone who shows regularly, in these very comment threads, that he’s capable of sound reasoning and reaching accurate conclusions on most subjects, you’re all that much more amazing in how utterly mindless, knee-jerk and oblivious to fact you instantly become when the topic approaches matters on which your PC brainwashing has already programmed you with the neo-Marxist, multiculti party line. Your personality is replaced with a robot who parrots the same tired, predictable, laughable, cheesy lies that are supposed to demonstrate what a superior, “tolerant” “open-minded” individual you are.
Sad to break it to you, Fusie, but AIDS / HIV was and is, first and foremost, an STD. The primary transmission vectors are still compulsively promiscuous upper middle class homosexual men in North America and Europe, and blacks in sub-Saharan Africa. Prostitutes, especially in Third World countries, are a rapidly growing portion of the vector constellation.
What all of those groups, which make up the vast majority of HIV-positive persons, have in common is sexual promiscuity. An abnormally high number of sex partners.
The LA Gay & Lesbian center initiated an AIDS awareness campaign about six months ago: “AIDS is a gay disease. Own it. End it.”
PC deniers of reality, like yourself, have managed to sabotage the campaign. Denial, particularly when it comes to self-destructive, compulsive behaviors, is a very powerful thing.
This is really lame: “AIDs and HIV, and other STDs, are not culture or race selective, they will infect all cultures, all races, and all sexes (male, female, and other).”
That’s been the lie for a long time – but the truth remains that only abnormally promiscuous people are at any significant risk. “Not culture selective”. Where did you pick up that sly, deliberately obfuscatory evasion / diversion?
A large portion of the Western male homosexual culture practices compulsive, usually drug-fueled, sexual encounters. Multiple anonymous partners in the course of a single day. This is not healthy behavior. It is virtually nonexistent in both the general heterosexual and female homosexual pops. That, my boy, is culture-specific.
Here, Mr. Denial, this is from the CDC:
Feel like an idiot yet? You should.
And as I said, in sub-Saharan Africa, the focus of the UNAIDS circumcision campaign, rape, polygamy, and incest are far higher than in the remainder of the world. Covert gay sex and prostitution are also highly prevalent.
Get some facts:
The 2006 UNAIDS report
A highly relevant post by Charles Bouley on HuffPo
And finally:
“I can understand your feeling of inadequacy pressuring your opinion. Yes, even losing a few millimeters would make quite a few men shudder.”
Bad news, boyo; Like Larry T there, I underwent that particular procedure at an age where I didn’t do much shuddering.
“…yet another opportunity to spew your hatred.”
WTF are you talking about? Hatred? Of who? Where?
You can’t point out one single instance of either racism or hatred – if you could, you would’ve done so. No, that’s just more desperate name-calling. And the saddest part is, you’re not even any good at it.
Wow there’s been a lot of drivel in between the few good comments.
#37, Extreme and desperate does describe the situation in Africa quite well. It was my understanding when I first read about this study a while ago that the idea was to use circumcision in Africa, where condoms are hard to come by (all puns are purely punintentional) largely due to much of the world that would rather teach abstinence than send condoms.
Fresh clean water is also in short supply in most of the world. We in the developed nations often forget that and pour it down our toilets and shower with it (and wash our cars and sidewalks with it).
Certainly, this is not the best way to stop the spread of AIDS, but we must use every weapon in our arsenal against this disease.
In Africa, often an extended family of 18 or so individuals is living with a single income from one member of the family. Guess which member of the family is MOST likely to contract AIDS. Go ahead, guess. You got it right, the one with the job!!
*skims the posts since yesterday and sees that Lauren’s is too long to read.*
#17. “you have a point about condoms not always used, but when they are, they are much better than no foreskin. So don’t think, “if I get nipped, I can have promiscuous unprotected sex”. This is about harm reduction.”
I’m not the one with misconceptions on this point. You kindly reinterated the same point I was making. Just wanted to let you know I wasnt claiming this would help anyone with being irresponsible regarding other STDs but that the effect is to lower the transmission of HIV. I said nothing about other STDs, and neither did the article. Its all about reducing harm where you can anyway you can.
To all the guys bitching about getting snipped, I got mine done and dont even remember it since I was a baby. The obvious logical idea would be that nations with this problem begin circumcision of infants from here forward and eventually the populace changes.
#40 Lauren the Ghoti,
I’d suggest some serious therapy for you. You seem to have more negative feelings about sex than the pope. The point is to eradicate a disease. You’re not going to convert humans into something other than humans. We are not evolved to be a monogamous species. A few of us are, myself included.
