|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by cnewbyuk on 10:43 AM July 8th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings about this report.
On the one hand, I'm very happy that this discover has been found. Anything that helps reduce the spread of the AIDS virus is great. If this research is 100% real (and not another dig at men), then this could end up being a recommended procedure to help preserve health.
On the other hand, I have a deep-down feeling that this could be more of the usual. If there is any problem, it's generally caused by (or the responsibility of) men. There are people who could argue that all men should be given the snip based on this research. Any man that has not been mutilated is a potential health risk. It just seems a little to convenient.
At this point it should be clear that I have no real (or fake) knowledge of medical issues. I have no ability to argue whether or not this is likely or just manipulative ficton. I want to believe it is this easy to help REDUCE risk of infection. But is it really this simple? Also, if the reduction of skin on a male reduces their white cell count, could a similar procedure reduce the white cell count for women too? As I said I don't know, I just asking questions.
cnewbyuk - British black dude who wants to become a dad, not a modern day slave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 11:04 AM July 8th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard, though I'm not exactly sure, the AIDS is primarily spread through exposure to blood. If this is true, it may explain some of the differences in infection rates between heterosexual and homosexual (male) communities. An infection of AIDS would most likely occur when one of the participants has an open wound on their genitals. In a heterosexual relationship, the wound would have to be on the vagina or the penis. In the (male) homosexual relationship, the wound is on the penis or anus.
The thing is that anal tissue tears easily, resulting in the release of blood. So, male homosexuals are just more likely to get AIDS to the mechanics of sex.
The foreskin of the penis also tears sometimes, which would explain the increase in AIDS among the circumcised men.
Of course, there are other ways to reduce the spread of AIDS such as condom use (which would prevent blood contact) and non-promiscuity. Really, there should also be studies to compare the circumcising men against condom use in the prevention of AIDS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:11 AM July 8th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
If removal of the clitoral hood (the type of female circumcision that is equivalent to male circumcision) similarly reduced the likelihood of HIV in women, would we allow it on girls?
The fact remains that we're performing this on a child who cannot consent. If people want a circumcision, for whatever reason, it can still be done as an adult with consent. But it should not be performed on children. Our society forbids it on girls but allows it on boys. That's not equal rights.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:34 AM July 9th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"The fact remains that we're performing this on a child who cannot consent"
Yes, I think that's the key point. I know nothing about female circumcision, but my understanding is that it is done to reduce female promiscuity. If so, it will clearly reduce the incidence of any venereal disease. However, this would NEVER be used to justify female circumcision.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:20 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
So, will you circumsized guys have unprotected sex with a woman who has HIV telling yourselves, well, my chances are not that high of becoming infected!
If no, then this changes nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:46 AM July 9th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, this is actually the core issue here. Do they mean if I'm circumcised and have unprotected sex with someone who has AIDS there's a good chance I'll walk away clean? What madness is this?
How will circumcising people solve anything IF they still go ahead and have unprotected sex with HIV carriers? I'm a circumcised male african guy who has unprotected sex with an HIV infected woman. I do it today, I don't get AIDS. I do it tomorrow, I don't get AIDS. How long do these people believe I can keep doing it without getting infected? All my life?! People don't just have sex once in their life, they do it often and in Africa the likelyhood you'll do it with someone infected is very high, even if you keep changing partners!
In the end it doesn't matter if you have a foreskin or not, it's your sexual habits that define how likely you are to contract the damn disease. Morons, all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And genetics apparently. I recently saw a documentary that indicated that there was HIV infected humans using the same technique as the Black Plague bacteria. People from places populated by Plague survivors have a higher resistance to HIV (as a population).
I don't know what to make of this, it seems intuitively wrong, but there appeared to be serious research into this. Unfortunately, I can't find any more information on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by JM on 12:35 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I get sick of this anti-masculine pc “science”. It all originates from the fact that the only people who get funding in gender-related issues are those who can demonstrate that they will give the results required. In short, these people have already decided the outcome before they even start.
