Circumcision of Minors is a Felony and Should be Stopped!

[Intelligent]

Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification that
damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences. It thus should be entirely
prohibited on minors who have no capability of consenting for the rest
of their lives to a forever life altering act. Would you find it okay
for a parent to mutilate their child in other ways? How about cutting a
child's ears, or nose or fingers off, or binding a child's feet to keep
them small, or splitting their tongue? How about cutting a child's
penis off entirely? Certainly all such practices damage the integrity
of the human body, and impair its function for its entire life. You
would not find it okay to impose circumcision on an adult male, would
you? Would you find it okay to cut an adult male's fingers or penis
off? Then how can you find it okay to impose circumcision on a baby, a
child, or a teenager who will grow into an adult male?

Given that circumcision is irreversible body modification, it should not
be performed on minors, except for true medical reasons just as any
other medically necessary operation.

Non medically necessary circumcision on minors should be prosecuted as
mayhem. As larceny of body it is the most serious of crimes in the world.

I say this as someone who was circumcised, and disagrees with the
practice on minors! Leave the decision of circumcision as a personal
decision to adults!

Also, people should have to wait at least 1 week and come back before
getting a tattoo, and certainly any more extensive body modification
including circumcision.

[Uckister777]

Circumcision of Minors is a Felony

"Circumcision of minors is a felony" ??? Like so many of the foreskin lovers, you are are hysterical. I don't know of any country where it's a felony. Some countries like Sweden impose age limits or require specially qualified practitioners but I don't think it's a crime anywhere. How could it be, when circumcision is and has always been the most common surgery in the world? People have always had a deep dislike for foreskins and have gone to great lengths to get rid of them -- even in times when lack of anesthetics and antibiotics made the surgery painful and dangerous for everybody.

Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences.

Hmmm.... you should take that up with Ron Low aka TLC Tugger. He makes pots of money selling devices that he claims will restore the foreskin. He visits here regularly and might want to debate this with you. Ask him. We would all find such a debate most entertaining, I'm sure.

Would you find it okay
for a parent to mutilate their child in other ways? How about cutting a
child's ears, or nose or fingers off, or binding a child's feet to keep
them small, or splitting their tongue? How about cutting a child's
penis off entirely?

Of course nobody would find it OK. There's no reason to cut off other body parts. The whole point about circumcision is that it removes an unsightly, smelly, disease prone relic from our primate past and greatly improves the appearance, hygiene, health, and function of the penis. THAT is why hundreds of millions get cut off every year, but noses ears remain intact... DUH.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Circumcision of Minors is a Felony

"Circumcision of minors is a felony" ??? Like so many of the foreskin lovers, you are are hysterical. I don't know of any country where it's a felony.

I imagine circumcising an adult against his will is a felony some places.

Some countries like Sweden impose age limits or require specially qualified practitioners but I don't think it's a crime anywhere. How could it be, when circumcision is and has always been the most common surgery in the world? People have always had a deep dislike for foreskins and have gone to great lengths to get rid of them -- even in times when lack of anesthetics and antibiotics made the surgery painful and dangerous for everybody.

Post by Uckister777

Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences.

Hmmm.... you should take that up with Ron Low aka TLC Tugger. He makes pots of money selling devices that he claims will restore the foreskin. He visits here regularly and might want to debate this with you. Ask him. We would all find such a debate most entertaining, I'm sure.

Would you find it okay
for a parent to mutilate their child in other ways? How about cutting a
child's ears, or nose or fingers off, or binding a child's feet to keep
them small, or splitting their tongue? How about cutting a child's
penis off entirely?

Of course nobody would find it OK. There's no reason to cut off other body parts. The whole point about circumcision is that it removes an unsightly, smelly,

Your main arguments are aesthetic.

Post by Uckister777
disease prone relic from our primate past

Certainly we are still primates.

Post by Uckister777
and greatly improves the appearance, hygiene, health, and function of the penis. THAT is why hundreds of millions get cut off every year, but noses ears remain intact... DUH.

[unknown]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777

Circumcision of Minors is a Felony

"Circumcision of minors is a felony" ??? Like so many of the
foreskin lovers, you are are hysterical. I don't know of any
country where it's a felony.

I imagine circumcising an adult against his will is a felony some places.
Some countries like Sweden impose age limits or require specially
qualified practitioners but I don't think it's a crime anywhere. How
could it be, when circumcision is and has always been the most
common surgery in the world? People have always had a deep dislike
for foreskins and have gone to great lengths to get rid of them --
even in times when lack of anesthetics and antibiotics made the
surgery painful and dangerous for everybody.

The legality of circumcising boys for non-theraputic reasons
(i.e. other than to treat an immediate problem) is questionable in
Tasmania, where parents can only consent on thier child's behalf if
medical consensus is in favour of the procedure. The Tasmanian Law
Reform Commission thinks it is probably unlawful.

However, the matter has never been decided in court, becuase the
illegality is not sufficiently obvious for the DPP to prosecte and
there's no-one with standing to sue (except the boy, who firt has to
grow up). It is also relatively rare on Tasmania, since those who want
it done to their sons generally go to the mainland where the legality
is clearer.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777

Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences.

Hmmm.... you should take that up with Ron Low aka TLC Tugger. He
makes pots of money selling devices that he claims will restore the
foreskin. He visits here regularly and might want to debate this
with you. Ask him. We would all find such a debate most
entertaining, I'm sure.

I've never talked to him, but I've never heard someone claiming that
stretching can completely reverse the effects of circumcision (only
mitigate some of them) other than those suggesting that its existence
makes circumcision morally fine becuase if the boy dislikes it he can
undo it.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by unknown

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777

Circumcision of Minors is a Felony

"Circumcision of minors is a felony" ??? Like so many of the
foreskin lovers, you are are hysterical. I don't know of any
country where it's a felony.

I imagine circumcising an adult against his will is a felony some places.
Some countries like Sweden impose age limits or require specially
qualified practitioners but I don't think it's a crime anywhere. How
could it be, when circumcision is and has always been the most
common surgery in the world? People have always had a deep dislike
for foreskins and have gone to great lengths to get rid of them --
even in times when lack of anesthetics and antibiotics made the
surgery painful and dangerous for everybody.

The legality of circumcising boys for non-theraputic reasons
(i.e. other than to treat an immediate problem) is questionable in
Tasmania, where parents can only consent on thier child's behalf if
medical consensus is in favour of the procedure. The Tasmanian Law
Reform Commission thinks it is probably unlawful.
However, the matter has never been decided in court, becuase the
illegality is not sufficiently obvious for the DPP to prosecte and
there's no-one with standing to sue (except the boy, who firt has to
grow up).

There's no one with standing to sue - which is why cutting the genitals of healthy children, male and female, must be approached as a criminal, not only a civil matter.

Post by unknown
It is also relatively rare on Tasmania, since those who want
it done to their sons generally go to the mainland where the legality
is clearer.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777

Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences.

Hmmm.... you should take that up with Ron Low aka TLC Tugger. He
makes pots of money selling devices that he claims will restore the
foreskin. He visits here regularly and might want to debate this
with you. Ask him. We would all find such a debate most
entertaining, I'm sure.

I've never talked to him, but I've never heard someone claiming that
stretching can completely reverse the effects of circumcision

Some tissue types are forever lost. There is no reversibility possible.

Post by unknown
(only
mitigate some of them) other than those suggesting that its existence
makes circumcision morally fine becuase if the boy dislikes it he can
undo it.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
cutting the genitals of healthy children, male and female, must be approached as a criminal, not only a civil matter.

O really? Are you going to put the parents in jail? How long do you think they should serve for this crime? Please give us a suggestion -- six months, a year, five years? Do you think the entire population of muslim parents in the world should be prosecuted? How about the doctors, how long should they get? Ten years? Life without parole?

Circumcision has no PROVEN adverse effects and many PROVEN beneficial effects. It should be a private matter up to the parents and their medical advisors, what to do in the best interests of the child.

You are just a fascist. Mind your own business and keep your authoritarian hands out of our affairs.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
cutting the genitals of healthy children, male and female, must be approached as a criminal, not only a civil matter.

O really? Are you going to put the parents in jail? How long do you think they should serve for this crime? Please give us a suggestion -- six months, a year, five years? Do you think the entire population of muslim parents in the world should be prosecuted? How about the doctors, how long should they get? Ten years? Life without parole?
Circumcision has no PROVEN adverse effects and many PROVEN beneficial effects. It should be a private matter up to the parents and their medical advisors, what to do in the best interests of the child.
You are just a fascist. Mind your own business and keep your authoritarian hands out of our affairs.

I don't know if Jack is a fascist or a communist but he has disturbing totalitarian attitude. He wants to criminalize the most common surgery on earth which involves nearly 40 percent of the parents and all believers of the 2nd biggest religion! Not because those people are complaining. They are quite happy because they keep doing it. He just wants the world to conform to his notions.

I bet he is a Trump supporter, easy to fool with half-baked ideas.
If they aren't half-baked then Jack why don't you answer previous poster's question about what punishment you think this "crime" should get?

[t***@gmail.com]

.....

Too little is known about male sexuality. Doctors who cut any normal healthy sexual body parts of children should have their licenses revoked and be charged with battery. This is already the case when the victim is female.

You ARE a fascist. Billions of parents want this surgery done but you want to throw the practicioners in jail just because you dont like the idea. Unbelievable.

[j***@gmail.com]

.....

Too little is known about male sexuality. Doctors who cut any normal healthy sexual body parts of children should have their licenses revoked and be charged with battery. This is already the case when the victim is female.

You ARE a fascist. Billions of parents want this surgery done but you want to throw the practicioners in jail just because you dont like the idea. Unbelievable.
..................

If the parents were doing it to themselves, you'd have a point.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by t***@gmail.com
.....

Too little is known about male sexuality. Doctors who cut any normal healthy sexual body parts of children should have their licenses revoked and be charged with battery. This is already the case when the victim is female.

You ARE a fascist. Billions of parents want this surgery done but you want to throw the practicioners in jail just because you dont like the idea. Unbelievable.
..................
If the parents were doing it to themselves, you'd have a point.

The parents are following a procedure legal in every country in the world and advocated by World Health Organisation. It is a procedure with no proved drawbacks and many proved benefits. It's not your business to get between billions of parents and their practitioners because of your prejudices. I suppose you also want to jail doctors who give vaccinations too because you you have unfounded ideas they cause autism? As often commented circumcision is the most common operation in history and today too and that's for good reason or so many peoples wouldnt do it. Mind your own business.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
cutting the genitals of healthy children, male and female, must be approached as a criminal, not only a civil matter.

O really? Are you going to put the parents in jail? How long do you think they should serve for this crime? Please give us a suggestion -- six months, a year, five years? Do you think the entire population of muslim parents in the world should be prosecuted? How about the doctors, how long should they get? Ten years? Life without parole?
Circumcision has no PROVEN adverse effects and many PROVEN beneficial effects. It should be a private matter up to the parents and their medical advisors, what to do in the best interests of the child.
You are just a fascist. Mind your own business and keep your authoritarian hands out of our affairs.

