SanFran Chronicle: Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope

B

Baraka

0
Y'all still against circumcision? Please reserve your judgement until you've read this entire article.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL

Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope
Procedure linked to much lower rate of new HIV infections

Sabin Russell, Chronicle Medical Writer

Wednesday, July 6, 2005

French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected.

All of the men in the study had been followed for a year, and half the men had been followed for the full 21 months called for in the original study design, according to the Wall Street Journal, which obtained a draft copy of the study.

Begun in August 2002, the experiment is one of three closely watched clinical trials in Africa to determine whether there is scientific merit to nearly three dozen less rigorously controlled studies showing that circumcised men were much less likely to become HIV-positive.

The hope is that, lacking a vaccine, the nearly 5 million new HIV infections occurring each year could be slowed by circumcision, the surgical removal of the foreskin -- a simple, low-cost and permanent medical intervention that is a common but controversial cultural practice in much of the world. In Africa, about 70 percent of men are circumcised at birth or during rite-of-passage ceremonies in early puberty.

Medical anthropologists began noticing as early as 1989 that the highest rates of HIV infection in Africa were occurring in regions of the continent where the predominant tribal or religious cultures did not practice circumcision. Adult HIV infection rates above 30 percent are found in Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland and eastern South Africa, where circumcision is not practiced; yet HIV infection rates remain below 5 percent in West Africa and other parts of the continent where circumcision is commonplace.

Laboratory studies have found that the foreskin is rich in white blood cells, which are favored targets of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. So the theory is that men who are uncircumcised are much more likely to contract the virus during sex with an infected woman, and that the epidemic spreads when these newly infected men have sex with other women within their network of sexual partners.

The lead investigators of the study, Dr. Bertran Auvert of the University of Paris and Adrian Puren of South Africa's National Institute for Communicable Diseases, are not talking. The results were expected to be discussed at an AIDS conference in Rio de Janeiro in three weeks. But word about the findings has been circulating among researchers searching for ways to slow the epidemic.

"I would be thrilled if it works, but we will also need the results of other trials,'' said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Ronald Gray, who is conducting, in Uganda, one of two other controlled clinical trials of male circumcision.

Gray's trial, which has completed enrollment of 5,000 men in the Rakai district of Uganda, is not scheduled to end until 2007.

A third trial, under way in Kisumu, Kenya, is still enrolling its quota of 2,700 volunteers and is also expected to be completed in 2007, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is sponsoring it.

All three trials were designed to compare the HIV infection rates of two groups of HIV-negative men, one-half of whom would agree to be circumcised, the other to be offered only counseling on AIDS prevention. The studies were designed to show whether or not circumcision provided a statistically significant protective effect of at least 50 percent.

The South African study -- if the results are confirmed -- suggests that the level of protection afforded is even higher.

Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.

E-mail Sabin Russell at [email protected].

Page A - 2
 
I heard about this. I doubt it will change the anti-circumcision crowd, because they swear by the increased sexual benefit of the intact cock.

Oh well. I'm here. I'm cut. So it is.
 
There have also been various studies linking circumcised men and lower overall STD rates, but the anti-circ movement pretty much feels all these studies are biased in one way or another.

I see the anatomical logic of the foreskin potentially trapping fluids, bacteria, viruses, ect. close to the meatus and thus facilitating transmission, but some foreskin enthusiasts have suggested that foreskins somehow produce antibodies and other things.

I find the evidence to be fairly solid, tohugh not conclusive.
 
Condoms and education help prevent AIDS, too, without all those nasty side effects like cutting up genitals with a sharp blade.

I'm not going to go apeshit on this thread because, basically, the argument can go round and round with no one really conclusively proving their point. However, I wonder just how much the recovery period and the dampened sexual activity of the mutilated men had to do with instances of sexual intercourse and rate of transmission? I dug an ingrown hair out of my shaft and avoided sex for at least two weeks because of a minor infection and soreness. Those poor guys probably couldn't do much for at least a couple months.

There are so many factors involved that you can prove this no more than I could prove my own theories and ideas here.

Question is, why cut up a man's dick when you could distribute condoms, educate the masses and spend money attempting to develope a cure or at least treatment for the actual disease in question?

Any excuse to cut up an innocent cock, I guess.
 
Well, I agree there are certainly better options that circumcising everybody, but things like condom distribution and what not are sometime a tall order when you're dealing with millions of people existing in a mostly rural and impoverished culture.

The only really feasable solutions to the AIDs epidemic in sub-saharan Africa is economic and cultural stability. Better education, more widely available medication, and methods like circumcision are basically band-aids for the crisis. They serve their purpose, but an ultimate solution is more of a big picture deal, at least in my opinion.

If circumcision helps dam the flood, then I say explore the option with mroe research. The trade off of possibly less sexual sensation for in increased chance of not contracting HIV is something I'd be all for if I was in a position to make the choice.
 
Hmm, I'm not sure. It seems kind of counter-intuitive that we are exploring circumcision as a preventative for HIV when the culture in question has both a high portion of HIV infected citizens AND a high circ rate. Why would the HIV rate be so high if circumcision is the answer? Unless, of course, the 30% of men not circumcised are the ones with all the HIV, and I doubt that's the case. :D Anyway, like I said, any excuse... I'm trying to be less fanatical and more open-minded, but this one doesn't convince me. HIV transmission is from promiscuous and unprotected sexual habits, not foreskin. Poor, foreskin, you get blamed for so much... :D
 
Swank said:
There have also been various studies linking circumcised men and lower overall STD rates, but the anti-circ movement pretty much feels all these studies are biased in one way or another.

