Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[DiaryOfAMadman]

Re: Circumcision Protects Men from AIDS

Listen this story first popped into the news more then 2 years ago, and I remember at that time discussing it here on JUB. Then every time there's mention about it in the news we have the same conversation. Not to mention someone who makes a weekly "cut vs u/c" thread here on the forums.

1. The 60% reduction in transmission is for heterosexuals. The majority of homosexuals infected occurs in "anal intercourse". Anytime a man is Positive and ejaculates into another man's rectum (or anyone's rectum for that matter) the disease will spread. It has noting to do with circumcision in the gay community.

2. The majority of people who are "cut" seem to enjoy the fact that they are cut, there's no undoing the past and they are fine and happy with that fact.

3. The majority of people who are "uncut" seem to enjoy the fact that they are uncut, there's no undoing the past and the yare fine and happy with that fact.

**NOTE**
As you can see from #'s 2 &3 there's no real reason to debate this question of cut vs uncut any further here on JUB.

4. You cannot force surgery / mutilation (however you want to look at it) on the people of one continent against their will. This is like when the Nazi's considered sterilizing all the Jews before deciding to exterminate them. It's an easy argument to make that we are not trying to kill them, but to keep them safe. But if we were to force circumcission on a certain group of people, we are taking it out of their hands and that would be wrong.

 

[pisces_ken02]

Re: Circumcision Protects Men from AIDS

It should be mandatory.

To be honest.. uncut dicks are such a huge turnoff for me. They are very unattractive IMO. I prefer a "cut" dick. Of course you can't always get that option

 

[Crashdown]

Re: Circumcision Protects Men from AIDS

It mustn't be mandatory.

To be honest.. cut dicks are such a huge turnoff for me. They are very unattractive IMO. I prefer an "uncut" dick. Of course you can't always get that option

 

[OptimalOptimus]

Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/04/040907bloomberg.htm

WHY WON't THEY GET IS THOUGHT THERE HEADS. CIRCUMCISION IS NOT THE ANSWER TO SAFER SEX !

FORESKIN CREATS LESS FRICTION DURING SEX.

BEING CIRCUMCISIED CREATS ALOT OF FRICTION THAT'S WHY CIRCUMCISED MEN HAVE TO USE LUBE !

ALL THAT FRICTION AND RUBBING WILL RUBB IT RAW, WITH GIVES YOU A CHANCE TO BE INFECTED !

IF YOU'VE EVER WATCHED PORN YOU WOULD SEE THAT FORESKIN COCKS RUBB ON THE SHAFT OF THE PENIS. NOT AS MUCH ON THE HEAD GLANDS LIKE A CIRCUMSIED PENIS.

SEXY IS A MESSY JOB ANYWAY !

I NEVER UNDERSTOOD, WHY THEY WOULD USE A CONDOM TO FUCK & THEN LET HE GUY SHOOT IN THERE MOUTH AFTERWARDS ?

WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE CONDOM ?

WHY DIDN'T THEY USE A CONDOM WHILE SUCKIGN THE GUYS DICK ?

CONDOMS CANT' PROTECT YOU FROM STD'S HIV OR AIDS.

HERE'S THE POINT, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX !

JUST BE CAREFULL WHO YOU SLEEP WITH.

 

[EricCage]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

what a confusion!

 

[Crashdown]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

To prevent Aids, FUCKING USE A CONDOM !!!

 

[SilverRRCloud]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

CONDOMS CANT' PROTECT YOU FROM STD'S HIV OR AIDS.

HERE'S THE POINT, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX !

JUST BE CAREFULL WHO YOU SLEEP WITH.

There is plenty of evidence published by the national health authorities of various countries that CONDOMS INDEED DO PROTECT FROM MOST STDS, including HIV/AIDS.

Indeed, there is no such thing as SAFE SEX. Nothing is safe in absolute terms and life is always lethal, since it ends in human death one way or the other. Having sex while using condoms is considered a SAFE SEX PRACTICE by the global medical establishment. In absence of other better sources, we'll have to take their research and their word for it.

---
On a very personal note: I have had a very dynamic sexual life over the last 25 years anywhere between Moscow and San Francisco and Amsterdam and Cape Town, South Africa. I have never believed in male monogamy either.

I have always, always used condoms. Even for oral sex. I have never made any exception. And I have never ever caught any bug worth mentioning.

Call it my 'Good Luck', if you will, but I strongly tend to believe that it has to do more with my iron determination to turn even the hottest dude down, the moment he indicates that he wants to go bare...

SC

 

[Javito1987]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

Is this a joke?

he watched "the conspirancy theory" too many times... lol

 

[OptimalOptimus]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

its application isn't suggested except in areas in Africa where sanitation and AIDS is a problem.

Congrats that's the stupiest thing i've heard today. AIDS is a problem EVERYWHERE. There's 100,000 people alone in New York that have HIV/AIDS. The problem is when you have these rightwing christian hacks & there false science being spread to make people belive that condoms are going to protect you. It's bullshit.