People used to say that circumcision cured bedwetting and epilepsy. Unmitigated bollocks.
Aside from that, it's illegal in developed countries to mutilate a woman's genitals, whether or not it's the parents who do it. Why should the same not be true of male genital mutilation?

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
People used to say that circumcision cured bedwetting and epilepsy. Unmitigated bollocks.

That's your argument against circumcision, that some unidentified "people" some time in the past talked nonsense about it? I think you are running out of ammo!

Post by m***@gmail.com
Aside from that, it's illegal in developed countries to mutilate a woman's genitals, whether or not it's the parents who do it. Why should the same not be true of male genital mutilation?

Because it is widely accepted that male circumcision is a desirable procedure which improves the appearance and function of the penis.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
People used to say that circumcision cured bedwetting and epilepsy. Unmitigated bollocks.

That's your argument against circumcision, that some unidentified "people" some time in the past talked nonsense about it? I think you are running out of ammo!

I've already responded to this.

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
Aside from that, it's illegal in developed countries to mutilate a woman's genitals, whether or not it's the parents who do it. Why should the same not be true of male genital mutilation?

Because it is widely accepted that male circumcision is a desirable procedure which improves the appearance and function of the penis.

Oh, OK, so mass misinformation and general ignorance mean that something's right. -_- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding This was also widely accepted.
As for improving function, why do circumcised men often need lube to masturbate? A man-made thing is needed to perform a natural act, and you say the function has been improved.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
People used to say that circumcision cured bedwetting and epilepsy. Unmitigated bollocks.

That's your argument against circumcision, that some unidentified "people" some time in the past talked nonsense about it? I think you are running out of ammo!

I've already responded to this.

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
Aside from that, it's illegal in developed countries to mutilate a woman's genitals, whether or not it's the parents who do it. Why should the same not be true of male genital mutilation?

Because it is widely accepted that male circumcision is a desirable procedure which improves the appearance and function of the penis.

Oh, OK, so mass misinformation and general ignorance mean that something's right. -_- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding This was also widely accepted.
As for improving function, why do circumcised men often need lube to masturbate? A man-made thing is needed to perform a natural act, and you say the function has been improved.

In addition,
Myth 16: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

FACT: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O’Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse – the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O’Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

(Heteronormative, but whatever)

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com
In addition,
Myth 16: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.
FACT: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O’Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse – the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O’Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

A load of crap that you copied and pasted directly from one of those crackpot anti-circ sites!

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
In addition,
Myth 16: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.
FACT: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O’Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse – the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O’Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

A load of crap that you copied and pasted directly from one of those crackpot anti-circ sites!

Says the guy who posted crap from circumcision-fetish sites.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
A load of crap that you copied and pasted directly from one of those crackpot anti-circ sites!

Says the guy who posted crap from circumcision-fetish sites.

Mate, I haven't pasted anything from any site. You're so busy copy and pasting you don't know if you're coming or going!

Anyway if you just post chunks of junk from those crackpot anti-circ sites you're gong to be shown up as a fool because they are stuffed with crap that doesn't hold up against the facts. Like when you posted that all the research on STDS and uncircumcised cocks was thoroughly debunked!! Come on use your brain and check some facts first!

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
FACT: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O’Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse – the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O’Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

No from the female view it is boring with uncircumcised men (most of them) because their penis just goes back and fore inside their foreskin. Sometimes there is no contact with glans with vagina. A circumcised man feels nice with the thrusts inside which excite a woman.

To suck uncircumcised is disgusting because (most of them) smell bad so you do not want to be close. Uncircumcised has wrinkled foreskin that covers the penis so it is hard to suck the glans and penis below it, the foreskin rolls into the way or makes a neck like a turtle on the penis. Circumcised men enjoy sucking more.

[Pat Lastingham]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Myth 16: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.
FACT: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O’Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse – the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O’Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

These are nonsense studies by anti-circumcision campaigners that, in the case of O'Hara, relied on participants already known to the him or recruited through ads in an anti-circumcision publication; and in the case of Bensley were of unknown origin because she gave no information at all about how they were recruited -- always a red flag!

I note that Michael posts page after page of critiques of studies whose findings he doesn't like, but has no problem posting material that relied on volunteers who were blatantly opposed to circumcision, or about whose background nothing is known except that an anti-circumcision campaigner allegedly gave them a survey form to fill in.

[j***@gmail.com]

Pat Lastingham

Post by m***@gmail.com
Myth 16: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.
FACT: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O’Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse – the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O’Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

These are nonsense studies by anti-circumcision campaigners that, in the case of O'Hara, relied on participants already known to the him or recruited through ads in an anti-circumcision publication; and in the case of Bensley were of unknown origin because she gave no information at all about how they were recruited -- always a red flag!

I note that Michael posts page after page of critiques of studies whose findings he doesn't like, but has no problem posting material that relied on volunteers who were blatantly opposed to circumcision, or about whose background nothing is known except that an anti-circumcision campaigner allegedly gave them a survey form to fill in.
.............

Are you friends of Vernon Quaintance and Jake Waskett?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Circumcision of Minors is a Felony

"Circumcision of minors is a felony" ??? Like so many of the foreskin lovers, you are are hysterical. I don't know of any country where it's a felony. Some countries like Sweden impose age limits or require specially qualified practitioners but I don't think it's a crime anywhere. How could it be, when circumcision is and has always been the most common surgery in the world? People have always had a deep dislike for foreskins and have gone to great lengths to get rid of them -- even in times when lack of anesthetics and antibiotics made the surgery painful and dangerous for everybody.

Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences.

Hmmm.... you should take that up with Ron Low aka TLC Tugger. He makes pots of money selling devices that he claims will restore the foreskin. He visits here regularly and might want to debate this with you. Ask him. We would all find such a debate most entertaining, I'm sure.

Would you find it okay
for a parent to mutilate their child in other ways? How about cutting a
child's ears, or nose or fingers off, or binding a child's feet to keep
them small, or splitting their tongue? How about cutting a child's
penis off entirely?

Of course nobody would find it OK. There's no reason to cut off other body parts. The whole point about circumcision is that it removes an unsightly, smelly, disease prone relic from our primate past and greatly improves the appearance, hygiene, health, and function of the penis. THAT is why hundreds of millions get cut off every year, but noses ears remain intact... DUH.

You're so full of shit. Your argument is based purely on your own preference, and you call 'foreskin lovers' hysterical. You call it unsightly, disease prone and a relic. What part of that's not hysterical?

-Foreskin is no more a relic of our primate past than any other part of us. Your use of the word 'relic' also strongly implies you are completely ignorant of its function.
-Circumcision scars are unsightly. Dried out glanses are unsightly. They're the result of mutilation. An intact penis is a beautiful organ that only an idiot would want to change.
-Disease prone? All studies that show that have been completely debunked, and even if circumcision were to have any effect, it would not be anywhere near as effective as condoms.
-Foreskin is smelly? Well, so are labia. Do you support female genital mutilation? That solves the smell problem.

Circumcision does nothing to improve hygiene or health and it's immensely detrimental to function and appearance. Only circumcised people and women who don't know any different prefer circumcised penis; the rest of us feel sad when we see it because it's a mutilated mess. And honestly; who gives a shit whether people prefer circumcised? Why should people's preferences dictate that a part of someone's body get cut off?
You also completely skip over the fact that involuntary male genital mutilation is genital mutilation.

[Quentin]

Post by m***@gmail.com
-Foreskin is no more a relic of our primate past than any other part of us. Your use of the word 'relic' also strongly implies you are completely ignorant of its function.

The main function of the foreskin was to protect the sensitive glans during our evolutionary past. We wear clothes today and the foreskin is no longer necessary.

Post by m***@gmail.com
-Circumcision scars are unsightly. Dried out glanses are unsightly. They're the result of mutilation. An intact penis is a beautiful organ that only an idiot would want to change.

Properly done, there should be no visible scar. There is no evidence whatever that glanses "dry out" -- this is just an ant-circumcison myth. Anybody who thinks foreskins are beautiful should google foreskin images and review a few hundred pictures of them.

Post by m***@gmail.com
-Disease prone? All studies that show that have been completely debunked, and even if circumcision were to have any effect, it would not be anywhere near as effective as condoms.

All studies completely debunked??? What an incredibly ignorant statement. The contribution of foreskins to almost all STDs is so well documented as to be beyond dispute. Please check this site which contains an extensive list and review of the relevant scientific literature.: http://www.circinfo.net/

Post by m***@gmail.com
-Foreskin is smelly? Well, so are labia. Do you support female genital mutilation? That solves the smell problem.

The issue is not whether labia are also smelly. The issue is that uncircumcised penises have a disgusting smell but circumcised penises do not smell.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Circumcision does nothing to improve hygiene or health and it's immensely detrimental to function and appearance.

Of course it improves hygiene -- uncircumcised penises collect urine traces and various cellular debris and produce smegma; circumcised penises do not. There is no evidence at all that circumcision is detrimental to function (and if it were, you can be sure men wouldn't do it!).

Just out of interest, why do you think that almost 40 percent of the current world population of males is circumcised, if it's such a terrible idea? Why do you think circumcision has always been the most popular surgery in the world, found on all inhabited continents in different societies through thousands of years of history?

[m***@gmail.com]

'The main function of the foreskin was to protect the sensitive glans during our evolutionary past. We wear clothes today and the foreskin is no longer necessary. '

Sorry, wrong. Foreskin is rich in nerve-endings, far more so than clitorises. It also acts as a lubricant during sex. And you seem to completely ignore or be ignorant of the fact that rubbing against clothes desensitises the glans. This is why circumcised glanses look dried out and a far duller colour than natural penises do; they've been keratinised.

'Properly done, there should be no visible scar. There is no evidence whatever that glanses "dry out" -- this is just an ant-circumcison myth. Anybody who thinks foreskins are beautiful should google foreskin images and review a few hundred pictures of them'

I have spent hours enjoying natural penises, both in picture form and live. They feel great, look great and smell great and you can give a guy an orgasm just by playing with his foreskin. Your argument is subjective and holds no water. As is mine that foreskin is beautiful; this just proves that arguments based on aesthetics are invalid.
http://damagefromcircumcision.blogspot.fi/p/keratinization.html Your ignorance is showing.

'The issue is not whether labia are also smelly. The issue is that uncircumcised penises have a disgusting smell but circumcised penises do not smell.'
You've completely missed the point. The same reasoning you're using, that intact penis is 'smelly', can also be used to justify female genital mutilation. Once again, you argument is completely subjective. Penises are supposed to have a smell, just like vagina, just like armpits and any other part of a person's body. We're animals, we have smells. There is nothing wrong with that. My penis is intact, it has a smell but it's definitely not disgusting. Poo is disgusting. Penis is just a normal odour.

'Of course it improves hygiene -- uncircumcised penises collect urine traces and various cellular debris and produce smegma; circumcised penises do not. There is no evidence at all that circumcision is detrimental to function (and if it were, you can be sure men wouldn't do it!).'