I see the anatomical logic of the foreskin potentially trapping fluids, bacteria, viruses, ect. close to the meatus and thus facilitating transmission, but some foreskin enthusiasts have suggested that foreskins somehow produce antibodies and other things.

I find the evidence to be fairly solid, tohugh not conclusive.
Click to expand...

That actually makes perfect sense. Women are often at greater risk for STDs because of the obvious point that a man ejaculates fluid into her, therefore the trapping of fluids and tissue under the enclosed skin makes perfect sense. Even in cases of no ejaculation, some tissue could be trapped inside her, such as a small amount of blood from something or even a piece of flaked skin or some such shit.

While this article seems totally believeable, I wouldn't call it a major victory for pro-circumcision advocates. Condoms would basically reduce the risk to very comparable to that of those circumcised. And anyone with common sense would advocate using condoms outside of any long-term monogamous relationships. So it wouldn't concern me.

I just kinda find the subject interesting. If I was uncut, I probably wouldn't go get it hacked off. Yet, being cut, I'm not inclined to FR either.
 
Also, for what it's worth, on the radio Michael Savage read the article and brought up the point that many cultures advocating circumcision stress religious values that tend to reduce promiscuity, thus STDs. He used the Muslim culture as an example and there is probably some truth to it. He stated he didn't believe it was anything physiological. I happen to think both are valid points.
 
One other thought: the U.S. has one of the highest rates for circumcision and concurrently one of the highest rates for HIV infection. Go figure.
 
Priapologist said:
One other thought: the U.S. has one of the highest rates for circumcision and concurrently one of the highest rates for HIV infection. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I don't think that makes any sense from a physiological aspect. One can clearly see the reason as discussed above why an intact foreskin would be a detriment, though I doubt it is a real significant factor. Consider your statement and ask yourself what the HIV rate is in Saudi Arabia. I doubt it is even remotely a concern.

I know some people don't like to hear it and I haven't always practiced such behavior but the greatest factor in determining the AIDS rate is sexual morality. If you have high amounts of promiscuity and low commitments to monogamy, you will have a higher AIDS rate. There may be a variety of moral beliefs on homosexuality, but the fact remains that homosexual intercourse has a much higher risk than heterosexual intercourse and if you have a widely accepted above ground gay community you will have a higher AIDS rate, due to a larger number of sex partners per individual. If you have a society with a significant drug problem and thus more people injecting drugs, you will have a higher AIDS rate. The last one really pisses me off when I think about it, but the fact remains that if you have a number of people that decide to forgoe condom usage you will have a higher AIDS rate.
 
kong1971 said:
So you're saying that, realistically, foreskin has very little to do with AIDS? Thanks. I agree.
Click to expand...

I guess I would state it that it probably does from a scientific standpoint, but not from a realistic standpoint. The idea I mentioned above about fluids being trapped seems perfectly valid. But condoms should basically almost negate that. Therefore it would for unprotected sex, but I think you're living on borrowed time if you're having unprotected sex with a large number of partners, cut or uncut. Sooner or later it will get you, unless you have a natural immunity to it, which I've always heard a small number of the population seemingly has. I suppose after further consideration, since my original post it seems as though the cultural values have a much greater impact.
 
I'm glad that came clear in a very positive and friendly manner. There's always a tendecy to rationalize circumcision, because we want to feel that there is at least some benefit to cutting up our penises. It's kind of hard to admit there is really no logical reason for it. We just do it for the looks. If you're truly happy with your circ, then don't worry about it. If you feel you are "missing something", or would just like to appear natural, then you can restore it.
 
I am fine with my circumcision, except I wonder if it ever robbed me of size. I don't get the signs of a tight circumcision, but something has to explain my lack of size. From what I can remember, my father seemed to be hung like a mule and he's uncut. I know some men do feel it was a size stealer for them.

Kong, BTW, as a staunch anti-circumcision advocate what do you think of those that say the procedure puts men at less risk for penile cancer? I'm not trying to hijack or change the direction of the thread, but I am honestly curious, as I know you had to have read the claims.
 
From what I have researched on this, it's more a case of hygiene than foreskin. Many countries that have very low circumcision rates also have very low rates of penile cancer, like Japan, for instance. Japanese men are generally uncircumcised and also very clean, so not much dick cancer there. Same as Sweden. Like I said, rationalizing... It's hard for me to believe that foreskin gives you cancer and makes you catch AIDS when the countries that cut the most have the most problems with those two things. It just doesn't make sense.

If you're not tight cut, I doubt if you were robbed of any size. However, I wonder if men in general know what a tight cut is. The signs of a tight cut are basically stretch marks, hair and scrotum tissue pulled up the shaft and lack of skin mobility [a loose cut man can usually pull the skin over the glans when erect pretty easily]. If you were cut tight enough that your body had to borrow skin from the nuts and pubes to cover an erection, you could very well gain some length by doing a little skin expansion. Girth, too, as the new, looser skin layer just makes it look plumper. I don't think it actually triggers growth, it just lets it all "fill out".
 