The required outcome in this case is that men and boys must be mutilated, women and girls must not be.
The obvious and deliberate omission here is that the men who were duped into being mutilated (no doubt by lies about the outcome of the procedure) will have been suffering from the surgery for, at the very least, months after the mutilation.
Any one who has ever had any kind of serious operation involving cutting of their body knows that it takes along time for it to heal properly. You can multiply this by ten when considering where they were cut and the sexual action of the penis. The penis is extremely painful for a long time especially during sex. These men must have cut down their sexual activity dramatically - even eliminated it for a good part of the “trial”. Remember the “trial” was immediately after the mutilations occurred.
No genuine, honest scientist could make this mistake accidentally - it was deliberate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 02:06 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Although commonly claimed otherwise, it appears that most HIV cases in Africa are not due to sexual intercourse:
http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:34 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Great link, thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:44 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The research community has neglected to mention a politically embarrassing outcome of their research: it's gender neutral. Both male and female subjects in show decreased HIV infection rates after being circumcised.
This statement demands a citation, here it is.
A reference for statistical correlations between reduced incidence of HIV infection and female circumcision is Kirsten Bell, Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality, MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY, Volume 19, Number 2: Pages 125-148, June 2005. See Footnote 9; I include an excerpt for reference:
"...as female circumcision takes place in societies where male circumcision is simultaneously performed and the so-called AIDS belt corresponds largely with regions where circumcision (either male or female) is not practiced, a correlation also exists between female circumcision and lower HIV transmission rates."
The text of the article is available at this URL.
That only males are asked (and in this country, not asked) to shoulder the burden of having irreplacable, specialized erogenous tissue removed is evidence of deep-seated anti-male bias.
Mars: waging war against genital terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:11 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Good informative post. I understand now why circumcision is classed as a mens issue.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:17 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Circumcision is a men's issue. Men have a right to their own bodies. The whole issue of reproductive rights includes the right to uninterrupted sexual development.
Men have that right, as well as women, but only the rights of women are protected by law. A problem with anti-MGM (male genital mutilation) lawsuits is that the courts find that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Here's a way around this: The laws against FGM were enacted in 1997. In 2015, the involuntarily circumcised male infants who were born in 1997 turn 18. They will then have standing in Federal court as a class who can claim that the FGM laws discriminated against them, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Every year after 2015, more men will join the class.
Curiously. women who would not dream of allowing men the luxury of telling them whether to modify their genitals feel entitled to tell men that they ought to be circumcised, involuntarily, if possible. Consider the fatuous, ill-considered statements of conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel. In response to the Wall Street Journal article of this thread, Schlussel makes the profoundly racist (not to mention anti-male) proposal that the Bush Administration spend the meager funds allocated for aid to Africa on circumcising its male population:
I think I've found the perfect place to spend the tax money President Bush is lavishing on Africa and money raised by "Live Eight": Mass Brises. ...
For those of you unfamiliar with a "bris," it is the Jewish ritual ceremony of circumcision, traditionally done eight days after birth of Jewish male babies.
Now comes another reason to get a bris, from the front page of today's Wall Street Journal: It reduces the AIDS risk by a whopping 70%!..."
Back to the men's issue of circumcision. The right to uninterrupted sexual development comes from consideration of the moral rules. A statement of the moral rules is given in Morality: Its Nature and Justification, by Dartmouth philosopher Bernard Gert. Here's a list of moral rules violated by routine infant circumcision.
1. The moral rule not to deprive a person of pleasure (by desensitizing the organ and limiting its function);
2. The moral rule not to deprive a person of freedom (by removing the choice to decide whether to undergo this procedure, and by limiting options to pleasure others);
3. The moral rule not to cause pain;
4. The moral rule not to disable (the procedure is sexually diminishing -- statistical evidence is available in the scientific literature, and anecdotal accounts from restoring men and their partners is available); see my previous post about what is lost, and also see the lost list--don't let a woman tell you you don't need your foreskin because she doesn't like them, since it's not her body. Feminists should have a deep appreciation for sentiments like that. After all: when it comes to their bodies, it's their body. Unless you believe that their bodies are worth more than male bodies.