Nonsense. Washing takes five seconds. Smegma is not harmful or dirty (unless a guy doesn't wash for weeks); it's beneficial and shows that everything's working fine. Urinary tract infections go up when a child is circumcised because there's nothing protecting the urethral opening from dirty nappies.
Also, the same logic can be applied to labia and therefore justify female genital mutilation. Why do you not support that?

All studies completely debunked??? What an incredibly ignorant statement. The contribution of foreskins to almost all STDs is so well documented as to be beyond dispute. Please check this site which contains an extensive list and review of the relevant scientific literature.: http://www.circinfo.net/

I've read the same information in these time and time again. They're selective and exaggerate problems. For example, urinary tract infections are incredibly uncommon in intact children and are easily treated with antibiotics. This reasoning is like saying we should cut off a baby's ear to prevent ear infections.

'The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.'

Easy solution; condoms and femidoms. also, I've heard that apparently masturbation can cause prostate cancer, too. SO why don't we all just agree that EVERYTHING IS DEADLY?!

'Just out of interest, why do you think that almost 40 percent of the current world population of males is circumcised, if it's such a terrible idea? Why do you think circumcision has always been the most popular surgery in the world, found on all inhabited continents in different societies through thousands of years of history?'

I can't believe you're actually presenting this as a serious argument. The fact lots of people do this does not mean it's good. Why do I think so? Lots of reasons:
- religious tradition; Judaism almost demands it, Islam strongly recommends it, even though there's no logical or rational reasoning behind it. However, the ancient Greeks hated it, and thought a long foreskin was a thing of beauty (I have to agree with them there).
-cultural traditions; people do it because their parents did and their grandparents did it.
- denial; men don't want to admit that the fact they've been circumcised usually means they've been genitally mutilated against their will, and that they might have done it to their own sons. I'm wondering whether this is why you seem so ardent in your defense of male genital mutilation
- medical quackery; people say it cures X or Y or offer it as a cure-all. This is actually the main reason why male genital mutilation has been wide-spread in America. Apparently, circumcision cures everything...

[Quentin]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I have spent hours enjoying natural penises, both in picture form and live. They feel great, look great and smell great

LOL, no wonder you come up with with daft arguments and hokey references copied word for word from anti -circumcision websites: You're a foreskin fetishist who even likes the SMELL of them!

You are entitled to your fetish of course, and I wish you many more happy hours looking at photographs of foreskins or even relishing their odours, nose to penis. However you are not entitled to your own "facts" and it is obvious that you lack any first-hand acquaintance with the scientific literature, or understanding of it.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I have spent hours enjoying natural penises, both in picture form and live. They feel great, look great and smell great

OK you are crazy for foreskins, good for you. Some guys like to look at pics of arse holes and sniff and lick them too. Whatever floats your boat.

Post by m***@gmail.com
and you can give a guy an orgasm just by playing with his foreskin.

Not me you couldn't and not any guy with a foreskin that I know. From the moment I discovered I had one to the time I got it snipped in my early twenties it was just a damn nuisance that I never got the slightest pleasure from. I was working in a bar when I decided to have the op and all the regulars knew about it and there was lots of discussion, that's some private and some groups just sitting around the bar. Foreskin pleasure hardly came up, I think there were two guys who mentioned circumcision might affect that. Several said they wished they were cut as babies but now they were afraid of the pain or the cost or just the change. Most guys didn't care one way or the other actually. I got a lot of encouragement from the girls though and some said they wished their bf was cut but were shy to tell him. Getting circed is the best thing I ever did for my sex life. The sex is MUCH better esp oral sex and the difference in hygiene is like night and day. One thing I noticed right away is how much girls prefer to suck circumcised cock v uncut. There were two girls who never wanted to suck me before the op and afterwards they couldn't keep their mouth off it.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Penises are supposed to have a smell, just like vagina, just like armpits and any other part of a person's body. We're animals, we have smells. There is nothing wrong with that. My penis is intact, it has a smell but it's definitely not disgusting. Poo is disgusting. Penis is just a normal odor.
Hey, why are you knocking the poo lovers? Poo is a normal smell just as much as the smegma you like to sniff. Some guys like to eat poo, they are called copraphiliacs i think. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!!
Washing takes five seconds.

Yes if you enjoy a stinking foreskin which you apparently do. Otherwise its a major operation twice a day at least and even then you have to check it first before you let a girl near it in case she wrinkles her nose and loses interest fast.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Smegma is not harmful or dirty (unless a guy doesn't wash for weeks)

Jesus fucking christ -- you let smegma accumulate that long and you think its not dirty????? You're making me sick. After two days its reeking like something died and rotted in there.

Post by m***@gmail.com
it's beneficial and shows that everything's working fine.

What's the benefit?? Its an nasty embarrassing pong and and it shows bacteria are mucking about in your stale piss and old skins cells and the dead sperm that you leaked. I am glad I don't have your fetish mate.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Urinary tract infections go up when a child is circumcised because there's nothing protecting the urethral opening from dirty nappies.

Bullshit, they are more common in uncut babies and when the piss just balloons in the foreskin because of phimosis the pressure drives bacteria up to the kidneys which is when you have kidney infections and even death if there aren't antibiotics around as in any parts of the world.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, the same logic can be applied to labia and therefore justify female genital mutilation. Why do you not support that?

There's no benefit to female genital mutiltation thats why.

Post by m***@gmail.com
I've read the same information in these time and time again.
'The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.'

Yes that's a good summary. Fine argument for circumcision. Thanks.

[m***@gmail.com]

Your complete failure to take in anything I've said, your getting close to ad hominems, possibly willfully misinterpreting my points strongly suggests that my deduction of you being unwilling to admit you're a victim of societal promotion of male genital mutilation is correct. You even use the argument that women like it to support yourself; who cares what women think? It's not their penis.

Anyway, you clearly don't want to have your opinions challenged, so this will be my last response to you. trying to educate you is an obvious waste of my time. Your apparent self-hatred is depressing.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
I have spent hours enjoying natural penises, both in picture form and live. They feel great, look great and smell great

OK you are crazy for foreskins, good for you. Some guys like to look at pics of arse holes and sniff and lick them too. Whatever floats your boat.

Crazy for intact penis, yes. And what? Why would I or anybody prefer one that's mutilated? I also like rimming, don't knock it until you've tried it.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
and you can give a guy an orgasm just by playing with his foreskin.

Not me you couldn't

Nobody's talking about you.

There were two girls who never wanted to suck me before the op and afterwards they couldn't keep their mouth off it.

Who cares what women think? It's not their penis. And again I'd like to use your same logic; if men prefer mutilated vagina, should vagina be mutilated to accommodate that?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
Penises are supposed to have a smell, just like vagina, just like armpits and any other part of a person's body. We're animals, we have smells. There is nothing wrong with that. My penis is intact, it has a smell but it's definitely not disgusting. Poo is disgusting. Penis is just a normal odor.
Hey, why are you knocking the poo lovers? Poo is a normal smell just as much as the smegma you like to sniff.

False equivalence and a misrepresentation of my argument.

Some guys like to eat poo, they are called copraphiliacs i think. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!!

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
Washing takes five seconds.

Yes if you enjoy a stinking foreskin which you apparently do. Otherwise its a major operation twice a day at least and even then you have to check it first before you let a girl near it in case she wrinkles her nose and loses interest fast.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Smegma is not harmful or dirty (unless a guy doesn't wash for weeks)

Jesus fucking christ -- you let smegma accumulate that long and you think its not dirty????? You're making me sick. After two days its reeking like something died and rotted in there.

I'm not even going to bother with this.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
it's beneficial and shows that everything's working fine.

What's the benefit?? Its an nasty embarrassing pong and and it shows bacteria are mucking about in your stale piss and old skins cells and the dead sperm that you leaked. I am glad I don't have your fetish mate.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Urinary tract infections go up when a child is circumcised because there's nothing protecting the urethral opening from dirty nappies.

Bullshit, they are more common in uncut babies and when the piss just balloons in the foreskin because of phimosis the pressure drives bacteria up to the kidneys which is when you have kidney infections and even death if there aren't antibiotics around as in any parts of the world.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, the same logic can be applied to labia and therefore justify female genital mutilation. Why do you not support that?

There's no benefit to female genital mutiltation thats why.

Looks better, smells better, feels better. Also works better.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
I've read the same information in these time and time again.
'The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.'

Yes that's a good summary. Fine argument for circumcision. Thanks.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Your complete failure to take in anything I've said, your getting close to ad hominems, possibly willfully misinterpreting my points strongly suggests that my deduction of you being unwilling to admit you're a victim of societal promotion of male genital mutilation is correct.

Nope. I decided myself to get circed in my early twenties and I just love the results! I never saw the point of a foreskin, totally useless and a damn nuisance to maintain. The main reason I got rid of it is that women prefer cut. I suppose I qualify as as sex addict because I like sex with several different women every week. in fact when I was a bartender I sometimes had some quickies in the basement and then took a customer home every night. I found out soon enough that women don't like uncut and especially don't want to suck them. I spent a year researching it and asking women about it to be 100 percent sure and went ahead and did and the results are fantastic. The sex is MUCH better and the diff in hygiene is like night and day. It looks better, doesn't produce smelly dick cheese and women love to suck it.

Post by m***@gmail.com
You even use the argument that women like it to support yourself; who cares what women think? It's not their penis.

Look mate, you say you like to sniff filthy foreskins and stick your tongue in mens arse holes. Well good for you, I couldn't care less. I hope you enjoy your feasts. So how about you live and let live a bit and don't be so fucking arrogant about what other people do or what they like?

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
and you can give a guy an orgasm just by playing with his foreskin.

Not me you couldn't

Nobody's talking about you.

It's all about YOU isn't it? We can talk all day about what YOU like including licking mens arse holes and slurping their smegma but what other people like isn't worth talking about. You sound like a real prick.

Post by m***@gmail.com
There were two girls who never wanted to suck me before the op and afterwards they couldn't keep their mouth off it.
Who cares what women think?

There you go again. It's all about you and your fetish. You don't care what half the population of the world thinks. You really are a prick.

[j***@gmail.com]

The main function of the foreskin was to protect the sensitive glans during our evolutionary past. We wear clothes today and the foreskin is no longer necessary. '

Sorry, wrong. Foreskin is rich in nerve-endings, far more so than clitorises.
. .. ........ . .........

By whom has this been determined?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
The main function of the foreskin was to protect the sensitive glans during our evolutionary past. We wear clothes today and the foreskin is no longer necessary. '
Sorry, wrong. Foreskin is rich in nerve-endings, far more so than clitorises.
. .. ........ . .........
By whom has this been determined?

I should have written 'maybe far more so'. The number of nerve-endings in foreskin is hard to measure and the results vary widely. That said, it's still hella sensitive.

http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm
http://www.circinfo.org/Warren.html

[j***@gmail.com]

***@gmail.com
- show quoted text -
I should have written 'maybe far more so'. The number of nerve-endings in foreskin is hard to measure and the results vary widely. That said, it's still hella sensitive
.. . .. .. .. ......