What kind of utter rubbish is this??

HHAHAHAHAH

Sounds more like circumcision promoting as health care gets subsidies for carrying out these procedures.

Did you know when a woman has an abortion she becomes 11% smarter??
 
Everyone in this thread who thinks that circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with the prevention of STD's, especially HIV, has to ask themselves this question: why didn't more than 5 people contract HIV during the adult entertainment outbreak last year?

One guy, Darren James, contracted the virus while in Brazil from a pornstar there who did a lot of work with transsexuals. James infected 3 women: Laura Roxx, Jessica Dee and Miss Arroyo. The only other pornstar who contracted HIV around that time was a transsexual named Jennifer, but this was an isolated case unrelated to these other 4.

So what, right?

Well, what's simply amazing is how only those 3 women were infected by James. Why? Because he fucked 10 other women when he was HIV positive and none of them contracted the virus. He also had direct contact with Mark Anthony (no, not the guy married to J-LO :)) during a double anal with Laura Roxx, who ended up HIV positive.

Even more amazing is how many other pornstars then went on to fuck the 3 infected women, the 10 uninfected women, along with uninfected Mark Anthony. By looking at the AIM Quarantine List that's still up, you'll see the huge number of performers who had sex with these people. A quick count reveals a staggering number in excess of 50.

Why didn't any of them contract the virus? Did they all just catch a big, lucky break? Are they all somehow immune to HIV?

The truth is, no one really knows- although there are some very good theories, especially from those in the industry.

Fact is, every single HIV-positive case in pornland over the past decade has been contracted during acts that not only consisted of anal sex, but anal ejaculations (creampies) as well. Not one case involved vaginal-only sex. Not one.

Rodney Moore, whom many of you have undoubtedly seen in action, had a lot to say about all this in a commentary that he wrote on AVN. He was amazed when, years ago, he ended up fucking Brooke Ashley the day before she ended up testing HIV positive- yet somehow didn't contract the virus himself.

Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? I don't see anything about circumcision in there, do you?

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Africa is #1 HIV-positive continent. By far. No one else comes close, whether you're talking in sheer numbers, or by a proportion of the population. Now, here's where the circumcision argument comes in: the vast majority of North American men are circumcised. Especially pornstars. But elsewhere in the world, the vast majority of men are uncut. Especially in Africa.

Unless anal sex w/creampie is being performed by a sizable portion of the population, another form of sex has got to account for all those infections. And that type of sex is the way God intended: dick 'n quim. And are the vast majority of those African guys cut, or uncut? Think about it.

Re-read the above revelations regarding the adult entertainment industry and maybe you'll see what I'm driving at.

Lack of education and condoms, combined with promiscuous sex- particular of the anal variety- obviously contribute to spread the virus like wildfire. Check out http://tinyurl.com/c8q95 to see what's going on over there, but be sure to have your barf bags ready as you confront the present realities of dealing with HIV in Africa.

Like the above items, circumcision- or lack thereof- is a contributing factor to the spread of HIV in Africa. There's absolutely no doubt about it in my mind. Maybe a few wise, old Jewish guys from thousands of years ago were right ater all...
 
Baraka, the male population of North and West Africa plus much of East Africa, eg Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Dahomey, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya. Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Northern Uganda, Upper Volta, and Zaire is almost UNIVERSALLY CIRCUMCISED!!! The circ rates of the rest of Africa is somewhere between 25 to 75% of the male population!!! The difference, population-wise, between the areas of high circ rates and low circ rates regarding HIV infection is a measly 20%. Africa has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world. The flaw of this argument's logic has already been exposed several times in this debate. In simplest terms possible: circumcision cannot help reduce their rate of HIV infection because they're almost all circumcised already.


James Darren, the performer who infected so many last year, appears to be circumcised. I think it is interesting to note that adult entertainment performer Rodney Moore is not circumcised, yet fucked AIDS infected Brooke Ashley the day before she tested positive. In fact, the last male performer to test positive for HIV that I can recall is Marc Wallice, who has a very tight circumcision, and managed to hide his condition and spread it to several other actors and actresses before discovery. Not exactly a convincing argument for circumcision, wouldn't you agree?


The truth is out there.
 
kong1971 said:
Baraka, the male population of North and West Africa plus much of East Africa, eg Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Dahomey, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya. Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Northern Uganda, Upper Volta, and Zaire is almost UNIVERSALLY CIRCUMCISED!!!
Click to expand...
Before now, I had always heard that the circumcision rates outside of North America were much lower. I guess I was wrong about Africa as a whole. Thanks for providing this info.

