Circumcision Shown to Slow Spread of HIV in Africa

[fuckmuscle52]

Just noted with interest this story in the Washington Post.

I have always preferred circumcised cock to uncut. Do I now have a good reason, apart from just a personal preferrence based on aesthtics?

Any responses to this news?

 

[hermanding]

from what was reported here, it COULD help up to 50% - which is good - but, why not just use condones in the first place - which covers cut and uncut dicks the same way...
of course, all procedures to slow HIV and SIDA are very welcome. being uncut, no plans to have that done, though
ding

 

[3nipples]

Just noted with interest this story in the Washington Post.

I have always preferred circumcised cock to uncut. Do I now have a good reason, apart from just a personal preferrence based on aesthtics?

Any responses to this news?

A good reason for what?

To like uncut guys?
To like your own cock?
To get your own circumcision?​

Did you need a reason? Seems silly to me to have to validate your preferences...

The bottom line is that both circumsized and uncircumsized males still have to follow the very same safe sex practises, so nothing is different. In what way exactly is it better to be circumsized?

 

[DiaryOfAMadman]

Yep, here we go again. I guess there are those in the world who will never be happy until every man in the world is cut. Then again, if we were all cut then what would some of you have to complain about............ oh thats ok I'm sure you'll find something.

Safe sex or no sex at all is still the best way to prevent HIV when it comes to sexual transmission. The Catholic curch still prohibits the use of condoms, until that changes there will always be large problems in in Africa. So whats going to be more cost effective on a poor continent latex condoms......... or circumcision?
Regardless of your feelings on the subject, its still mutilation. It's no different the practice of ripping out the Clitoris. To be literal about it anything from surgery, piercings, and even tatoos are considered mutilation.

I recently read about a new study as well. It states that people who have their hands surgically removed are less likely to murder some one. In the Congo it reduced gun related deaths by over 50%.

 

[hermanding]

in other words - all this is nice, but using a condon is still the best way to deal with hiv-aids dangers.
ding

 

[ronnie_h]

For over one year every now and then this stupid story which is supposedly based on some scientific studies comes to surface like a tidal wave to the shore.

So it reduces the risk? It's slowing the spread of HIV? Well, the use of condoms almost eliminates the risk without using a knife or razor blade on a small boy. How many worried parents are going to get their little sunshines snipped because of such 'breaking news' to save them from AIDS? Let alone some countries who might include the systematic snipping of small boys to their health care program because of reports and studies like this. Gives them a good excuse to refrain from teaching people about the use of condoms as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against circumcision. If an adult decides to do it, or in the few medical necessary cases, it's absolutely no problem for me. The ugly thing about it is, that in most of all cases it is done to young boys either for traditional or religious reasons. We are living in the 21st century where, at least in most western countries, you will spend a good number of years in prison if you lay your hands on a child, with a few years extras when the genitals are involved. This is right and it should include the circumcision of minors without difference in gender and only with the exception of a medical issue when no other treatment was successful.

You may find this stupid, but if you have ever seen the crying face of a young boy during a circumcision ceremony you might understand why I'm upset. It tears your heart apart. If you have one, that is.

And no, it doesn't make it any better when the boy is a small baby. Let them grow up and decide when they are adults!

 

[luminum]

Sorry to bust your bubble, and I seem to be saying this over and over again, that people print results of studies that always show something, but never print studies that show that something doesn't change something else. So while this study (of many) shows that circumcision slows the rate of HIV infection (as do a few of them) there are enough studies that show that circumcision does very little to make the consensus unknown.

 

[KentuckyPython]

Condums work a little better and no one is maimed in the process.

 

[Mike1984]

As far as I can tell they're saying that it's the sensitive inner lining of the foreskin where the virus is most likely to enter ..all circumcised guys need to have some inner lining left so they can have fun and cum. Half my dick is inner lining.. then there's the scar and the rest is shaft skin. So I reckon I'm still at risk.. maybe less than an uncut guy but it would be stupid to send out the message that cut guys can't catch the virus.

 

[sigurboy]

Yep, here we go again. I guess there are those in the world who will never be happy until every man in the world is cut.


This is about saving as many lives as possible with what's available.
It's NOT a pro-circumcision-penis-hating-lobby-conspiracy theory.
Nobody is arguing that this is the end of AIDS, or the best method of stopping AIDS, but is nonetheless a step to cool down the pandemic.
I knew as soon as I heard this it was going to upset all the anti-cut people who have been trying to undermine the merits of circumcision for years.
But before we all start freaking about about our beloved foreskins, let's try to wrap our heads around the bigger picture.

 

[3nipples]

This is about saving as many lives as possible with what's available.

You mean with what's not available, don't you?

I think we were looking at the bigger picture Sigurboy, which is that you need to protect yourself when you're having sex. This story is mostly eye catching hype and, in my opinion, a disservice to the aim of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

 

[luminum]

The bigger picture is that it's an incredibly expensive procedure when applied to an tire country's worth of men. Its benefits in the context of HIV is undecided because tests show both results. It changes the body to fit behavior when it's unnecessary, since cheaper means of sexual protection exist and could be disseminated if officials would just set up the programs.

 

[jockboy01]

I got in on this late and didn't read the article (mainly, b/c there's no link and I'm to lazy to go look for it). But as stated, it is all about risk and circumcision doesn't begin to compare to condoms when talking about risk of HIV transmission reduction.