In researching circumcision, you've got to read/critique the studies yourself. If you rely on others' interpretations--especially the authors'--you'll be led astray.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I've read the same information in these time and time again. They're selective and exaggerate problems.
'The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.'
Easy solution; condoms and femidoms.

You just proved you're an idiot.

How can condoms and femidoms give an "easy solution" to the problems you just listed that aren't sexually transmitted like penile cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis etc. ????

Can you tell us how wearing a condom will stop a kid having phimosis or a man getting penile cancer?
If you can I'll apologise for calling you an idiot. If you can't you get to be the DUNCE of alt.circumcision.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
If you can I'll apologise for calling you an idiot.

.. .. . . . . . .

lol

[Uckister777]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
I've read the same information in these time and time again. They're selective and exaggerate problems.
'The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.'
Easy solution; condoms and femidoms.

You just proved you're an idiot.
How can condoms and femidoms give an "easy solution" to the problems you just listed that aren't sexually transmitted like penile cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis etc. ????

He's proved hes an idiot but not only by claiming condoms are an "easy solution" to diseases that are not sexually transmitted. If condoms were such an "easy solution" even to the sexually transmitted ones like HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc, there wouldn't be epidemics of them! Even fools know its hard to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, and that most people in the world can't afford them. "Easy solution" indeed.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777
He's proved hes an idiot but not only by claiming condoms are an "easy solution" to diseases that are not sexually transmitted. If condoms were such an "easy solution" even to the sexually transmitted ones like HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc, there wouldn't be epidemics of them! Even fools know its hard to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, and that most people in the world can't afford them. "Easy solution" indeed.

Use your brain and notice an accidental slip up when you see one, instead of making something out of nothing. I can't be bothered to read everything that guy writes, because he writes bullplop.
You're also showing that you're not really thinking properly; sex education needs to be mandatory in all schools and it needs to highlight safer sex, both between men and women and same-sex intercourse. None of this abstinence bollocks the colonials love so much. In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics and people need to stop spreading the myth that circumcised men are immune to STIs and STDs.

If you're going to join in, please think first.

On the subject of phimosis, surgery really should be the last resort. Studies have shown that almost all men with phimosis can solve the problem with steroid cream and a bit of stretching and retracting practice every day. After three months, almost all men could retract their foreskin fully.

[Uckister777]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777
He's proved hes an idiot but not only by claiming condoms are an "easy solution" to diseases that are not sexually transmitted. If condoms were such an "easy solution" even to the sexually transmitted ones like HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc, there wouldn't be epidemics of them! Even fools know its hard to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, and that most people in the world can't afford them. "Easy solution" indeed.

Use your brain and notice an accidental slip up when you see one, instead of making something out of nothing. I can't be bothered to read everything that guy writes, because he writes bullplop.
You're also showing that you're not really thinking properly; sex education needs to be mandatory in all schools and it needs to highlight safer sex, both between men and women and same-sex intercourse. None of this abstinence bollocks the colonials love so much. In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics and people need to stop spreading the myth that circumcised men are immune to STIs and STDs.
If you're going to join in, please think first.

Huh? You really think that mandatory sex education in schools will result in people using condoms? Do you think mandatory drug education will result in people not using drugs? Do you think that mandatory warnings about the dangers of tobacco will stop people using tobacco? Do you think that mandatory driving school will stop people speeding?

I have news for you. Just because you teach somebody something doesn't mean they learn it. Or, if they learn it, that they accept it. Or, if they accept it, that they remember it. Or, if they remember it, that they pay it any attention when confronted with temptation. There can be hardly a single person in the western world who doesn't know that condoms can prevent transmission of STDs... but there hundreds of millions of cases every year.

And what about that 80 percent of the human population that lives on less than $10 a day? How much of their budget do you think they will spend on condoms?

Condoms are not, as you claim, "an easy solution" they are a partial solution fraught with multiple problems. As I said, if they were an easy solution there would be no STD epidemics.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777
He's proved hes an idiot but not only by claiming condoms are an "easy solution" to diseases that are not sexually transmitted. If condoms were such an "easy solution" even to the sexually transmitted ones like HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc, there wouldn't be epidemics of them! Even fools know its hard to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, and that most people in the world can't afford them. "Easy solution" indeed.

Use your brain and notice an accidental slip up when you see one, instead of making something out of nothing. I can't be bothered to read everything that guy writes, because he writes bullplop.
You're also showing that you're not really thinking properly; sex education needs to be mandatory in all schools and it needs to highlight safer sex, both between men and women and same-sex intercourse. None of this abstinence bollocks the colonials love so much. In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics and people need to stop spreading the myth that circumcised men are immune to STIs and STDs.
If you're going to join in, please think first.

Huh? You really think that mandatory sex education in schools will result in people using condoms? Do you think mandatory drug education will result in people not using drugs? Do you think that mandatory warnings about the dangers of tobacco will stop people using tobacco? Do you think that mandatory driving school will stop people speeding?
I have news for you. Just because you teach somebody something doesn't mean they learn it. Or, if they learn it, that they accept it. Or, if they accept it, that they remember it. Or, if they remember it, that they pay it any attention when confronted with temptation. There can be hardly a single person in the western world who doesn't know that condoms can prevent transmission of STDs... but there hundreds of millions of cases every year.
And what about that 80 percent of the human population that lives on less than $10 a day? How much of their budget do you think they will spend on condoms?
Condoms are not, as you claim, "an easy solution" they are a partial solution fraught with multiple problems. As I said, if they were an easy solution there would be no STD epidemics.

'In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics'

I've already covered your argument. 'Invest money' equals, among other things, have them available free in bars, doctors surgeries and sexual health clinics. They can be paid for with taxes and charitable donations. Do I really need to spell out obvious courses of action like this? It's already standard practise in LGBT-orientated services, it's easy to apply it to societies at large. Fundamentalist Christians in America already send billions of dollars to African countries to support anti-gay bills and propaganda, so don't tell me it can't be done.

The fact that you're trying to make the 'condoms don't help' on a thread about circumcision implies you think mass circumcision will help. It really really will not. It doesn't help with HIV, it won't help with other things. I've already talked about this at length in the Zika virus thread (people really are desperate to find some justification for cutting up dicks), I can't be arsed to repeat myself.

[Uckister777]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777
He's proved hes an idiot but not only by claiming condoms are an "easy solution" to diseases that are not sexually transmitted. If condoms were such an "easy solution" even to the sexually transmitted ones like HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc, there wouldn't be epidemics of them! Even fools know its hard to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, and that most people in the world can't afford them. "Easy solution" indeed.

Use your brain and notice an accidental slip up when you see one, instead of making something out of nothing. I can't be bothered to read everything that guy writes, because he writes bullplop.
You're also showing that you're not really thinking properly; sex education needs to be mandatory in all schools and it needs to highlight safer sex, both between men and women and same-sex intercourse. None of this abstinence bollocks the colonials love so much. In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics and people need to stop spreading the myth that circumcised men are immune to STIs and STDs.
If you're going to join in, please think first.

Huh? You really think that mandatory sex education in schools will result in people using condoms? Do you think mandatory drug education will result in people not using drugs? Do you think that mandatory warnings about the dangers of tobacco will stop people using tobacco? Do you think that mandatory driving school will stop people speeding?
I have news for you. Just because you teach somebody something doesn't mean they learn it. Or, if they learn it, that they accept it. Or, if they accept it, that they remember it. Or, if they remember it, that they pay it any attention when confronted with temptation. There can be hardly a single person in the western world who doesn't know that condoms can prevent transmission of STDs... but there hundreds of millions of cases every year.
And what about that 80 percent of the human population that lives on less than $10 a day? How much of their budget do you think they will spend on condoms?
Condoms are not, as you claim, "an easy solution" they are a partial solution fraught with multiple problems. As I said, if they were an easy solution there would be no STD epidemics.

'In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics'
I've already covered your argument. 'Invest money' equals, among other things, have them available free in bars, doctors surgeries and sexual health clinics. They can be paid for with taxes and charitable donations. Do I really need to spell out obvious courses of action like this? It's already standard practise in LGBT-orientated services, it's easy to apply it to societies at large. Fundamentalist Christians in America already send billions of dollars to African countries to support anti-gay bills and propaganda, so don't tell me it can't be done.
The fact that you're trying to make the 'condoms don't help' on a thread about circumcision implies you think mass circumcision will help. It really really will not. It doesn't help with HIV, it won't help with other things. I've already talked about this at length in the Zika virus thread (people really are desperate to find some justification for cutting up dicks), I can't be arsed to repeat myself.

Let me repeat, because it doesn't seem to have sunk in: If it condoms were "an easy solution" as you claim, most people would have access to them and would use them already, and there wouldn't be global epidemics of STDs.

All I am hearing from you is blue sky what-if poppypcock along the lines of:

-- IF more money was invested in prophylactics
-- IF there was mandatory pro condom sex ed in all schools
-- IF people did what they were told
-- IF people actually liked wearing condoms during sex
---IF taxes and charitable donations were used for condoms
---IF the catholic church stopped its opposition to condoms
---IF people always had a condom on hand when they wanted sex
---IF christian fundamentalists sent condom money to Africa
---IF many muslims were not hostile to contraception
---IF poor countries could get billions of free condoms monthly
---IF men used condoms when raping women
---IF men with foreskins didn't have such trouble using them
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF...


IF it was that easy, it would have been done long ago. It's not an "easy solution" unless you live in cloud cuckoo land.

I suspect that your desperate embrace of this non-solution stems from your dislike of circumcision -- a one-time intervention which provides a large measure of protection against HIV and and many other STDs, unlike condoms which have to be used for each sex act.

I gather that the evidence for the prophylactic effects of circumcision doesn't satisfy you, but it does satisfy the CDC, the WHO, and practically every professional epidemiologist who who has investigated this question. Just out of interest, do you think:

a) The WHO, CDC, and dozens of leading epidemiologists are just ignorant and stupid, or

b) The WHO, CDC, and dozens of leading epidemiologists are part of a vast conspiracy to rid the world of foreskins?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF...

I could do exactly the same.
-IF circumcision prevented HIV
-IF all men were circumcised against their will

It's not very convincing, is it?

Post by Uckister777
IF it was that easy, it would have been done long ago. It's not an "easy solution" unless you live in cloud cuckoo land.
I suspect that your desperate embrace of this non-solution stems from your dislike of circumcision -- a one-time intervention which provides a large measure of protection against HIV and and many other STDs, unlike condoms which have to be used for each sex act.
a) The WHO, CDC, and dozens of leading epidemiologists are just ignorant and stupid, or
b) The WHO, CDC, and dozens of leading epidemiologists are part of a vast conspiracy to rid the world of foreskins?

'I suspect that your desperate embrace of this non-solution stems from your dislike of circumcision -- a one-time intervention which provides a large measure of protection against HIV and and many other STDs, unlike condoms which have to be used for each sex act.' This is utter horseshit. You're actually trying to convince someone who's been a volunteer in HIV/AIDS charities in Britain and Finland that circumcision helps prevent HIV and other STIs. This is such nonsense and it's a highly dangerous meme. Some circumcised men in Britain already think that not having foreskin means they don't need to use condoms. How can people be so stupid?