It bears mentioning, though, that the countries with the highest infection rates- Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland and eastern South Africa- aren't among your list and, as the SF Chronicle article says, don't practice circumcision. So, in African nations where circumcision is widespread, low infection rates. But in African nations where circumcision is not practiced, high infection rates. Hmmm...
kong1971 said:
The circ rates of the rest of Africa is somewhere between 25 to 75% of the male population!!! The difference, population-wise, between the areas of high circ rates and low circ rates regarding HIV infection is a measly 20%. Africa has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world.
Click to expand...
Well, then how do you explain the facts/figures cited in the SF Chronicle article? Technically, I don't doubt you're right about Africa as a whole, but how do you explain the link between lack of circumcision and high infection rates in those four regions?
kong1971 said:
The flaw of this argument's logic has already been exposed several times in this debate. In simplest terms possible: circumcision cannot help reduce their rate of HIV infection because they're almost all circumcised already.
Click to expand...
According to this webpage, you're right- but for different reasons than you might think. The above webpage is outdated by several years, but I buy its conclusions. Changes in sexual attitudes due to circumcision and idiot rituals like group circumcisions, contribute to make the HIV problem worse in parts of Africa. Parts- not the whole. Unfortunately, these conclusions don't even come close to fully accounting for the extremely high infection rates in the four regions I named above. There's just no way.
kong1971 said:
James Darren, the performer who infected so many last year, appears to be circumcised. I think it is interesting to note that adult entertainment performer Rodney Moore is not circumcised, yet fucked AIDS infected Brooke Ashley the day before she tested positive. In fact, the last male performer to test positive for HIV that I can recall is Marc Wallice, who has a very tight circumcision, and managed to hide his condition and spread it to several other actors and actresses before discovery. Not exactly a convincing argument for circumcision, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
My talk about the adult entertainment industry was meant to throw out some facts that most people have no idea about, with respect to HIV transmission. No one can explain why so few performers were infected last year. Whether it has anything to do with circumcision or not is completely unknown at this point. I put that in there to see if it would spur some interesting discussion.

So, I guess the only question left to ask is, do you believe that circumcision- not just in Africa, but in general across the world- helps to prevent the transmission of STD's? Or do you believe this to be a widely propagated myth that has stood the test of time- in this case, for thousands of years?
kong1971 said:
The truth is out there.
Click to expand...
It's out there alright, but it will take many more years and countless more medical studies to find it.
 
I believe that circumcision has very little to do with transmission of AIDS or STDs. I believe that having unprotected sex with multiple casual partners and shooting up drugs with dirty needles is alot more likely to give you AIDS than whether or not one has a retractible sheath of protective skin over the glans of the penis.

I wonder if, in this study, the scientists took local sexual practices into account? In some regions of Africa, homosexual intercourse -- including anal intercourse -- is considered normal behavior, quite acceptable and sometimes even encouraged by local standards. There are also factors to take into account such as health care availability, social customs, and access to clean water for hygeine. Not to mention the widespread practice of female circumcision. Did you know that women are also circumcised in Africa, Baraka? It is a bloody, painful and nasty ritual that leads to quite of bit of disease and death. In some regions, it is common practice for women to have their vaginas sewn shut to make themselves more desireable to men. In some instances, there is ripping and bleeding when the woman resumes sexual intercourse. Sometimes sex is so painful for these women that they will resort to anal intercourse instead of getting ripped open again. None of that was in the report. Of course not. If they didn't suBathmateit a report that wasn't at least "somewhat promising" there would be no more funding.

I don't buy it. Of course, I'm sure someone will. And that someone probably has alot of $$$$$ to spend.

Let's hear about the horrible problem that countries like Japan and Sweden have with Aids. They rarely circumcise. Oh, wait, they don't really have much of a problem with Aids. Hmmm...
 
Seperate to the main argument, just a few stickles with that.

It seems implied that female circumcision might somehow be related to facilitation of HIV. This seems unlikely to me, as infected semen is transmitted inside an orifice and female circumcision only alters the external portion of a woman. Gruesome as it is, I fail to see what it has to do with the argument at hand.

Also, it was my understanding after spending some time in Africa and knowing several people born on the continent that homosexuality was not tolerated well across the continent, let alone accepted or encouraged.

Not only does legislation prohibit homosexuality in many African countries but its very existence is also denied as prevailing within the culture. There is a continual attempt to deny that gays and lesbians make up a significant part of the population. “Gay culture” virtually does not exist from an African point of view. The subject of homosexuality is a huge taboo. Many Africans are in same-sex relationships but very few will be open about their sexuality to their families."

http://thewitness.org/agw/macauley121604.html

Anyway, that was just what I had always believed to be an accurate account, but if you know of large populations of individuals in Africa that embrace homosexuality or at least same-sex sodomy I would be interested to see the information.

My two cents on this is still that if anything shows promise for curbing the spread if infection, then more research is justifiable.

If it could leave to sacving large numbers of lives, especially those of children and other innocents, then I say some reduced sexual sensitivity isn't an ungodly price to pay, especially if men can be persuaded to volunteer. Plus, further pathology and demographic research can be done on populations without actually circumcising men specifically for research purposes. There are few viable solutions to the epidemic, and education and condom use are pretty unrealistic when you actually get into the practicality of things. Nothing will throw on the brakes 100% during our lifetimes or probably even the next 50 years short of the development of a vaccine, but in the meantime, circumcision, if it could be proven as an effective barrier to transmission, is actually more feasable than most other things.

When you're talking about epidemics at this kind of proportion, the door shouldn't be shut on any avenues of research that have shown some promise.
 