However, the species as a whole persues what’s known as a Mixed Reproductive Strategy. You will never eradicate STDs by trying to make humans be better than humans are. I don’t even agree with your definition of better. It’s just sex.
Check out bonobos if you want to learn a bit about true morals. They are a species as closely related to us as chimps. Lethal intra-species violence has NEVER been observed in bonobos. They relieve both intra and inter group tensions through sex. It must have been wonderful to be born a bonobo in pre-human times.
Men are pigs, and in the end will use every excuse to not wear a condom, period.
#42 – Arrius
“*skims the posts since yesterday and sees that Lauren’s is too long to read.*”
Yes, well, we certainly wouldn’t want to tear you away from watching your Short Attention Span Theater marathon… 🙂
#43 – Misanthropic Scott
Negative feelings about sex? WTF? Y’know, your successful future in the psychoanalytic field is, how should I put this? – far from assured. IOW, don’t bag the day job just yet.
You’ve apparently been taking that online course in ‘Logic-Free Reasoning®™ for Dummies’. A clue to help you find your way back to sanity: the act of expressing disapproval of an unquestionably unhealthy behavior – which is the sole cause of an ongoing epidemic of often-fatal diseases – does not in any wise reflect or express any attitude or ‘feeling’ regarding sex or sexuality, either pro or con. The very fact that you think there’s any connection between the two says more about your attitudes than you might suspect.
I’d like to point out a brabd-newavenue of research you may not have heard about.
In a nutshell, individuals of a species exhibiting behaviors that work against continued survival of the species – such as behavior which spreads fatal disease – will have a tendency toward early mortality, thereby eventually dying out and leaving the field to species members who do not exhibit said behavior.
You really oughta check it out – it’s called ‘natural selection’.
“Check out bonobos if you want to learn a bit about true morals.”
What a fascinating concept! A nonverbal, nonliterate – nonhuman species, which somehow possesses the mental capability of constructing a system of morals! A true anthropological breakthrough! Your discovery will vault you to the highest reaches of science!
Seriously, did you even take a moment to consider how totally ludicrous your statement is? Hint: ‘Morals’ are a human intellectual invention, an artifact of human psychology. They do not exist outside of the human mind.
Crikey!
It’s TMI I know but I am a healthy, clean un-circumcised straight man and here’s my 2 cents….
If you got the snip as a baby then you’re out of this debate.
Functionally, the foreskin is an integral part of the penis. It protects the glans, (knob, beavis) and also has a mucus membrane to provide natural lubrication. In addition, the extra skin enables the skin on the shaft of the penis to move freely during sexual activity. The glans is as close as a guy gets to having a clit and circumcised men have a drastic reduction of sensitivity.
As far as parallels between male and female circumcision, there are degrees of female circumcision that all have the same purpose of restricting or eliminating female pleasure. Male circumcision has been recommended in the past as a way to discourage mastrubation. In both male and female circumcision ‘hygiene’ or ‘tradition’ are used to justify the practice.
For both males there is no legitimate medical or health reason for this to be done electively. For females there is no justification period. For men there are circumstances where it may be necessary to circumcise for health reasons (a friend of my father’s had to get snipped in his 40’s many years ago and he was not a happy guy for some time…)
Hygiene wise – if you think a penis is harder to clean properly than a vagina then you haven’t being paying attention during sex-ed class. Oh, I forgot, we don’t do sex-ed in America…
#40, Lauren,
Due to the length of your diatribe, I can not / will not respond to everything. Drunks have a difficult time understanding more then one thing at a time.
This is really lame: “AIDs and HIV, and other STDs, are not culture or race selective, they will infect all cultures, all races, and all sexes (male, female, and other).”
That’s been the lie for a long time – but the truth remains that only abnormally promiscuous people are at any significant risk.
Larry, you’re so full of your self-loathing I don’t think you even realize what you wrote. HIV is transmittable through blood contact. The blood only needs to have the virus to spread the disease. I have a cousin who died from AIDs; she caught hers through a blood transfusion. BTW, she was 10 when she contracted the disease so phuk yourself if you want to call her gay.
It only takes contact with ONE infected person’s blood or body fluids to contract the disease. While any probability increases anytime an event is repeated, that does not remove the risk.
“Not culture selective”. Where did you pick up that sly, deliberately obfuscatory evasion / diversion?
Where did I get that? From your asshole comment saying otherwise.