I think the WHO and Bono are dead wrong about the circumcision trials in Africa for the following reasons. I've already directed you to this, but you clearly couldn't be bothered to read it.

Start quote.

You seem fixated on the role of foreskin in HIV transmission. I'm wondering what this is based on. Is it the studies that were done in Africa, the same ones that WHO bangs on about? If so, then I can reassure you that your concerns are unfounded.
I'm sure we've all heard the 60% figures, which I'll admit sound impressive when taken at face value. 'Circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%? Wow!' Unfortunately, this is completely misleading. The study in question, that being the one in Kenya and Uganda (and South Africa, unless I've misremembered) was poor for many reasons. I'll list a few:
- the men in the study were not representative of the larger population. They were men from nearby who, due to the fact they chose to participate freely, were more concerned with sexual health that people generally are.
- the group of men who were circumcised were told to refrain from sex for six weeks to allow their penis to heal. In addition, they were also encouraged to use condoms and were given sex ed lessons. The men who were left intact received no condoms or sex ed and had no six-week restriction on sexual activity.
-the final results did not take personal differences into account; there was no information on individual hygiene or sexual practises, i.e. no information on whether participants were having regular sex with one or two people, or whether they were much more promiscuous than that, or even whether they visited sex workers. Who was encouraged by their church to be faithful to their wives? In other words, there was no context to the results.
- there was significant attrition, i.e. lots of people dropped out of the study. How many of the circumcised men contracted HIV and became disillusioned with the study?
- there is little correlation between circumcision and HIV rates in Africa. Tribes that don't practise MGM can have high or low rates of HIV, just like those that do practise it.

Among others.
Anyway, the final results showed that 2.49% of men left intact had contracted HIV by the end of the study, whereas 1.19% of the circumcised men had contracted it. So yes, there's a difference of around 55%, but it's not at all impressive when seen in this light. When all of the points I've made are taken into account, the effect of foreskin can be seen as, at best, negligible and likely non-existant.

Further points:
In developed countries, HIV is not a big problem anymore, as long as people know their status and receive proper medicine. Proper medication makes the viral load undetectable and as good as not there. It's actually far safer to have unprotected sex with a HIV+ person who knows their status and is medicated than it is to have unprotected sex with somebody who doesn't know whether they're + or -.

If MGM were to have any effect on HIV contraction, it would not protect a receiving partner.

IN addition, studies (that doubtlessly are as flawed as the one I've discussed above) also suggest that labia might play a role in HIV contraction. Funny how nobody's rushing to promote FGM because of them. People can also get HPV from intact vagina, and according to at least one study, around 50% of vulval cancer begins in the labia. It baffles me how people are so willing to defend and justify cutting up babies' penises, yet FGM was made illegal the day we found out about it.

In response to your comments on heterosexual sex, you've made no mention of the fact that a HIV+ person (male or female) can transmit HIV to a male through anal sex, i.e. anal mucus can contain the virus, which can be transmitted to the penetrating partner. So your comment about circumcision only being relevant to heterosexual sex (which I assume means vaginal sex only) is not all that valid.

'such as Portugal (0.7), Russia (1.1), Ukraine (0.8), Moldova (0.60, and Estonia (1.3)' Notice that the majority of these are ex Soviet states? I also wonder why you chose to state that the rates in the US are below average when there are many countries on that list where there's a hella lot of foreskin yet HIV is almost non-existent. Finland, Sweden and Denmark are full of intact men, yet their rates are dramatically less than America's. (I can personally attest to the fact that the majority of Finnish men have intact penises. Only around 1 in 16,000 are circumcised here, and only if medically necessary.) This strongly implies, and backs up points I've made earlier, that the role of foreskin in HIV contraction is negligible. Other factors such as health, sexual education and cultural attitudes to sex in general play a role.


Finally, you state that anti-circumcision (there's a reason they're anti) have a mission. So do pro-circers; that doesn't effect the validity or invalidity of their claims. Thinking it does is just bad faith.


End of quote.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF...

I could do exactly the same.
-IF circumcision prevented HIV
-IF all men were circumcised against their will

It's not very convincing, is it?

Post by Uckister777
IF it was that easy, it would have been done long ago. It's not an "easy solution" unless you live in cloud cuckoo land.
I suspect that your desperate embrace of this non-solution stems from your dislike of circumcision -- a one-time intervention which provides a large measure of protection against HIV and and many other STDs, unlike condoms which have to be used for each sex act.
a) The WHO, CDC, and dozens of leading epidemiologists are just ignorant and stupid, or
b) The WHO, CDC, and dozens of leading epidemiologists are part of a vast conspiracy to rid the world of foreskins?

'I suspect that your desperate embrace of this non-solution stems from your dislike of circumcision -- a one-time intervention which provides a large measure of protection against HIV and and many other STDs, unlike condoms which have to be used for each sex act.' This is utter horseshit. You're actually trying to convince someone who's been a volunteer in HIV/AIDS charities in Britain and Finland that circumcision helps prevent HIV and other STIs. This is such nonsense and it's a highly dangerous meme. Some circumcised men in Britain already think that not having foreskin means they don't need to use condoms. How can people be so stupid?

I think the WHO and Bono are dead wrong about the circumcision trials in Africa for the following reasons. I've already directed you to this, but you clearly couldn't be bothered to read it.

Start quote.

You seem fixated on the role of foreskin in HIV transmission. I'm wondering what this is based on. Is it the studies that were done in Africa, the same ones that WHO bangs on about? If so, then I can reassure you that your concerns are unfounded.
I'm sure we've all heard the 60% figures, which I'll admit sound impressive when taken at face value. 'Circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%? Wow!' Unfortunately, this is completely misleading. The study in question, that being the one in Kenya and Uganda (and South Africa, unless I've misremembered) was poor for many reasons. I'll list a few:
- the men in the study were not representative of the larger population. They were men from nearby who, due to the fact they chose to participate freely, were more concerned with sexual health that people generally are.
- the group of men who were circumcised were told to refrain from sex for six weeks to allow their penis to heal. In addition, they were also encouraged to use condoms and were given sex ed lessons. The men who were left intact received no condoms or sex ed and had no six-week restriction on sexual activity.
-the final results did not take personal differences into account; there was no information on individual hygiene or sexual practises, i.e. no information on whether participants were having regular sex with one or two people, or whether they were much more promiscuous than that, or even whether they visited sex workers. Who was encouraged by their church to be faithful to their wives? In other words, there was no context to the results.
- there was significant attrition, i.e. lots of people dropped out of the study. How many of the circumcised men contracted HIV and became disillusioned with the study?
- there is little correlation between circumcision and HIV rates in Africa. Tribes that don't practise MGM can have high or low rates of HIV, just like those that do practise it.

Among others.
Anyway, the final results showed that 2.49% of men left intact had contracted HIV by the end of the study, whereas 1.19% of the circumcised men had contracted it. So yes, there's a difference of around 55%, but it's not at all impressive when seen in this light. When all of the points I've made are taken into account, the effect of foreskin can be seen as, at best, negligible and likely non-existant.

Further points:
In developed countries, HIV is not a big problem anymore, as long as people know their status and receive proper medicine. Proper medication makes the viral load undetectable and as good as not there. It's actually far safer to have unprotected sex with a HIV+ person who knows their status and is medicated than it is to have unprotected sex with somebody who doesn't know whether they're + or -.

If MGM were to have any effect on HIV contraction, it would not protect a receiving partner.

IN addition, studies (that doubtlessly are as flawed as the one I've discussed above) also suggest that labia might play a role in HIV contraction. Funny how nobody's rushing to promote FGM because of them. People can also get HPV from intact vagina, and according to at least one study, around 50% of vulval cancer begins in the labia. It baffles me how people are so willing to defend and justify cutting up babies' penises, yet FGM was made illegal the day we found out about it.

In response to your comments on heterosexual sex, you've made no mention of the fact that a HIV+ person (male or female) can transmit HIV to a male through anal sex, i.e. anal mucus can contain the virus, which can be transmitted to the penetrating partner. So your comment about circumcision only being relevant to heterosexual sex (which I assume means vaginal sex only) is not all that valid.

'such as Portugal (0.7), Russia (1.1), Ukraine (0.8), Moldova (0.60, and Estonia (1.3)' Notice that the majority of these are ex Soviet states? I also wonder why you chose to state that the rates in the US are below average when there are many countries on that list where there's a hella lot of foreskin yet HIV is almost non-existent. Finland, Sweden and Denmark are full of intact men, yet their rates are dramatically less than America's. (I can personally attest to the fact that the majority of Finnish men have intact penises. Only around 1 in 16,000 are circumcised here, and only if medically necessary.) This strongly implies, and backs up points I've made earlier, that the role of foreskin in HIV contraction is negligible. Other factors such as health, sexual education and cultural attitudes to sex in general play a role.


Finally, you state that anti-circumcision (there's a reason they're anti) have a mission. So do pro-circers; that doesn't effect the validity or invalidity of their claims. Thinking it does is just bad faith.


End of quote.
..................

What?

[j***@gmail.com]

***@gmail.com
- hide quoted text -
I can't be arsed to repeat myself.
...........

Please don't.

[Uckister777]

'In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics... 'Invest money' equals, among other things, have them available free in bars, doctors surgeries and sexual health clinics. They can be paid for with taxes and charitable donations. Do I really need to spell out obvious courses of action like this? It's already standard practise in LGBT-orientated services, it's easy to apply it to societies at large.

Really? OK let's check how effective these LGBT-oriented services that you tout really are.

In the UK more than HALF the people newly diagnosed with HIV are men who have sex with men, despite this group making up a very small part of the population. In fact 1 out of every 20 gay and bisexual men living in the UK has HIV, and of these, 1 in 5 doesn't even know it. In 2014, the latest year I can find statistics for, the number of new diagnoses of men who have sex with men was the highest ever recorded. [http://www.hivaware.org.uk/; www.nat.org.uk]

In the USA HIV diagnoses declined by nearly a fifth from 2005 to 2014, but increased by 6 percent among men who have sex with men. Men who have sex with men make up 55 percent of HIV cases in the USA despite being a very small part of the population. They account for 67 percent of new diagnoses. If current trends continue 1 in 6 men who have sex with men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime.

And you actually want whatever prophylactic programs these groups are relying on to be "applied to society at large"?????

Come now Michael -- are you SURE that condoms are, as you say, "an easy solution" to STDs and especially HIV? If this is your best evidence it's not very convincing is it?

By the way Michael, in the USA...

From 2010 to 2014, diagnoses among white men (who are mostly circumcised) fell by 6 percent but among hispanic men (who are mostly uncircumcised) they increased by 13 percent.

On current trends 1 in 11 white men who has sex with men will get an HIV diagnoses in his life time -- but 1 in 4 hispanic men who has sex with men will get one.

Let's hope that hispanics start some serious snipping as they assimilate to American culture.