In cases where the procedure causes death
5. The moral rule not to kill
is violated (a no-brainer).
Since doctors, and even the AAP recommendation do not provide parents with before and after photographs of the procedure (a medically responsible thing to provide for what might generously called plastic surgery--though this is not ordinarily supposed to result in loss of neurological function), inform parents about the possibility of distressing complications such as trapped penis, as happened to a relative of mine, inform parents what anatomical parts their son can look forward to missing in his adult life, and how the loss of sensory feedback mechanisms due to the amputation will affect his (and his future partner's) perception and performance of sexual intercourse and foreplay
6. The moral rule do not deceive
is also violated. Indeed, it's fairly certain that doctors and health-care professionals do not properly inform parents of precisely the specialized structures that are permanently removed by the practice. In addition, doctors take the Hippocratic oath, so
7. The moral rule to keep your promises
is violated, along with the general moral rule to
8. Do your duty.
and
9. Do not cheat.
These are violated in several ways. One way is that circumcising physicians will decline to say what the long-term negative effects of the procedure are, and will refer anyone who asks to a sex therapist. This is medically irresponsible. Surgeons should know the possible complications of the surgeries they perform, and must inform patients. They can't fob that responsibility off on others.
Mars waging war against genital terrorism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:31 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The research community has neglected to mention a politically embarrassing outcome of their research: it's gender neutral. Both male and female subjects show decreased HIV infection rates after being circumcised.
This statement demands a citation: a reference for statistical correlations between reduced incidence of HIV infection and female circumcision is Kirsten Bell, Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality, MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY, Volume 19, Number 2: Pages 125-148, June 2005. See Footnote 9; I include an excerpt for reference:
"...as female circumcision takes place in societies where male circumcision is simultaneously performed and the so-called AIDS belt corresponds largely with regions where circumcision (either male or female) is not practiced, a correlation also exists between female circumcision and lower HIV transmission rates."
The text of the article is available at this URL.
That only males are asked (and in this country, often forced) to shoulder the burden of having irreplacable, specialized erogenous tissue removed is evidence of deep-seated anti-male bias.
Even if the surgical procedure has this prophylactic effect, the matter is far more nuanced than the knee-jerk impulse to circumcise everything in creation. Circumcision impairs sexual functioning; when performed on infants, it decreases the blood supply to the organ, and stunts its growth--see, for example, the lost list. Note the effects of the amputation of the frenar artery, and the forcible removal of the prepuce from the glans (a procedure analogous to removing a nail from the nail bed), which prevents the glans from completing its development. The volume of the intact glans is 12% greater than that of a circumcised glans, due to the altered blood flow (referred to as "back-flow") and scarring. Doctors don't inform parents and patients about these effects, so they can fairly be called professionally irresponsible. Often, you'll hear a circumcising doctor claim that sex problems aren't his specialty; however, ignorance of the long term effects of this surgery, which removes tissue that would ordinarily 15 square inches of specialized, irreplacable tissue and three feet of veins and arteries in the adult, can also be fairly called professionally irresponsible.
Yet all of this is acceptable for boys. Men don't want to admit they were impaired--a little experience restoring would be a real eye opener for them. The assumption is that if you can reproduce and ejaculate, you're still ok. FALSE. You can't experience "whole body" orgasms; you have no foreskin for foreplay, which many cirucmcised men want to skip, because it's not pleasurable--it has to become an intellectual exercise undertaken for the benefit of your partner since the sensory experience is gone; your neurological map is altered; you have no forekin to stimulate the G-spot of the female; and the mechanics of intercourse are different--hard thrusting is needed. Restoring--a process which takes several years--can reverse some of these effects significantly enough to be worth it for many men, and it give a person a sense of control over his body. There's no reason to give in entirely to the "medical-industrial complex."