Last edited:
Please read this article, written about actual, real life African gay and lesbian practices, if you're interested. There has been and always will be a schism between what we humans practice and what we preach, especially in Christian and Muslim cultures.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/patron-africhomo.html

Here are a few links as well concerning female genital mutilation and HIV transmission.

http://209.183.227.156/ipp/guardian/2005/02/01/31357.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/africa1203/6.htm

PLEASE NOTE:

Some 15 percent of women and girls who have undergone FGM have suffered the most severe form, infibulation, whereby the clitoris and labia are removed and the vaginal opening is stitched shut, leaving only a small space. But over 80 percent of FGM cases in Somalia, Djibouti, and Sudan involve infibulation. Although few clinical studies have been conducted, it is clear that at least some forms of FGM increase the HIV transmission risk faced by women and girls, both in that unsterile instruments may be used in the cutting and because some FGM is associated with chronic genital injury and tearing, ulceration, and delayed healing of injuries, all of which may increase HIV risk.

In some parts of Africa, so-called “dry sex” is frequently practiced whereby girls and women attempt to dry out their vaginas in an effort to provide more pleasurable sex to men... Human Rights Watch found that in Zambia, dryness is achieved by using certain herbs and ingredients that reportedly reduce vaginal fluids and increase friction during intercourse. Given the likelihood that dry sex will cause tears and lacerations in the vaginal wall, especially among adolescent girls, the practice increases the risk of HIV transmission... one counselor told Human Rights Watch, “Men love dry sex. If you’re wet, they think it’s not normal. So we talk about it in outreach; we say ‘stop using those herbs.

Do you think it's possible that the widespread and often crude and damaging circumcisions inflicted on African men is causing their women to go to further and further extremes in an effort to sexually please them?

Penis EnlargementRHAPS THE PROBLEM IS GENITAL MUTILATION IN THE FIRST PLACE... CIRCUMCISION CAUSING MEN TO BE LESS SENSITIVE... FORCING THEIR WOMEN TO GO TO EXTREME LENGTHS TO PLEASE AND KEEP THEM... ALL THESE EXTREME AND HORRIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR SEX ORGANS CREATING SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS CROSS CONTAMINATION OF CUTTING INSTRUMENTS, INJURIES DURING SEX, ALTERED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR...

I know it is an unsavory and unpleasant reality. It hurts the brain and the heart to contemplate how much pain we inflict on ourselves as a race. The cure is not to inflict even more pain, however, but to accept the truth and try somehow to end the cycle of mutilation and misinformation.

Or you can believe that cutting off a peice of your penis will make everything ALLLLLLLLLLL BETTER...

Don't be a sucker. The truth is out there.
 
kong1971 said:
I believe that circumcision has very little to do with transmission of AIDS or STDs. I believe that having unprotected sex with multiple casual partners and shooting up drugs with dirty needles is alot more likely to give you AIDS than whether or not one has a retractible sheath of protective skin over the glans of the penis.

I wonder if, in this study, the scientists took local sexual practices into account? In some regions of Africa, homosexual intercourse -- including anal intercourse -- is considered normal behavior, quite acceptable and sometimes even encouraged by local standards. There are also factors to take into account such as health care availability, social customs, and access to clean water for hygeine. Not to mention the widespread practice of female circumcision. Did you know that women are also circumcised in Africa, Baraka? It is a bloody, painful and nasty ritual that leads to quite of bit of disease and death. In some regions, it is common practice for women to have their vaginas sewn shut to make themselves more desireable to men. In some instances, there is ripping and bleeding when the woman resumes sexual intercourse. Sometimes sex is so painful for these women that they will resort to anal intercourse instead of getting ripped open again. None of that was in the report. Of course not. If they didn't suBathmateit a report that wasn't at least "somewhat promising" there would be no more funding.

I don't buy it. Of course, I'm sure someone will. And that someone probably has alot of $$$$$ to spend.

Let's hear about the horrible problem that countries like Japan and Sweden have with Aids. They rarely circumcise. Oh, wait, they don't really have much of a problem with Aids. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Women are mainly circumsized in Somalia. Not the whole Africa.
 
Hmm, that's interesting about the female circumcisions causing tearing which would in fact facilitate the spread of HIV. I hadn't even considered that. I didn't have time to read the links, but do they address the fact that there is a very low female circumcision rate in South Africa (I'm not sure it's practiced at all there, but I don't really know) and yet one of the highest infection rates? My source of info on the female circumcision rates in SA is a friend who was born there, so perhaps you have some more info. I don't really see how it would facilitate transfer of the virus after the first time was over and things had healed up unless the woman continued to have open wounds on her genitals.

It is also worth noting that female circumcision and high infection rates are not correlated to my knowledge, as the practice is fairly regional yet the infection rates are high in almost all of sub-saharan Africa. It's basically leaping to a very grand conclusion from a small observation, though I do agree it could certainly increase risk of infection in some cases.

But, like I have said, male and female circumcision are quite different things, and I don't think anybody is arguing in favor of female circumcision in this thread.

So far as dry sex, I had read in National Geographic that this practice dates from antiquity but has only recently come to the attention of the mainstream. I don't believe there's really any correlation between the dry sex pheonomena and circumcision. Speaking as a circumcised male in the US, my penis isn't so desensitized as to not be able to feel pleasure without a bone-dry vagina, and I think millions of men would agree with me.

