Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk by 60%!

Crud - not only do you have no friends, male or female (as you said in your past posts), but you are a racist to boot. Get a life.

 

Maybe you should look up what a "racist" means - Just because I question why foreign government doesn't take care of it's own population, doesn't necessarily mean I'm a racist. You need to keep your typical Americanized brain out of conversations.

 

I don't know about this stuff. Is it supposed to be obvious "why" circumcision prevents aids, because the article about it makes absolutely no mention of it. Frankly my prejudice runs in this direction. I think that some people who think they are morally superior hyped up some facts to make it look like there is evidence that men who are not circumcised are more likely to get aids. By contending that circucision prevents aids they are asserting what they think is their own moral superiority. Men who do not get circumcised are not inferior. Until someone can tell me just "why" circumcision prevents aids I'm a little skeptacal of the statistics. One can prove anything with statistics. Obviously Robert Bailey is circumcised. Can you imagine him asserting the things he does in this study if he wasn't.

 

Why even have money? Let's eliminate money, let's eliminate the governments, let's eliminate capitalism, and then we wouldn't have this problem.

 

I take it the problem you are talking about is AIDS.

 

Well yeah. We already know how to make the drugs that keep people alive, scientists are paid to "look busy and do nothing" pretty much, because the massive pharmaceutical companies don't want to drop their cash cow.

 

What is it about circumcision that confers this protection?
We believe this happens in three ways. On the inner surface of foreskin, the mucosa, there is a very large number of immune cells that are targets of the HIV virus. During sex, it is unprotected. The external section of the foreskin and the shaft of the penis (exposed on an uncircumcised man during sex) is more protected because it is covered by a protein called keratin which provides a very effective barrier to HIV. Secondly, during intercourse, the foreskin can get traumatized and it can get breaches in it, allowing the virus to enter. A third factor is that the men who are circumcised are less likely to have genital ulcers, and genital ulcers increase the risk of HIV acquisition.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16227308/site/newsweek.

 

Are you telling me that aids can be transmitted thru the skin of the penis. Doesn't it have to go into the aperture or whatever the technical term is for the opening in the head of the penis. And if it is true that aids can be transmitted thru the skin of the penis why is it not transmitted let's say thru the skin on the face or the arm etc.

 

Wouldn't it be far easier to simply educate the populaces of the world and hand out free condemns? I mean...a condemn would stop more along the lines of 99% of all exposure to the virus, right? This logic seems faulty at best...

 

^ Why? Then we wouldn't be able to wipe our asses with Benjamen's.

 

Safety Pin - it is the underside of the foreskin that has the sensitive cells that allow entry of the HIV virus. The meatus or opening in the head rarely is an entry point for the virus.

 

i agree brotha we need to help out aids patients before any other countries

 

although the subject I will point out is quite neglectable in the face of H.I.V. danger and the african people in poverty, it does deserve some notice;

circumcision, by means of friction in years, is proven to decrease penis' sensitivity in time and cause less pleasure in sexual activity afterwards, permanently.

therefore, though it can be a temporary side solution for now, it shouldn't be looked upon as a miraculous final solution or something. well in fact it has to be wiped out sometime in the future.

do NOT circumcise your children.

as for the subject of poverty and aids and all other threats to humanity, we need something different, you know; a different free world where corporations do not decide the fates of millions.

 

As for the effects of cirumscision and sexual pleasure, I say look at the studies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

and no one give shit about it being a wikipedia link because it's just giving tables of results from studies done on it.

 

The World Health Organization has now advocated circumcision as a means to prevent AIDS/HIV, especially in Africa and other countries with high HIV rates. That is the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. You can't ignore this any longer, NOCIRCers.

 

glad to hear.

 

thaaaaank you

 

I don't trust an organization with a name like The World Health Organization. Like who runs it...the world?

 

I hate aids. It is scary. I know the doctor gave me a great circumcision when I was a little guy. A perfect helmet-head

 

Eshu and Madcap - glans sensitivity may or may not be reduced by circumcision. I don't feel any reduced sensitivity on my cut glans, but it was done when i was a baby so I cannot compare. Only those who have had sex cut and uncut can really give an informed opinion.

And if an uncut glans is more sensitive, this might also lead to premature ejaculation for some men, if the glans is overly sensitive.

And if the foreskin cannot retract, the sensitivity of the glans is not the problem - clearly sex with an unretracted foreskin is not as pleasurable as sex with either a cut or regular uncut one.