With infant circumcision, generally so much skin is removed that the deficit has to be made up from scrotal and pubic skin, leading to penile webbing, and other complications which exacerbate the tendency of the immobilized, taut skin of the circumcised penis to pump out the female's lubrication during intercourse, leading to dryness and irritation; this effect does not happen with intact genitals. The experience of restoring men and men circumcisied in adulthood confirm these effects.
Mars: waging war against genital terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 04:15 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read anything about this, other than this article. This whole thing, though, seems like junk.
"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."
So, this is based on leaks of "preliminary results."
"...'we will also need the results of other trials,' said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Ronald Gray"
Ya think?
"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."
WTF? The uncircumcised men were not altered. If the circumcised men showed a higher rate of infection, then I could see possibly stopping the tests. But the men-participants, who were being circumcised, allegedly showed a lower rate of infection. If the researchers were concerned about the welfare of the study participants and believed the "preliminary results", they would have continued the study and increased the number of men participating in it, so that more men would be circumcised and, thereby, protected.
"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."
If the researchers didn't normalize for these sorts of risk factors, this is hopelessly beyond pathetic. My fourth grade class would have done better.
"Feminist science" is an oxymoron.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:57 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall reading that circumcised men are more likely to use condoms as a protection against chafing during intercourse - has this been allowed for in the result ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 09:11 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhat offtopic, I've heard (though I'm not entirely sure) that the ribbed condoms are supposed to replicate the foreskin for the act of sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:16 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
That's false: circumcised men feel less than intact men, and are more likely to avoid condom use than intact men.
In an often cited study [Laumann, Edward O.; Masi, Christopher M.; Zuckerman, Ezra W., "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice." JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association. Apr 2, 1997, 277, (13), 1052 - 1057.], Laumann et al observed that circumcised men engage in a wider variety of sexual activity than intact men, and incorrectly hypothesized that this was due to the social stigma associated with being intact. The data from which that study was derived (National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992: [United States] Laumann, Edward O., Gagnon, John H., Michael, Robert T., Michaels, Stuart) does not support that conjecture; specifically, it has no statistical information on the attitude of a subject to his own circumcision status. Laumann's comment reflects the authors' bias. It is more likely that the circumcised man has to go to greater lengths to be stimulated than the intact man, and will therefore engage in a greater variety of sexual activity to compensate for his diminished sexual experience, relative to the intact man. The data from which the Laumann study was derived is available from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research at this link.
Mars: waging war against genital terrorism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 10:35 PM July 12th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>...circumcised men feel less than intact men...
I heard this statistic before from Dr. Dean Edell on his radio show and always wondered how they determine and measure this, being that everyone is different. Do they test a person having sex with their foreskin intact, then circumcise him and test him again having sex later? Preposterous!
>and are more likely to avoid condom use than intact men.
So what are you saying, that we men have our brains in our lower head and because of the circumcisiom, we are less intelligent?
Give me a break!
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:11 PM July 14th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
So what are you saying, that we men have our brains in our lower head and because of the circumcisiom, we are less intelligent?
Give me a break!
Dittohd
What on earth is wrong with you? I never said any such thing. The reports come from at least two sources from men who are circumcised in adulthood, and from the national survey mentioned earlier. Could you attempt to formulate your objections with some modicum of precision?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 11:59 AM July 17th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The reports come from at least two sources from men who are circumcised in adulthood, and from the national survey mentioned earlier
Why did you even bring this up? Who cares? Do you believe it? If so, do you believe that there is a direct link between the two happenings? If we did a study of 10,000 men that showed that all men with brown eyes had better eyesight on average than men with blue eyes, would you believe that the first condition was the cause of the second?
Why are you telling us that this statistic came from "at least two sources from men who are circumcised in adulthood, and from the national survey..."? Does this mean there must be a causative connection?
I stand by my analysis and conclusion. If I'm wrong, tell us what you really believe concerning your post. What is your considered conclusion based on those articles and statistics you brought up?
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:27 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that circumcised men are less likely to use condoms on the average BECAUSE they feel substantially less than intact men, on account of missing 10 thousand to twenty thousand specialized nerve endings.