Everything I have read about teh dry sex thing links it to a generally chauvanistic and male-dominated culture, not some pervasive lack of sensitivity in men. If lubricated vaginal intercourse were so terribly unsatisfying for men I think we would have had some serious problems elsewhere in the world where circumcision is widley practiced. Again, this making a very grand leap in logic. In effect, it seems you are trying to link the horrible spread of the AIDs virus and a fairly old cultural practice to the practice of circumcision.

I find this theory to be about on par with the 'circumcision causes male aggression' and the famous 'countries that circumcise have more aggressive foreign policies and violent histories' arguements in terms of whackiness. Of course, I may not be understanding your arguments entirely either.

Either way, as I said before, if it holds any realisitic effectiveness in controlling the AIDs epidiemic in Africa and the abject human suffering and misery that it causes, I say it warrants more study. Weighing human life against 'sexual sensitivity' isn't even a question in my mind.
 
Ah, well in light of that repsonse I did take a few moments to check them out, thinking I had perhaps judged your position unfairly, and I see that I have not. Your conentions are still completely off base. In fact, all my questions and comments stand, and I have several new points of interest as well.

As I said, I agreed that the female gentital mutilation practices could obviously facilitate spread of the disease, thought the article seemed to emphasize unclean insturments as the real protagonist and quoted:

"Although few clinical studies have been conducted, it is clear that at least some forms of FGM increase the HIV transmission"

Well, we all agree on this logic, though we have no idea to what magnitude, but, it fails to answer what this has to do with male circumcision and the HIV epidemic. Quite frankly, why is female genital mutilation even being discussed here? I believe you brought it up, so perhaps you can answer that.

Secondly, the brief snippet on dry sex makes a point at the end to emphasize that dry sex is mainly favored by married women, as some African men seem to construe a wet vagina as a sign of promiscuity or infidelity. It notes that sex workers, and assumably single women, are under no such pressure to provide a dry vagina. It mentions absolutely nothing about male circumcision being any sort of root cause for the desire for 'dry sex,' and in fact emphasizes the belief that it's more of a cultural ideal.

So, I guess my statement still stands. The idea that circumcision is related to the spread of dry sex or HIV is pretty much totally bogus and based on pure conjecture and broad assumptions gleamed from a very tiny amount of information and no expertise.

I also stand by my statement that if there's a possibility that circumcision could help curb the HIV infection rates in Africa, then it ought to be researched further, as no options should be ruled out when millions of lives are at stake.

Also, now speaking with benefit of having read the material you linked, it really doesn't change the realevence or accuracy of any of my comments from the previous post.
 
Last edited:
You say alot without really saying anything at all, swank. You argument mainly consists of your belief that you are right and I am wrong. That's all you pretty much say in the previous post. I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to "beat you", only reveal in this debate that there are many more factors involved in this article than is being admitted to, specifically:

1) Female Genital Mutilation also plays a part in Africa's AIDS woes, due to the obvious increase in vaginal injuries during intercourse, especially with the practice of infibulation, wherein the vagina is sewn shut.

2) Education and health care services are sorely needed and would not only help curb the spread of AIDS, but increase the general poor living conditions that many Africans must endure.

3) AIDS is not an instant kill disease. It has a long incubation period and causes a miserable lingering death, so any studies would have to take into account very many widespread social factors, as an HIV infected female in one village could cause an outbreak in a neighboring community just because of the patterns of human movement and social interaction during the incubation periods of those infected.

Now, I'm sure it's comforting to believe that a simple cosmetic operation would help, but that is clearly not going to be the case in something as large and complex as the HIV epidemic in Africa. I do understand that circumcision would be an acceptable preventative if it was actually effective in reducing the rate of transmission, but the 20% decrease could be explained by any of a million different factors... not excluding simply being an outright lie to garner more research funding.
 
Well, as I understand things, you are arguing that circumcision shouldn't even be considered or researched further because you are fundamentally opposed to the practice.

It is my contention that it has showed promise and ought to be researched further so that it can be said with certainty a good option to slowing infection rates wasn't passed up.

It is of course true that it wouldn't be a cure, and that many other things spread AIDs that are outside the realm of circumcision, but that's besides the point. My argument is that it simply should be looked into as it has showed promise.
If you read into the matter further, you'll see that the simple catch-all solution of "education and condom use" is an almost laughable solution to the epidemic, and that AIDs workers and researchers are more or less desperately just trying to find a way to slow infection rates. Circumcision at least offers some possibility, but nobody is calling a sure thing or a guranteed positive.

Let me put it this way: If some demographic pathology studies came out that strongly supported the idea that it significantly decreases infection transfer rate, would you think it unethical for non-profit or AIDs relief groups to set up free circumcision clinics?

Frankly this is the type of argument where I find the words zealot and fanatic to not be entirely out of line. Here you are weighing the possibility of saving human lives and the aleviation of untold suffering against, uh, maybe a slight loss of penile sensitivity in some men? I think the only way to be a sucker on this issue is to rule out viable possibilities and avenues for relief based on a fundamentalist style of belief.

I say research it further, it shows promise. Nobody here is a trained anthropologist or MD to my knowledge (and would practically have to be both, and one spexializing in African populations and AIDs research at that), so nobody is qualified to give a definitive answer on the interet based on reading a few articles on the internet.

I know the limits of my knowledge, and I also know I believe that all possible ways of tiding a health epidemic ought to be considered. Wouldn't you agree?
 