SEX is a dirty process, lots of fluids , you cannot protect yourself 100%

ANd i dont' what you guys twisting my words, And dont' put words in my mouth. You either agree or disagree, dont' repeat my own words back to me i know what i said. Say sumting new.

Circumcision is NOT the answer, it's another man made problem. Mother nature gave us foreskin for MORE reasons then we can know.

 

[luminum]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

It's risk reduction, but it seems pretty redundant to me if youw ant people to have safe sex, since circumcised men still have a high infectionr ate. You might as well cut out the middleman (no pun intended) and invest in education and condoms.

 

[Crashdown]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

Is this a joke?

No.

(It IS a conspiracy!!!)

 

[luminum]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

Not true! You didn't read the study. Circumcised men have a much lower rate.

In that study. Other studies have shown insignificant differences in contraction amoung uncircumcized and circumcized men.

Be regardless of whether or not contraction is significantly lower, consider the fact that having unprotected sex amounts to a higher risk than what circumcision can prevent, it doesn't add up. You're decreasing the amount, but in a larger scope, not by enough. Women will still continue toc ontract HIV from the men they sleep with and men will still catch HIV, albeit possibly at a lower rate, meaning that instead of 1 partner, it may take 3 and every single person after that gets it.

The religious right will have a cow if we give them condoms? The religious right already has a cow over the fact that they're having sex out of wedlock! Why are we afraid to use the most effective solution because a bunch of paranoid Christians are raising a stink in the US?

You want a solution that's cheap and affordable? Invest in condoms and programs to teach people how to use them and why they should use them.

The sheer mechanics of having to pay for every man in Africa and other hot HIV locations to go under the knife and follow up after is astounding. The cost is high, and for what? A solution that doesn't protect people, just makes it, in my opinion, insignificantly less easy to catch when paired with unsafe sexual practices and a lack of understanding of sexual health?

Bullshit.

This study is not the end all be all of this topic. It's been done. Over and over again, and some say it's effective, others say it isn't. But ifconservative religious folk are going to bitch about having to pay for some of the cheapest solutions out there because "they shouldn't be having promiscuous sex", how long until they refuse to pay for the more expensive circumcision procedures under the same argument that they shouldn't be having promiscuous sex in the first place?

Condoms and teaching programs are cheaper and 100% more effective when used than cutting away mucosal membrane will ever be.

Facing the political reality is that religious conservatives will go nuts any time they have to compromise any of their so-called morals and that nothing short of enforced abstinence will be tolerated so long as they have a hand in the bill.

The true reality is that the religious right must be disregarded since they will accept no solution beyond abstinence. The 'problem' of promiscuity is their true issue, not condoms. Once they discover that circumcision is "promoting ideologies of safety during promiscuous sex", they'll rally to pull the plug on that, and politicians who continue to listen to them will wittle away solutions until someone says "Say, maybe teaching abstinence only isn't a bad idea..." And where will those people be, then?

For religious conservatives, this is all or nothing. For them, there is no such thing as moralistic risk reduction. You're either sinning or you're not sinning.

So let's face the real reality here that they have no business in the realm of public health or the realm of reality itself. We have real solutions, solutions that can save lives, and most importantly, solutions that are not meant to cater to the idealogues of religious conservatism. These solutions deal with the reality of the world and human behavior and are, above all, a choice if someone in need of them still does not agree with them.

Favoring circumcision over condom programs because it's less offensive to religious conservatives who will never be satisfied with compromise is a fool's act that will get those people in need no where.

 

[slackerj]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

Ummm.. guys/ppl... cool down a little...
the HIV & Circumcision relation works in such a way that....

- cut= a little more hygiene
-HIV is a virus that cannot survive long without a medium (a virus with limited way of infecting others)
- therefore the conclusion that it lower the risk of cut guys a little as compared to uncut guys....
-the foreskin actually create an environment that is more ideal for the virus to infect a new body....
- therefore there is a higher chance.....


Conclusion?
always use condom and stay faithful to your partner
(still do not understand why there guys who use condom for fucking and then eat the cum after a blowjob? doesn't this defeat the purpose of wearing a condom and fuck in the first place?) anyone can enlighten me???

 

[fuzzy64]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

yes there IS such thing as safe sex--------

1.-- DONT HAVE IT-----thats ONE sure way to protect yourself isn't it

2.--MUTUAL MASTURBATION--- sit next to a partner and jack off together

4.--have a hot massage session that leads to jacking off


Sex doesnt have to end with fucking or sucking---its not a requirement for gay sex-



yes there are ways of protecting yourself and being safe AND still have fun, so many people are so relaxed on their views of sex, AIDS and HIV are still very much around in the community, and EVERYBODY needs to realize that....

there are still so many people out there, that cant settle for one person in their life, they have to pick up this guy, that guy, this guy etc... and on top of it, we have so many young people playing unsafe--like they are saying- "no its not going to happen to me"--sorry guys it can, and it is happening to guys 20 and 21 and thats too young...