[www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm]

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

'In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics... 'Invest money' equals, among other things, have them available free in bars, doctors surgeries and sexual health clinics. They can be paid for with taxes and charitable donations. Do I really need to spell out obvious courses of action like this? It's already standard practise in LGBT-orientated services, it's easy to apply it to societies at large.

Really? OK let's check how effective these LGBT-oriented services that you tout really are.
In the UK more than HALF the people newly diagnosed

There's generally more awareness (and fear) of HIV/AIDS in the LGBT communities for obvious reasons, especially among MSMs, and advertising for HIV tests etc is far more common in LGBT-orientated places. It's also


with HIV are men who have sex with men, despite this group making up a very small part of the population. In fact 1 out of every 20 gay and bisexual men living in the UK has HIV, and of these, 1 in 5 doesn't even know it.

This is only an estimate. An estimate made by people who know what they're talking about, but it should still be taken with a grain of salt.

In 2014, the latest year I can find statistics for, the number of new diagnoses of men who have sex with men was the highest ever recorded. [http://www.hivaware.org.uk/; www.nat.org.uk]

Post by Uckister777
In the USA HIV diagnoses declined by nearly a fifth from 2005 to 2014, but increased by 6 percent among men who have sex with men. Men who have sex with men make up 55 percent of HIV cases in the USA despite being a very small part of the population. They account for 67 percent of new diagnoses. If current trends continue 1 in 6 men who have sex with men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime.
And you actually want whatever prophylactic programs these groups are relying on to be "applied to society at large"?????
Come now Michael -- are you SURE that condoms are, as you say, "an easy solution" to STDs and especially HIV? If this is your best evidence it's not very convincing is it?

Unfortunately, sex ed still fails LGBT people. While the older generations are fully aware of the chaos HIV can wreak, it's not something young people are as aware of, it at all. There's an unfortunate tendency to think of it as a disease that only dirty old gay men get. There's also a lot of stigma surrounding it, even among MSMs who really should know better. Part of my work as a THT volunteer was just talking to people in gay bars about STDs and sexual health, or just giving out condoms and lube. I'm not saying Britain is perfect (far from it) but if we talk honestly about safer sex and protection, people are (generally) more likely to use protection, especially when THT volunteers are giving them out for free.

On the subject of safer sex, abstinence education is all the rage in America because of religious crazies, yet America also has sky-high teenage pregnancy and STIs are far more prevalent in the the colonies. Perhaps one reason why HIV's more widespread there than in Europe, I don't know.

The key is education and changing attitudes to sex and sexual health in general.

Post by Uckister777
By the way Michael, in the USA...
From 2010 to 2014, diagnoses among white men (who are mostly circumcised) fell by 6 percent but among hispanic men (who are mostly uncircumcised) they increased by 13 percent.

See above RE black people. Which you missed out for some reason, eve though they have high circumcision rates and the highest rates of HIV through all kinds of sexual contact.

Post by Uckister777
On current trends 1 in 11 white men who has sex with men will get an HIV diagnoses in his life time -- but 1 in 4 hispanic men who has sex with men will get one.
Let's hope that hispanics start some serious snipping as they assimilate to American culture.

It's not a snip. It involves the forced separation of the foreskin from the glans and then it's sliced off with a scalpel, all while the child is unanesthetised. It's fantastically painful and making light of that if absolutely disgusting.

Post by Uckister777
[www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm]

Hmm, so that instantly means that their rates of transmission are linked to their foreskin of lack thereof? Right. Cultural and behavior do not factor into things at all, and the fact that Europe shows no correlation is completely immaterial.

Also, according to the CDC 'In 2014, 44% (19,540) of estimated new HIV diagnoses in the United States were among African Americans, who comprise 12% of the US population.' http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/

African American men have high circumcision rates fluctuating between 45% and 65% over the years, but they (both through same-sex and opposite-sex contact) have rates of circumcision much higher than Hispanic Americanss, yet African Americans have far higher rates of HIV (diagnosis) than Hispanics.
There are around 55 million Hispanics in America, 37.5 million blacks, but even with blacks making up a smaller population, their rates of diagnosis are higher than Hispanics, even though circumcision is commonplace among black communities. There's no correlation here between circumcision and HIV, but there is one between being a minority and having HIV.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

'In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics... 'Invest money' equals, among other things, have them available free in bars, doctors surgeries and sexual health clinics. They can be paid for with taxes and charitable donations. Do I really need to spell out obvious courses of action like this? It's already standard practise in LGBT-orientated services, it's easy to apply it to societies at large.

Really? OK let's check how effective these LGBT-oriented services that you tout really are.
In the UK more than HALF the people newly diagnosed

There's generally more awareness (and fear) of HIV/AIDS in the LGBT communities for obvious reasons, especially among MSMs, and advertising for HIV tests etc is far more common in LGBT-orientated places. It's also


with HIV are men who have sex with men, despite this group making up a very small part of the population. In fact 1 out of every 20 gay and bisexual men living in the UK has HIV, and of these, 1 in 5 doesn't even know it.

This is only an estimate. An estimate made by people who know what they're talking about, but it should still be taken with a grain of salt.

In 2014, the latest year I can find statistics for, the number of new diagnoses of men who have sex with men was the highest ever recorded. [http://www.hivaware.org.uk/; www.nat.org.uk]

Post by Uckister777
In the USA HIV diagnoses declined by nearly a fifth from 2005 to 2014, but increased by 6 percent among men who have sex with men. Men who have sex with men make up 55 percent of HIV cases in the USA despite being a very small part of the population. They account for 67 percent of new diagnoses. If current trends continue 1 in 6 men who have sex with men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime.
And you actually want whatever prophylactic programs these groups are relying on to be "applied to society at large"?????
Come now Michael -- are you SURE that condoms are, as you say, "an easy solution" to STDs and especially HIV? If this is your best evidence it's not very convincing is it?

Unfortunately, sex ed still fails LGBT people. While the older generations are fully aware of the chaos HIV can wreak, it's not something young people are as aware of, it at all. There's an unfortunate tendency to think of it as a disease that only dirty old gay men get. There's also a lot of stigma surrounding it, even among MSMs who really should know better. Part of my work as a THT volunteer was just talking to people in gay bars about STDs and sexual health, or just giving out condoms and lube. I'm not saying Britain is perfect (far from it) but if we talk honestly about safer sex and protection, people are (generally) more likely to use protection, especially when THT volunteers are giving them out for free.

On the subject of safer sex, abstinence education is all the rage in America because of religious crazies, yet America also has sky-high teenage pregnancy and STIs are far more prevalent in the the colonies. Perhaps one reason why HIV's more widespread there than in Europe, I don't know.

The key is education and changing attitudes to sex and sexual health in general.

Post by Uckister777
By the way Michael, in the USA...
From 2010 to 2014, diagnoses among white men (who are mostly circumcised) fell by 6 percent but among hispanic men (who are mostly uncircumcised) they increased by 13 percent.

See above RE black people. Which you missed out for some reason, eve though they have high circumcision rates and the highest rates of HIV through all kinds of sexual contact.

Post by Uckister777
On current trends 1 in 11 white men who has sex with men will get an HIV diagnoses in his life time -- but 1 in 4 hispanic men who has sex with men will get one.
Let's hope that hispanics start some serious snipping as they assimilate to American culture.

It's not a snip. It involves the forced separation of the foreskin from the glans and then it's sliced off with a scalpel, all while the child is unanesthetised. It's fantastically painful and making light of that if absolutely
..............

Anesthesia is most of the time for infants in the U.S. That is not to say the anesthesia is sufficient.

Ukster speaks much of the lies of his rhetorical opponents, but the most abhorent lie--that infant circumcision is not painful--is so deeply rooted in medical culture that the profession is unable to stop their members from doing what amounts infant torture.

[m***@gmail.com]

1 in 5 is an estimate, I meant.

Also, MSM is not the same as gay/bisexual. Yes, it covers both of those, but also straight men that enjoy messing around with men but have no romantic interest in them. I don't know how many of them there are, but MSM is used as a term because gay/bisexual does not cover all men who have sex with men.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, sex ed still fails LGBT people.

Ok so just to be clear do you still claim that "condoms are an easy solution" for the spread of HIV?

The infection rates are really bad in the LGBT community which you say has methods that "should be applied to society at large" Even tho society at large has much lower rates!!!

Now you say these methods have failed!! You can't even keep your story straight.

Seems to me condoms are a PARTIAL solution and it's DIFFICULT not easy to get people to have them and use them and keep using them, or even to like using them. I hate them personally.

Uncircumcised men as we both know have problems with them because when you are fucking the foreskin can get bunched up and the condom starts slipping around and can even come off. Oh sorry, maybe you are a gay "bottom" and you only get fucked in your arse and don't know that. Whatever.

Please tell us old sport, are condoms an easy solution and if they are why is there so much HIV?

Can you admit you were wrong? I don't think you can, I think you will just come up with more bullshit along the lines of oh, if we got over the difficulties then it would be easy. Dishonest.

"Easy solution" or not??

???

???

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, sex ed still fails LGBT people.

Ok so just to be clear do you still claim that "condoms are an easy solution" for the spread of HIV?
The infection rates are really bad in the LGBT community

Not as bad as one might be led to believe, and (though this is speculation) far lower than they would otherwise be if not for the wide availability of free condoms and lube at LGBT establishments and the work of THT and similar to try to keep awareness of HIV and sexual health up.

http://www.tht.org.uk/our-charity/Facts-and-statistics-about-HIV/HIV-in-the-UK

We're also talking about 'diagnoses'; LGBT people get tested for HIV more often than heterosexual people because they're more aware of it and older generations especially know fully well how devastating it is.
HIV can lie dormant for years before manifesting itself in any way; there is no or very little awareness of the risks of HIV among heterosexual people. I know this is only a microcosm, but my sisters laughed when I said they should still condoms in spite of their implants or taking the pill because anyone they're with could have HIV and not know it.
Anyway, we don't know how many heterosexual people are living with HIV without knowing it. Of course pregnant women are routinely tested for it, but other than that it's not high on their list of priorities.

One of the difficulties with awareness among LGBT people is that young LGBT people rarely hear from their parents stories about all the friends they lost to AIDS in the 80s and 90s. LGBT stories are not passed from one generation to the next. If they were, I can speculate that new diagnoses among LGBT people would be far lower. But this really is another discussion.

Essentially, the methods haven't failed; they work, but not as well as they could.

which you say has methods that "should be applied to society at large" Even tho society at large has much lower rates!!!

Only of HIV. If you remember, there were plenty of other STIs mentioned in the discussion. Although now I don't really know which conversation you're trying to continue.

Imagine free condoms and lube being freely available at straight establishments, or indeed any nightclubs and bars.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Now you say these methods have failed!!

'Still fail', not 'have failed'. Important distinction between simple present and perfect tenses.
Please do some thinking.

In other words; 'sex education can work, but at the moment it's not because it's generally completely silent on LGBT sex and generally in Britain and the US it's taught really badly.'