I'm just leery of this new "scientific breakthu" on circumcision. Seems there's always some new fantastic reason to do it. If history bears true, and it usually does, years from now they'll admit that it only gave marginal at best results... after a period of mass circumcisions. You can call me all the names you want -- zealot, fanatic, whatever -- I just don't believe everything I'm told. Especially when it comes to circumcision. It has a long history of bogus benefits, from curing masturbation and insanity, to penile and cervical cancer and now AIDS. To borrow a description from the opposition, "it's just a little flap of skin" :D Do you really think removing it is going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the AIDS epidemic in Africa? Be realistic. Why not just amputate the entire penis? That would definitely stop the spread of AIDS in Africa... and wouldn't it be better to have an amputated penis than to die of AIDS? ;) Where do you draw the line? I draw the line at mutilation. I say work on their social practices and send aid in the form of educators and health workers. Leave their bodies alone. None of us are animals to be carved up, studied and dissected.
 
Well, once again you ahve taken my arguments way out of context and meaning.

I take your position to be, though you seem unable to state it clearly, that you are against any research into the possibility that circumcision does help prevent the transfer and spread of HIV. You believe it shouldn't even be considered. If this is incorrect, feel free to set things straight.

All I have argued is that it ought to be reserached if it shows promise. Like I said, read up on the AIDs epidemic and you'll see 'education' and 'relief efforts' are about the most hollow terms around. What do you think has been going on for the last 15 years to no avail accept rising death tolls?

AIDs workers and reserachers are searching for realistic solutions to slow infection rates, and if circumcision shows any promise, I say research the hell out of it.

Nobody is suggesting manditory circumcisions or involunatary human experimentation - just research, further study, exploration of possibility. You're appearently so fundamentally opposed to the idea that you think a foreskin perhaps outweighs the benefit of saving human lives and preventing suffering. That's cool, but that's also why I feel comfortable using the term fanatic when I describe the viewpoint.

I think if circumcision shows promise, there's damn near a moral obligation to understand what the process is and if it holds any promise. But, if you think any information regarding circumcision not being and entirely negative thing is somehow "suspect" or questionalbe, then there's no reasoning with you.

It seems you've closed your mind to the truly humanitarian argument here, and that unfortunately this is one of the side effects of this hardlining fundamentalist approach.

And really, all this talk of 'chopping off penises' and such is just so much hyperbole and quite silly.

But I think we've established your side of things, which is that it shouldn't even be considered for reserach. Here's a question though, what if multiple and credible studies found that it reduces transmission rates by 50% or so? What then?
 
Please, don't get personal. I have a viewpoint that differs from yours. That hardly makes me a fanatic or deluded. I simply believe that, if circumcision was such a fantastic preventative procedure, the AIDs rate in Africa would be significantly lower, as the country is around 60 to 70% circed already-- one of the highest in the world, in fact. What will they do after everyone is circumcised and they're still dying of AIDs?

I truly do understand what you're saying. I realize that loss of sensation is a small price to pay to get an epidemic under control... and I would have no objection to it if I truly believed it would work. I just don't think it would. I do not believe that the fold of skin at the tip of the penis makes it easier to catch the disease or transmit it. I think the 20% difference in transmission rates during the time period the men were under observation is from two basic factors... 1) the recovery period of the procedure led the circed group to have fewer sexual partners than the uncut group and 2) the resulting loss of sensation caused the cut group to have less desire for sex and thus less exposure to the disease.

And you're still glossing over the best points I've made so far, which is that the problem is far more complex than you or the researchers are admitting.

Unless you have something new add, I really have said everything I can think of on this subject. Let's not beat a dead horse, okay? I'll even let you have the last word.
 
Abstinence and monogamy with a clean person = 100% effective. Condoms can break, condoms cost, condoms dont always work, condoms arent always used and it only takes once.

I think in American we need to get our heads straight. Toss the youth some rubbers and tell em "fuck at your own risk" you might end up like this showing a gruesome video of STDs + fucked up people and explain how it spreads from people you dont expect.

or tell em to keep their legs closed and their dick in their pants until they get into a monogomous clean relationship, and they are guaranteed not to get an STD/AIDs, which is life ruining.

Anyways just my shpeel.
 
Mighty kind of you. My point was simply that I don't think the possibility of it's effectiveness ought to be ignored and excluded from further consideration. If it shows promise, look into it.

Your standpoint, at least as it seemed, was that circumcision is such a horrible thing that it should be ruled out for more research and the possibility that it hampers the spread of disease shouldn't even be investigated.

You then brought up dry sex, female circumcision, and a host of other red herrings that really have nothing to do with these core positions.

In your last post you analyze why you think the findings are incorrect or don't show promise. I have no way to know if you took these positions from another article you read somewhere (though I have seen literally hundreds of articles written on anti-circ sights that fervently argue against any disease-prevention type benefits from circs, but just as many that claim that they do in fact have merit), but either way I'd say your opinion on the matter, is well, just basically a scarcely educated guess or assumption. Like I said before, last time I checked you sold video games or something, not conducted medical or anthropological research.