…We must play-act as though different ethnic pops are equally at-risk instead of focusing on the problem at the source.
As I pointed out, HIV and AIDs will infect anyone. The virus doesn’t care how stupid or ignorant you are so do be careful. Wash your hand before and after.
You can’t point out one single instance of either racism or hatred – if you could, you would’ve done so. No, that’s just more desperate name-calling. And the saddest part is, you’re not even any good at it.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=10256#comments, post #22 for starters.
Please do everyone a favor and sober up before responding.
#45 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Strange, I didn’t take you for such a creationist from your prior posts on this blog. Your post makes me think you might hold a belief that we are not part of hte animal kingdom.
Humans are different in magnitude rather than in kind from the rest of the species on this planet. Many species other than ours have morals. You should read up on this. I’d probably start with a book called The Animal Mind.
Would be be a logical statement that applying the same rationale one could also state:
“Don’t eat pork”.
Because it could be undercooked and you are at greater risk of trichinosis.
Thus a practice that enhanced food safety becomes a part of a religion. Science advances and pork preparation becomes safer yet the religious edict remains.
Did the study take into account a correlation between culture and circumcision? i.e. Are people in the culture (or family) that are circumcised also taught not to have sex or to have “protected sex”?
I have heard, and I don’t know if this is true, that circumcision was started up in the United States for non-Jewish men during the Victorian era to help reduce the incidence of masturbation. Is this true?
I just wonder about the idea of cutting a person’s body when they are not sick. Jonas Salk gave himself and his family the vaccine for Polio. Are the folks supporting this idea going to be getting circumcised?
#47 – Mr. Confusion
“Due to the length of your diatribe, I can not / will not respond to everything. Drunks have a difficult time understanding more then one thing at a time.”
No need to apologize. Why don’t you just try drinking less?
“Larry, you’re so full of your self-loathing I don’t think you even realize what you wrote.”
Ah, a note for you – my name’s not Larry. Self-loathing? Please elucidate this inane, yet intriguing, conjecture. Seems like you’re projecting again.
“HIV is transmittable through blood contact.”
Rilly? Wait a sec, lemme write that down…
“The blood only needs to have the virus to spread the disease. I have a cousin who died from AIDs; she caught hers through a blood transfusion. BTW, she was 10 when she contracted the disease so phuk yourself if you want to call her gay.”
You effing hypocritical closet homophobe! So if I called her gay, you would insult me – therefore you regard proclaiming someone gay is insulting – therefore you regard being gay as a negative. QED.
You slipped, son. Your true bigot colors are showing. Not nice.
Let me clue you in, grasshopper. You, as all PC ideologues do, whether out of ignorance or desire to deceive, confound possibility with probability. Just because two different things are possible has no bearing on how relatively probable they are.
If you buy a lottery ticket, it is possible that you will win. But since there are say, 20 million tickets outstanding, the odds are 20 million-to-1 that you will not win. Therefore it is completely possible, but it is not at all probable. Uncanny, the mental block you PCers have against that simple principle.
Now get this straight: most incidents of contact with infected blood do not result in transmission of the virus. Do you read me? MOST. That means MORE THAN 50% – a LOT more, as it happens.
That, in turn, means, as has been proven, that the only people who are at any significant risk of infection are those who have prolonged and / or repeated contact with infected blood. Such as people who have frequent, unprotected sex with infected partners.
Am I going too fast for you?
Because you know someone who won the lottery does not change the 20-million-to-1 odds against you winning it, or me or the next guy. If your cousin died from an infected blood transfusion, it still doesn’t change the fact that very few people do and therefore, very few people are at risk, relative to those groups identified as most at-risk by those racist, hate-filled bunches of drunks, the Centers for Disease Control and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV / AIDS, whose data you certainly did not even bother to look at, since you already know it all.
“It only takes contact with ONE infected person’s blood or body fluids to contract the disease.”
Wrong. The likelihood of transmission in one transient event is not only NOT a certainty, it’s actually below 50%. That means one event usually does not result in transmission. Your assertion is false.
“While any probability increases anytime an event is repeated, that does not remove the risk.”
With repeated exposure events, the probability of transmission increases – that’s tautological. So? WTF is your point?
Pointing out an exception to a rule doesn’t invalidate that rule. Your cousin – and many others – have become HIV-positive from exposure not related to sexual activity. That still doesn’t change the fact that they are among the comparatively few exceptions – not the rule. Most HIV transmission is a consequence of promiscuous sexual behavior. Period.