Gay men had their time for rampant sexual behavior, that was back in the 70's and it was rampant sexual behavior, it was what defined us at the time, being gay was all about sexuality and exploring it, it was as predominant as the gay issues of the times, but the sexual freedom ended in the late 70's early 80's when AIDS arrived on the scene.. it impacted our community like nothing before- bars closed down, bath houses closed down, gay areas and neighborhoods thinned out because people were either dying or just changing their ways and moving to other areas to live their lives..

all through the 80's when I was trying to cope with my being gay, everybody was so scared of dying, that they were afraid to even love someone because of AIDS-- I spent most of that time, my "coming out" time with friends, always wanting someone but not getting sexual with them--and what was worse, was the number of AIDS cases was steadily rising and rising, not leaving too many options for sex, I was scared to death of sex because of it!

time warp to present day--- its like hey since they havent mentioned AIDS ON TV it cant be around that much...all you have to do is go to any "hook up" site, and its see how many ad's are from people that want to "bareback" "swallow" or be a "cum dump" and even be the subject of a "gangbang" with complete strangers..... NOT TO MENTION the guys that already ARE infected with HIV or AIDS and are looking for the same thing..

its up to EACH AND EVERY person to be responsible for his own actions! BE Responsible!

 

[luminum]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

Ummm.. guys/ppl... cool down a little...
the HIV & Circumcision relation works in such a way that....

- cut= a little more hygiene
-HIV is a virus that cannot survive long without a medium (a virus with limited way of infecting others)
- therefore the conclusion that it lower the risk of cut guys a little as compared to uncut guys....
-the foreskin actually create an environment that is more ideal for the virus to infect a new body....
- therefore there is a higher chance.

That's understood, but in testing the efficacy of the foreskin as a medium for HIV, studies have also shownt hat the viral infection rate is insignificantly different.

But regardless of whether or not, it is, since I'm inclined to believe that any increased risk is increased risk, the reduction in risk by circumcision, the net risk reduction to me does not detract from the risk of unprotected circumcised sexual intercourse enought hat I would ever consider the massive procedure worthwhile compared to educational programs and condom distribution.

As well, we aren't talking about a situation with say, gay men, or situations where you can just say "use a condom, stay faithful to yoru partner" which is all very Western since it dealw ith people who exist in societies that care more about monogamous relationships.

The studies are being done because they want to see how effective they would be in Africa, probably Sub-Saharan, where the larger population has higher rates of promiscuity and rape as well as higher numbers of children born with HIV and numbers of uninformed individuals who do not know about how to protect themselves and less-so, some religious beliefs in areas that claim that say, sex with a virgin girl willc ure you of anything, including HIV/AIDS.

Definitely, a circumcision program would be entirely unnecessary in the West, where people are generally more informed about STDs and have very little excuse not to use condoms.

But it still seems rediculous to me to implament an expensive (no matter who picks up the tab) program to circumcise all the men in Africa (literally) for a small pay off that still doesn't protect againt HIV in an incredibly significant way, when education and cheap, affordable, distributable, and significantly effective condoms are available and practical.

 

[sebastian-k]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

The only real weapon against HIV and AIDS is knowledge, and thus protected sex (i think it's an error call it safe sex since it isn't 100% safe at all)

Unfortunately for many social groups, and comunities everything related with sex and sexuality is still a taboo topic, that's the weak point.

 

[luminum]

Re: Circumcision/ Uncut & Std's/hiv/aids Battle

Absolutely correct. Every word.

Luminum, entire villages are being wiped out. Desperate times calls for desperate measures.

And the 'desperate' measure here is not circumcising men, it's introducing and educating about condoms. "Desperate times" is just as much a reason to implement such 'shocking' programs such as condom programs.

If your argument is that we need to do whatever it takes, then there is no reason to regard conservative religious opinions on condoms. Circumcision is less effective and more costly. It's only benefit is that conservatives won't gasp as hard when they hear 'circumcision' than they will when they hear 'condom'.

Condom education and distribution is cheaper, condoms themselves are nearly 100% effective. Their only negative is that a minority of politicians wag their fingers at what condoms are used for and what 'condom education' can imply versus their own moral beliefs.

Villages are being wiped out. So is the solution being afraid of conservatives and going with the plan that costs more money and protects less? Or is the solution to disregard petty ethical concerns and go witht he plan that is considerably more affordable and protects considerably more?

Time is ticking.

 

[Danugh]

Re: Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread

They didnt say how it reduced the risk. Anyone know?

 

[Soilwork]

Re: Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread

Typical straight mentality.

"Don't bother with condoms which will GREATLY reduce your chances of catching HIV, just get circumcized and reduce your risk to third-world levels."

Fucking breeders.



(I just like dicks (although yea.. maybe prefer uncut ones a bit more).

But it's got little to do with what anyone likes.)

 

[LarsVenice]

Re: Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread

Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin from the penis, has long been suspected of reducing men's susceptibility to HIV infection because the skin cells in the foreskin are especially vulnerable to the virus.

It won't make any difference if they are using condoms - this will have an effect only for those who are not using condoms, and may give them a sense that they are less vulnerable.

Get them to use condoms instead - circumcision is butchery.