I on the other hand understand what I do not know, but I do know that there is perhaps a possibility that circumcision could be an effective tool in slowing infection rates, which is basically the goal of every AIDs relief organization on earth aside from medication cost reductions. On the grounds of the very possibility of help aleviate suffering and unnecessary death I say it's worthwhile to investigate. It's still unclear to me as to what your position is on the matter, since you have recused yourself by claiming your understanding of the situation has allowed you to say with 100% confidence that there's no way circumcision couldn't help prevent infection.

And, it's not a personal attack when I describe a position on a matter as fundamentalist of fanatic. These are real and accurate descriptions of idelogical frames of mind, of which I think some of your statements do in fact classify you as such.

Fanatic: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."

You've described yourself in very similar terms many times on this very forum.

Fundamentalist: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Well, I have always felt the anti-circ crowd uses a lot of the same tactics, recruitment, and control mechanisms as religion (even mirroring the pro-life movement with all the violent rhetoric about 'butchery' and 'mutilation' and inhumanity and such, to create an emotional response instead of rational thought), and just replace secularism with circumcision at the end.

Zealot: "A fanatically committed person."

Uh, well, anybody who has ever read the forums probably has their own opinion as to how that description fits you.

But, I did establish above that you've pretty much described yourself as a 'fanatic' by definition many times, and a zealot is just a fanatical person.

Now, I wouldn't say those are personal insults so much as fairly even-handed descriptions.
 
derringer57 said:
Abstinence and monogamy with a clean person = 100% effective. Condoms can break, condoms cost, condoms dont always work, condoms arent always used and it only takes once.

I think in American we need to get our heads straight. Toss the youth some rubbers and tell em "fuck at your own risk" you might end up like this showing a gruesome video of STDs + fucked up people and explain how it spreads from people you dont expect.

or tell em to keep their legs closed and their dick in their pants until they get into a monogomous clean relationship, and they are guaranteed not to get an STD/AIDs, which is life ruining.

Anyways just my shpeel.
Click to expand...

Well, except we're talking about millions of people of all ages across teh African continent, and actually many other places in the world as well (anybody been down to Sao Paulo or Rio lately?).

You might also be interested to know that high schools with abstinence programs in place of sex education have no lower pregnancy rates and sometimes in fact even higher. Texas, the state with the biggest abstinence intitiative thanks to Bush, also has the highest teen pregnancy rates, at least as of last year. There's a million websites dedicated to this debate, google it and check a few out.

One things for sure, telling people to stop fucking and handing out condoms doesn't work. If it did, then there wouldn't be a problem.
 
Whoa, whre has my reply to derringer57 gone? It was about 300 words and containedx multiple links. What the hell is going on here? Where's my post? And where's his reply to mine for that matter?

Who has been altering this thread? This is not cool, I'm so sick of this shit happening on this site.

People are deleting posts and screwing with threads, this isn't supposed to happen.
 
Swank said:
Whoa, whre has my reply to derringer57 gone? It was about 300 words and containedx multiple links. What the hell is going on here? Where's my post? And where's his reply to mine for that matter?

Who has been altering this thread? This is not cool, I'm so sick of this shit happening on this site.

People are deleting posts and screwing with threads, this isn't supposed to happen.
Click to expand...

Don't you ever give up? Have you not noticed there are LOTS of posts missing, and that just maybe the mods have nothing to do with it? Did it cross your mind that we just switched servers and just maybe we lost some posts and threads in the process? Why do you constantly try to convince people that we're pulling all this crap on them? You say you're "so sick of this shit happening," but when has "this shit" EVER happened?

Just so you know, "people here" (the mods) don't even have the ability to delete or edit people's posts, so it doesn't, and CAN'T happen.

And no, the posts are not in the Trash Bucket. They are gone, and it's not the mods' doing. Quit trying to make us out to be the bad guys.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying convince anybody of anything guy, take a deep breath and chill out.

And where else have I ranted about any moderators screwing with my posts? I've seen other threads get moved or vanish, had it explained to me, civilly, and been satisfied.

If there are lots of posts missing then fine, like where else for example? I understand there could have been fuck-ups in the process, but how was I to know that when I logged on and saw my stuff was deleted?

You do a good job with this stuff cyclops, but there's no need to be so frickin' touchy and defensive about the 'mod team.' It's a dick enlargment forum, and I'd think you'd agree not the most serious organization on the planet, nobody's feelings are wounded if I am annoyed to see things go missing once again.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, every time something goes missing you blame us for it and say we're censoring, blah blah blah. Every damn time. It gets old having to explain to you why we do what we do. Someone breaks the rules in their post, so we move it, and you cry censorship. A thread gets locked by a mod because it's going to hell in a handbasket, and you cry abuse of mod power. Some threads get deleted during a server switch, and you assume it's our fault.

It gets old.

Give us a break.

Since you asked, I have a few posts missing, there is a whole thread missing from the BB section, Kong and Kittie have missing posts, along with lots of other members.

Sorry if I came across harshly, but you must understand how it gets old.
 
Everyone chill. I lost my post with links to #s on texas and other states. The higher population places of course had the highest #s of teenage pregnancies. The lowest population places had lowest, I didnt get %s so who knows. Anyways, everyone chill this is simply a place to let off some heat, changing minds rarely occurs. I find my debate on MMORPG forums over how upcoming games should be changed, more important and gets more done (in actually being taken into action or affecting anyone/thing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top