This is not something that entitles you to conclude that circumcised men don't think with their brains. The circumcised man must, on the average, work harder to feel the kinds of things an intact man feels. The cause: missing neurons. The circumcised man does not feel the rolling action of the foreskin over the glans; the cause: missing skin and dartos muscle. That's a big loss.
Other losses, by the way: if you're circumcised, and you exercise nude, your dick is going to flop all over the place, because you're missing half your dartos muscle.
These losses tend to compel the circumcised man to seek gratification in more ways than the intact man. Unfortunately, they contribute to the tendency of circumcised men not to wear condoms. So even if there were a prophylactic effect of circumcising men (which I rather doubt), it would be offset by the tendency of circumcised men to avoid condom use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:57 PM July 23rd, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at real life rather than some controlled survey where statistics are more often than not spun to support an agenda.
Let's not patronize each other about who is able to see more clearly, ok? It's unnecessary, and a weaker person than myself would lose his ability to reason in the face of it.
It has been speculated that one reason for the popularity of Viagra in the United States is that circumcised men tend to need it more.
How many creams are out there that men could apply to their penis to make the experience more "feeling". Don't you think that if this was really a big problem, there would be many such creams since a majority of men in the U.S. are circumcized? Now on the other side, how many times have we seen creams to make the experience LESS feeling?
That's no argument. You need to know who is using these things, and in what numbers. I've never heard of any "cream" that would restore feeling, or restore what was hacked off by the circum-pedophiles, much less restore the over ten-thousand specialized neurons that are lost.
However, these desensitising creams are really often addressing a symptom of circumcision, in many circumcised men who are using them. This is because circumcision removes a feedback mechanism that enables a man to judge when he's about to achieve orgasm. These creams don't magically restore that feedback mechanism.
There could be other reasons for pre-mature ejaculation caused by circumcision--this is what you're getting at. However, not all sensitivity is equal! That's the implicit assumption here: that it's all more or less of same thing, and that more would be detrimental. However, what's lost to circumcision isn't more of the same kind of sensitivity the intact man is left with; what's lost is the a certain feedback loop that enables an intact man to have finer control over his sexual experience. There are different kinds of sensitivity for different purposes.
Don't you suppose that if men had the problem of diminished feeling, women's complaints would be a little different, like maybe running out of lubrication before the man runs out of erection?
They DO complain of that, since the circumcised penis pumps out lubrication cionsiderably faster than the intact penis. They may not correctly attribute the increased tendency to be irritated to the circumcision status of their partners, partly because they consider it "normal" but they do complain. That is definitely a problem with being circumcised. It definitely does NOT help relationships. It does not help marital stability.
Previously I would have been amazed that men's activists, who are concerned about the state of the traditional marriage, wouldn't factor the diminished genitals of the male half of those
marriages into the question of their stability. But as I see the great capacity for denial among men about this procedure, I'm not the least bit surprised to see them vehemently persist in the fiction that nothing is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
There are several things you've said in this and some of your other postings that make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, to the point that I even wonder if we are talking about the same subject.
What things?
I try to pick certain arguments which I feel are pretty convincing of a point and you still come back with answers that sometimes do (maybe with a strong imagination) but often don't make any sense to me whatsoever,
I'm sorry that they don't make sense to you, whatever they are. You aren't specific. They make perfect sense to me.
I don't even know what point you are trying to make. Are you attempting to maintain that removal of neurons makes no difference? That the dcreased blood flow caused by cutting major arteries (the frenar artery) makes no difference in subsequent development? That there is no such thing as a feedback mechanism which tells an intact man how close he is to orgasm? That having a foreskin just makes you more sensitive in the same degree and kind than a circumcised man? [That's false. There is a wider variety of sensory experience available to the intact man, some of it involving fine control.] Or that we should just let women decide whether we should be circumcised? Are you just in denial? What is it?
I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to be identified. Dittod isn't exactly a name. street address and a social security number. as long as we're in ad hominem mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 05:26 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to be identified.