And the two cited subpops engage in that behavior more frequently than members of any others. That is not a value judgement, you flaming clot. It is not a criticism of any group. It is an observation of cold, objective scientific fact. PCers always dishonestly inject value judgements into the discussion.
Scientist: ‘As are not the same as Bs.’
PC moron: ‘Oh, so you’re saying As are inferior to Bs!’
Always, the same tired, dishonest bullshit. It gets really old.
“As I pointed out, HIV and AIDs will infect anyone. The virus doesn’t care how stupid or ignorant you are…”
No it won’t. It can only infect an individual who is exposed to the virus. No one else can contract it. No one can win the lottery who doesn’t buy at least one ticket – but the person who buys 1000 tickets is 1000 times as likely to win as someone who only buys one.
The person who exposes himself to the blood and fluids of HIV carriers hundreds of times, is hundreds of times more likely to contract the disease. Members of those groups expose themselves to the virus dozens, and yes, often hundreds of times more than nonmembers. They do so because they are ignorant, in the case of sub-Saharan Africans, or because they have a mental disorder, in the case of compulsively promiscuous Western gays – who are universally aware of the virus, the disease, how it’s transmitted and the actions which reduce the probability of transmission, yet continue to engage in utterly irrational high-risk behavior.
Develop some character. Grow a backbone and face reality.
Seems like you can’t – or don’t want to – grasp that stupid people are far more likely to do stupid things and that irrational people are far more likely to do irrational things. Intelligent people and rational people do far fewer stupid and irrational things and hence are at much less risk of suffering anything negative – including contracting AIDS. Wonder why it’s so important to you to live in denial about such things?
Y’know, none o’ this is rocket science, son.
Lauren- I’ll bet your great at parties. Killin them that is. Christ, do you EVER SHUT UP?
#51 Lauren says… “Most HIV transmission is a consequence of promiscuous sexual behavior. Period. And the two cited subpops engage in that behavior more frequently than members of any others. That is not a value judgement, you flaming clot. It is not a criticism of any group. It is an observation of cold, objective scientific fact. PCers always dishonestly inject value judgements into the discussion.”
That may not be a value judgment per se, but you already injected the tightly corresponding value judgment with your previous comment #35…
“I once heard it expressed in a way that has stuck with me: People who are mentally, emotionally and physically healthy do not have multiple sex partners nor do they have sex with others who do.”
Perhaps the wording isn’t of your own origination, but you certainly seem to agree with it, or it likely wouldn’t have stuck with you. How can you view a corresponding obverse assertion that someone lacks the mental and emotional health to refrain from promiscuity as not being a value judgment?
As you already said, some cultures have a remarkably higher incidence of promiscuous sexual behavior. While I’m not ready to sign on to your value judgment concerning their mental and emotional health, I certainly agree that monogamy has significant advantages, not the least of which is the certain reduction in HIV transmission.
Cutting off their entire willy instead of just the foreskin would certainly address that pesky promiscuity issue, though it may not improve their mental and emotional health 😉
I believe there was some question called to the methods of this research. They were following men who had been circumcised as an adult. This obviously means they were having less sex for a substantial amount of time after the circumcision. Not just because of the pain from the cut but from the pain and possible loss of sexual drive from the newly-exposed and very sensitive glans/head.
The fact that they were having less sex for however long after the circumcision would lend to the fact that they had a lower chance of being infected. If the research monitored the men in the study during the time that this pain and/or sensitivity was present and the research period consisted entirely or sufficiently of this painful/sensitive period, the results could be very skewed.
Since this research was not done with people who had been circumcised from birth (from what I’m to understand and please correct me if I’m wrong), I do not believe it could be 100% effective in establishing their conclusion.
#53 – Gary Marks
“How can you view a corresponding obverse assertion that someone lacks the mental and emotional health to refrain from promiscuity as not being a value judgment?”
A couple defs:
To say something is unhealthy is unrelated to any moral or ethical qualities the subject may have – or lack.
Running into a burning building to save a child’s life is obviously in no way morally negative or bad – but you must admit, it’s not a healthy thing to do. 🙂
Lauren, I fully agree regarding physical health, especially since physical health is very much an objective term. However, a determination of mental and emotional health is quite subjective, though not entirely so, and it seems to tread well into the territory of value judgments.
If you and I ever have a heated exchange and I proclaim you lacking in mental health, you may correctly accuse me of making a value judgment and retort accordingly 😉