You can't even keep your story straight.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Seems to me condoms are a PARTIAL solution and it's DIFFICULT not easy to get people to have them and use them and keep using them, or even to like using them. I hate them personally.
Uncircumcised men as we both know have problems with them because when you are fucking the foreskin can get bunched up

That's why retracting foreskin and using the correct size of condom is important. Basic knowledge. In the case of men who can't retract, a course of steroid creams and daily stretching/retracting can solve the problem in most cases within a few months. There are a few cases where it can take longer, but circumcision is necessary in only a tiny minority of phimosis cases.

and the condom starts slipping around and can even come off. Oh sorry, maybe you are a gay "bottom" and you only get fucked in your arse and don't know that. Whatever.

Faulty logic. A bottom would be well aware if a condom comes off.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Please tell us old sport, are condoms an easy solution and if they are why is there so much HIV?

Are you completely unaware of the incredibly dangerous lies the Catholic Church has been spreading for years about condoms? That they don't prevent STIs and 'in fact' help spread them? This has done incredible damage in Africa and who knows how many millions of people have died horrible deaths because of that?

Also, HIV is not just an STI. Sex is likely the most common way of contracting it, but it can also be contracted by intravenous drug use and blood transfusions with infected blood.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Can you admit you were wrong? I don't think you can, I think you will just come up with more bullshit along the lines of oh, if we got over the difficulties then it would be easy. Dishonest.
"Easy solution" or not??

'Easy' in a non-African context, which is what we were discussing when I brought that up) as you're well aware.

'Easy solution'. Well, yes, I should have added caveats to that, but honestly, I honestly expected people would be able to work out what I meant when I said that without being spoonfed.

Condoms would vastly reduce STI transmissions if;

- abstinence-based sex ed were abolished
- sex ed were not left to one or two lessons in years 6 and 9.
- if the pope and his church were to stop spreading his dogma, or if more
were done to combat it
- LGBT people were not excluded from sex ed
- if people were more aware of the fact that HIV is not a 'gay disease'
(being neither a disease nor specific to gay men)

This is not just a case of whether or not foreskin has a role in HIV transmission (some correlation in Africa, none in Europe or America) but
about STIs in general. Even if a male genital mutilation were to prevent HIV
transmission to the circumcised man, condoms (and femidoms/dental dams) are
still necessary for reducing hepatitis, HPV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea and unwanted babies.

So yes, I admit condoms as an 'easy solution' was an oversimplification, but this has become a strawman; you're attacking a mockery of my point, rather than my point.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Please tell us old sport, are condoms an easy solution and if they are why is there so much HIV?

Are you completely unaware of the incredibly dangerous lies the Catholic Church has been spreading for years about condoms? That they don't prevent STIs and 'in fact' help spread them? This has done incredible damage in Africa and who knows how many millions of people have died horrible deaths because of that?

I'm well aware of it, it's one of the reasons condoms aren't the "easy solution" you claim.

Why do you claim condoms are an easy solution when the catholic church makes it so hard for millions to use them? You don't make sense.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Can you admit you were wrong? I don't think you can, I think you will just come up with more bullshit along the lines of oh, if we got over the difficulties then it would be easy. Dishonest.

Condoms would vastly reduce STI transmissions if;
- abstinence-based sex ed were abolished
- sex ed were not left to one or two lessons in years 6 and 9.
- if the pope and his church were to stop spreading his dogma, or if more
were done to combat it
- LGBT people were not excluded from sex ed
- if people were more aware of the fact that HIV is not a 'gay disease'
(being neither a disease nor specific to gay men)

LOL !Exactly as I predicted! You say it would be "easy" if there weren't difficulties!
Old sport, EVERYTHING would be easy if there weren't difficulties!

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Please tell us old sport, are condoms an easy solution and if they are why is there so much HIV?

Are you completely unaware of the incredibly dangerous lies the Catholic Church has been spreading for years about condoms? That they don't prevent STIs and 'in fact' help spread them? This has done incredible damage in Africa and who knows how many millions of people have died horrible deaths because of that?

I'm well aware of it, it's one of the reasons condoms aren't the "easy solution" you claim.
Why do you claim condoms are an easy solution when the catholic church makes it so hard for millions to use them? You don't make sense.

So you do need me to spoon-feed you everything and state everything explicitly. Of course there are difficulties, but using a condom is an 'easy' solution in preventing them in the sense that they're easy to use (mostly) when used, they cut down the risk of transmission by 99%+. What on Earth did you think you meant? Did you really think I meant that condoms are easily available to everyone in the world?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Can you admit you were wrong? I don't think you can, I think you will just come up with more bullshit along the lines of oh, if we got over the difficulties then it would be easy. Dishonest.

Condoms would vastly reduce STI transmissions if;
- abstinence-based sex ed were abolished
- sex ed were not left to one or two lessons in years 6 and 9.
- if the pope and his church were to stop spreading his dogma, or if more
were done to combat it
- LGBT people were not excluded from sex ed
- if people were more aware of the fact that HIV is not a 'gay disease'
(being neither a disease nor specific to gay men)

LOL !Exactly as I predicted! You say it would be "easy" if there weren't difficulties!

Yes, but when we talked about this it wasn't in the context of HIV in Africa but rather STIs in general.

Please try to take part in the discussion properly instead of fixating on your strawmen.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Please tell us old sport, are condoms an easy solution and if they are why is there so much HIV?

Are you completely unaware of the incredibly dangerous lies the Catholic Church has been spreading for years about condoms? That they don't prevent STIs and 'in fact' help spread them? This has done incredible damage in Africa and who knows how many millions of people have died horrible deaths because of that?

I'm well aware of it, it's one of the reasons condoms aren't the "easy solution" you claim.

Why do you claim condoms are an easy solution when the catholic church makes it so hard for millions to use them? You don't make sense.

Post by m***@gmail.com
So you do need me to spoon-feed you everything and state everything explicitly. Of course there are difficulties, but using a condom is an 'easy' solution in preventing them in the sense that they're easy to use (mostly) when used, they cut down the risk of transmission by 99%+. What on Earth did you think you meant?

Oh, so you mean condoms are an easy solution if somebody has them and uses them?
That's not saying much is it? Hell abstinence is an "easy solution" when it is used. What about when condoms or abstinence aren't used? What happens to your easy solution then? Phft! gone.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Can you admit you were wrong? I don't think you can, I think you will just come up with more bullshit along the lines of oh, if we got over the difficulties then it would be easy. Dishonest.

Condoms would vastly reduce STI transmissions if;
- abstinence-based sex ed were abolished
- sex ed were not left to one or two lessons in years 6 and 9.
- if the pope and his church were to stop spreading his dogma, or if more
were done to combat it
- LGBT people were not excluded from sex ed
- if people were more aware of the fact that HIV is not a 'gay disease'
(being neither a disease nor specific to gay men)

LOL !Exactly as I predicted! You say it would be "easy" if there weren't difficulties!

Yes, but when we talked about this it wasn't in the context of HIV in Africa but rather STIs in general.

What a tacky copout! OK old sport, let's talk about condoms in the context of STDs in general. Do you think they are an "easy solution" ?

If so why is there so much STD around?

Why can't you just admit that you made a ridiculous claim about condoms being an easy solution to STDs. Everybody can see you are just being dishonest. Just tell the truth which is that condoms are useful in preventing STDs but they are NOT a solution let alone an easy one.

My prediction, you will just keep trying to bullshit your way out of the trap you sunk yourself in but just don't kid yourself we don't all see through you.

[j***@gmail.com]

10:33 AMUckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Uckister777
He's proved hes an idiot but not only by claiming condoms are an "easy solution" to diseases that are not sexually transmitted. If condoms were such an "easy solution" even to the sexually transmitted ones like HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc, there wouldn't be epidemics of them! Even fools know its hard to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, and that most people in the world can't afford them. "Easy solution" indeed.

Use your brain and notice an accidental slip up when you see one, instead of making something out of nothing. I can't be bothered to read everything that guy writes, because he writes bullplop.
You're also showing that you're not really thinking properly; sex education needs to be mandatory in all schools and it needs to highlight safer sex, both between men and women and same-sex intercourse. None of this abstinence bollocks the colonials love so much. In addition, more money should be invested in prophylactics and people need to stop spreading the myth that circumcised men are immune to STIs and STDs.
If you're going to join in, please think first.

Huh? You really think that mandatory sex education in schools will result in people using condoms? Do you think mandatory drug education will result in people not using drugs? Do you think that mandatory warnings about the dangers of tobacco will stop people using tobacco? Do you think that mandatory driving school will stop people
..........

If men choose to have parts of their penises cut off, so be it.

Forcing genital cutting on anyone - girls, boys, adults - is obviously unethical.

[j***@gmail.com]

Quentin

Post by m***@gmail.com
-Foreskin is no more a relic of our primate past than any other part of us. Your use of the word 'relic' also strongly implies you are completely ignorant of its function.

The main function of the foreskin was to protect the sensitive glans during our evolutionary past. We wear clothes today and the foreskin is no longer necessary.
... . ... . . .. .....

You can't possibly know this to be true. Much is not known about human sexuality. Male sexuality is especially under studied.

[Bert]

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

[Siri Cruz]

Post by Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

Parents always have and will continue to make medical decisions for their
infants who lack, as in physically not yet grown, the brains to make their own
decions. The state can step in when the parents are clearly completely off the
map making utterly stupid decisions, but where the correct decisions are not
clear, the state backs off to preserve parental freedom and perogative. This
retains a robust diversity in society and the ability to adapt to an
unforseeable future.

[PaxPerPoten]

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

Parents always have and will continue to make medical decisions for their
infants who lack, as in physically not yet grown, the brains to make their own
decions. The state can step in when the parents are clearly completely off the
map making utterly stupid decisions, but where the correct decisions are not
clear, the state backs off to preserve parental freedom and perogative. This
retains a robust diversity in society and the ability to adapt to an
unforseeable future.

Yeah! Sure! thats the ticket... ;-/

[Mr. B1ack]

Post by Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

Well, public ed fer sure :-)

[PaxPerPoten]

Post by Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

So you would educate them by circumcising them?

[Bert]

Post by PaxPerPoten

Post by Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

So you would educate them by circumcising them?

Sorry you're confused.

Education "effects [sic] or destroys future abilities or experiences"

I suppose your abilities have been destroyed by it.

[PaxPerPoten]

Post by Bert

Post by PaxPerPoten

Post by Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.

So you would educate them by circumcising them?

Sorry you're confused.
Education "effects [sic] or destroys future abilities or experiences"
I suppose your abilities have been destroyed by it.

My education is well grounded enough to know there is a vast difference
between Education and circumcision! I suggest you read the title of this
discussion./

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by PaxPerPoten
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions.

Like circumcising children, for example.

Post by PaxPerPoten
There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

Food for thought.

[j***@gmail.com]

Bert

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification
that damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it
effects or destroys future abilities or experiences.

So you'll want to outlaw education of minors as well.
.............

Or should neglecting to educate minors be outlawed? In fact, that neglect already is.