Irrelevant. That's what user names are for.
>Dittod (sic) isn't exactly a name. street address and a social security number. as long as we're in ad hominem mode.
So? But anyone who wishes to can get a good idea of me and my personality by going back over past postings I've made. Furthermore, they can address comments specifically to me in their future postings and I will know who they're talking to (or about). I can also answer them in return or comment directly to them in future postings. Would you like to guess how many Mr./Ms. Anonymous' we have here who've posted on the website in the past year?
If I post something that someone thinks is irrational or stupid, they can consider it when they read any of my future comments. I'm not ashamed of what I write.
Can you say the same?
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 08:20 PM July 8th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
They, along with the radio personality, Dr. Dean Edell, are sure not going to be happy to see this!
Of course I'm not happy to see it, but I'm even less happy that any regular participant in this forum might have been taken in by this crap. At very least it's a perfect example of what Mark Twain was talking about: "There're lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistics may have some small use in some situations, but where as in this case they're constructed to provide "evidence" for a prior conclusion, they're just cowshit.
I am reminded of Rich Zubaty's insight in What Men Know, that the female mind is obsessed with counting everything; here we see this obsession combined with the female's natural uneasiness about the male genitalia, which she desperately wants to control.
A Google search for "circumcision and HIV/AIDS" gets "about 88,000" hits; from the first 40, it seems roughly 95% of them are excited repetitions of this bogus "research": everyone's so pleased to have "proof" that little boys (and men) must be tortured and mutilated -- for our own good, of course!
Who was it said that a lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as "truth" -- that "everyone knows"?
The Google search also found some rebuttals, if anyone needs to read them:
Circumcision and HIV
(A great quote from Mark Twain: "A lie will be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on.")
HIV-AIDS and Circumcision
Circumcised men are at greater risk of HIV infection
Myth: Circumcision Prevents HIV
I want to believe it is this easy to help REDUCE risk of infection. "EASY"? cnewbyuk, either you haven't been circumcised (lucky fellow) or it was done in infancy (like me and 100,000,000 American men and boys) and you simply don't remember. The description below: "(a procedure analogous to removing a nail from the nail bed)" (i.e. tearing out a fingernail, an ancient method of torture) covers it pretty well.
I have no real (or fake) knowledge of medical issues. I have no ability to argue whether or not this is likely.... Don't fall for this "I'm not a medical expert, so I can't have an opinion" garbage. You don't have to be a "medical expert" to understand that this is excrement. All it takes is some common sense -- a commodity which tends to be in short supply among "experts," in fact.
Take a look around the sites linked above for the truth. The herd is headed for the slaughterhouse; if you don't want to go there, you'll have to step out of the herd, and start doing your own thinking. If you do, you'll learn pretty quickly that practically everything you read or hear or see in the conventional media is lies, structures of lies, whole cities of lies.
They lie, and lie, and lie, and lie -- and people keep eating it up! Jesus!
In any case, even if circumcision were a 100% protection against contracting AIDS, that would not justify doing it to unconsenting minors. You want to really be safe? Amputate at the neck! Then you'll never get sick at all. Punishing the body for the errors of the mind, like whipping the horse because the rider won't do his job.
What a bunch of crap. Humanity really makes me sick sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 08:35 AM July 10th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
..by cutting off the whole penis instead of just a part of it!
Even if the above "research" was completely credible, which it isn't at all, it would still not serve as a justification because the mutilation has undeniable bad effects and it's a crime to force it upon a child, no matter the "benefits" (most of which are probably related to certain bank accounts, given foreskin is an excellent skin tranplant).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:52 PM July 10th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I remember another piece of 'research' coming out of South Africa about forty years ago on the subject of cannabis, in which there was one unforgettable conclusion - "the habitual use of cannabis can so derange a man's mind that he freely associates with persons of another race".
There's always an agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Dittohd writes "Several of the guys posting here have used this website in the past to rail against circumcision. Wow! They, along with the radio personality, Dr. Dean Edell, are sure not going to be happy to see