[Bert]

Post by Intelligent
sex organ

Damn. I should know better than to reply to such an obvious trolling attempt.

Injection-Info: posting-host="95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2";

"Brad Johnson" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"Brett Smith" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"George Jefferson" <***@planet.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"George Smith" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"Sovereign of the Universe" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"Spiritual Passages" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"Tom Mr." <***@Rolls.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"Water Guy" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
"You May Refer To Me As Master" <***@live.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
Intelligent <***@One.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
Renter <***@Renting.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"
Think and Grow Rich <***@rich.com> "95fb036af2317f9a3e446f2d147102b2"

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Intelligent
Circumcision of minors is mayhem and irreversible body modification that
damages and mutilates the sex organ. Being irreversible, it effects or
destroys future abilities or experiences. It thus should be entirely
prohibited on minors who have no capability of consenting for the rest
of their lives to a forever life altering act. Would you find it okay
for a parent to mutilate their child in other ways? How about cutting a
child's ears, or nose or fingers off, or binding a child's feet to keep
them small, or splitting their tongue? How about cutting a child's
penis off entirely? Certainly all such practices damage the integrity
of the human body, and impair its function for its entire life. You
would not find it okay to impose circumcision on an adult male, would
you? Would you find it okay to cut an adult male's fingers or penis
off? Then how can you find it okay to impose circumcision on a baby, a
child, or a teenager who will grow into an adult male?
Given that circumcision is irreversible body modification, it should not
be performed on minors, except for true medical reasons just as any
other medically necessary operation.
Non medically necessary circumcision on minors should be prosecuted as
mayhem. As larceny of body it is the most serious of crimes in the world.
I say this as someone who was circumcised, and disagrees with the
practice on minors! Leave the decision of circumcision as a personal
decision to adults!
Also, people should have to wait at least 1 week and come back before
getting a tattoo, and certainly any more extensive body modification
including circumcision.

Is it not ridiculous to try to prevent AIDS by cutting off healthy undiseased tissue when the tissue that is cut off contains substances that fight against viruses such as HIV? Keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men.
"If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
http://dontgetstuck.Wordpress.Com/2012/05/09/have-we-ignored-a-very-simple-procedure-that-could-significantly-reduce-the-risk-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv-to-men-from-women/

The reason the foreskin provides protection is because it contains Langerin which is a barrier to HIV-infected Langerhan's cells thus making the foreskin the body's front line of defense against disease and infections such as HIV! De Witte wrote: "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function."
de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. (March 2007). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells". Nature Medicine 13
http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pubmed/17334373
http://www.Nature.Com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm1541.Html

Condoms are safer and more effective at preventing STDs than circumcision. But Langerin in the foreskin is more effective than circumcision for those who do not use condoms.

[Uckister777]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Is it not ridiculous to try to prevent AIDS by cutting off healthy undiseased tissue when the tissue that is cut off contains substances that fight against viruses such as HIV? Keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men.
"If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
http://dontgetstuck.Wordpress.Com/2012/05/09/have-we-ignored-a-very-simple-procedure-that-could-significantly-reduce-the-risk-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv-to-men-from-women/
The reason the foreskin provides protection is because it contains Langerin which is a barrier to HIV-infected Langerhan's cells thus making the foreskin the body's front line of defense against disease and infections such as HIV! De Witte wrote: "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function."
de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. (March 2007). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells". Nature Medicine 13
http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pubmed/17334373
http://www.Nature.Com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm1541.Html
Condoms are safer and more effective at preventing STDs than circumcision. But Langerin in the foreskin is more effective than circumcision for those who do not use condoms.

Here we go again, somebody who has no idea what he's talking about, quoting old research from secondary sources that he doesn't understand, oblivious to subsequent research on the issue. And what does he come up with? This: If you are uncut, don't wash your dick for ten minutes after vaginal intercourse and then you have better protection than being cut (but worse protection than being uncut and not waiting ten minutes, or uncut and not washing). So his proposal to fight AIDS? Rather than recommending circumcision, a one-time event that provides some lifelong protection, we have to go on this massive campaign to "educate" all uncircumcised men in the world to set their alarm and wait ten minutes EVERY TIME they have vaginal sex, then wash their dick, and hope for a reduced chance of infection. Needless to say, the CDC, the WHO, and other organizations fighting AIDS have not taken up this stupid idea. But the WHO and other organizations have recommended male circumcision in countries with high HIV rates because of the dramatic difference it makes.

Our contributor states correctly that langerin in the foreskin provides some protection from HIV viruses. But in practice there isn't enough langerin present and the viruses readily overwhelm that defense, and then go on to infect the victim though the langerhans cells of the foreskin. Sure, if you cut off the foreskin, you cut off the langerin supply -- but you also cut off the langerhans cells, the main target for infection! DUH.

For a more UP TO DATE and SCIENTIFIC discussion of how HIV infects langerhans cells despite the presence of langerin, see this article by Morris and Wamai in the International Journal of STD and AIDS March 2012 vol. 23 no. 3 153-159. www.std.sagepub.com/content/23/3/153.short

For a more UP TO DATE and SCIENTIFIC discussion of exactly how HIV directly infects foreskin cells, see this 2014 article by Jayathunga et al., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192839/

[Casaman]

Post by Uckister777
Our contributor states correctly that langerin in the foreskin provides some protection from HIV viruses. But in practice there isn't enough langerin present and the viruses readily overwhelm that defense, and then go on to infect the victim though the langerhans cells of the foreskin. Sure, if you cut off the foreskin, you cut off the langerin supply -- but you also cut off the langerhans cells, the main target for infection! DUH.

I am surprised the earlier poster even made such a self evidently fallacious argument. Uncircumcised men are more easily infected with the HIV virus than circumcised men, therefore the foreskin CQNNOT be offering superior protection!!! I suppose a desparate case makes for a desperate argument.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
Is it not ridiculous to try to prevent AIDS by cutting off healthy undiseased tissue when the tissue that is cut off contains substances that fight against viruses such as HIV? Keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men.
"If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
http://dontgetstuck.Wordpress.Com/2012/05/09/have-we-ignored-a-very-simple-procedure-that-could-significantly-reduce-the-risk-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv-to-men-from-women/
The reason the foreskin provides protection is because it contains Langerin which is a barrier to HIV-infected Langerhan's cells thus making the foreskin the body's front line of defense against disease and infections such as HIV! De Witte wrote: "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function."
de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. (March 2007). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells". Nature Medicine 13
http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pubmed/17334373
http://www.Nature.Com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm1541.Html
Condoms are safer and more effective at preventing STDs than circumcision. But Langerin in the foreskin is more effective than circumcision for those who do not use condoms.

Here we go again, somebody who has no idea what he's talking about, quoting old research from secondary sources that he doesn't understand, oblivious to subsequent research on the issue. And what does he come up with? This: If you are uncut, don't wash your dick for ten minutes after vaginal intercourse and then you have better protection than being cut (but worse protection than being uncut and not waiting ten minutes, or uncut and not washing). So his proposal to fight AIDS? Rather than recommending circumcision, a one-time event that provides some lifelong protection, we have to go on this massive campaign to "educate" all uncircumcised men in the world to set their alarm and wait ten minutes EVERY TIME they have vaginal sex, then wash their dick, and hope for a reduced chance of infection. Needless to say, the CDC, the WHO, and other organizations fighting AIDS have not taken up this stupid idea. But the WHO and other organizations have recommended male circumcision in countries with high HIV rates because of the dramatic difference it makes.
Our contributor states correctly that langerin in the foreskin provides some protection from HIV viruses. But in practice there isn't enough langerin present and the viruses readily overwhelm that defense, and then go on to infect the victim though the langerhans cells of the foreskin. Sure, if you cut off the foreskin, you cut off the langerin supply -- but you also cut off the langerhans cells, the main target for infection! DUH.
For a more UP TO DATE and SCIENTIFIC discussion of how HIV infects langerhans cells despite the presence of langerin, see this article by Morris and Wamai in the International Journal of STD and AIDS March 2012 vol. 23 no. 3 153-159. www.std.sagepub.com/content/23/3/153.short
For a more UP TO DATE and SCIENTIFIC discussion of exactly how HIV directly infects foreskin cells, see this 2014 article by Jayathunga et al., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192839/

HIV/AIDS is far more prevalent in America where most men are circumcised than it is in Europe where most men are intact (and rightly see circumcision as barbaric). If your argument were true, why is the reverse not true? Also, what's wrong with condoms?

[Quentin]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:34:35 AM UTC+1, ***@gmail.com wrote:
ee this 2014 article by Jayathunga et al., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192839/

Post by m***@gmail.com
HIV/AIDS is far more prevalent in America where most men are circumcised than it is in Europe where most men are intact (and rightly see circumcision as barbaric). If your argument were true, why is the reverse not true?

Unlike in Europe, less than a quarter of US cases are through heterosexual contact. The rest are almost entirely through homosexual or IV transmission. Circumcision does not protect against transmission by intravenous drug abuse or anal sex. If you compare only heterosexual rates, the US compares favorably with Europe. In fact white heterosexuals in the USA, a mostly circumcised group, have one of the lowest rates in the world. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, what's wrong with condoms?

The tens of millions of cases of HIV around the world tells you what's wrong with condoms. For various reasons, people don't use them.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777
ee this 2014 article by Jayathunga et al., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192839/

Post by m***@gmail.com
HIV/AIDS is far more prevalent in America where most men are circumcised than it is in Europe where most men are intact (and rightly see circumcision as barbaric). If your argument were true, why is the reverse not true?

Unlike in Europe, less than a quarter of US cases are through heterosexual contact. The rest are almost entirely through homosexual or IV transmission. Circumcision does not protect against transmission by intravenous drug abuse or anal sex. If you compare only heterosexual rates, the US compares favorably with Europe. In fact white heterosexuals in the USA, a mostly circumcised group, have one of the lowest rates in the world. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, what's wrong with condoms?

The tens of millions of cases of HIV around the world tells you what's wrong with condoms. For various reasons, people don't use them.

Your response doesn't really answer anything I've said. People's sexual behaviour and sexuality doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're circumcised.

You can't really say condoms don't work because people don't use them. That's not a good answer. One reasons millions of people, especially in Africa, don't use them, is because the pope tells them not to, and idiots like Bono and the WHO tell them that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
You can't really say condoms don't work because people don't use them. That's not a good answer.

It's a very good answer, because it't true.

Post by m***@gmail.com
One reasons millions of people, especially in Africa, don't use them, is because the pope tells them not to,

So what? It doesn't matter what the reason is. It might be religion, it might be the cost of condoms, it might be that the partners want to have children, it might be that the men prefer sex without condoms. The fact is they are often not used, and the HIV epidemic is proof of that.

Post by m***@gmail.com
and idiots like Bono and the WHO tell them that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

The World Health Organization is an idiot? And the CDC, and the Gates and Clinton Foundations? And the governments that have circumcision campaigns to combat HIV? Sorry, but they base their recommendations on scientific evidence. They would be idiots not to!

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
You can't really say condoms don't work because people don't use them. That's not a good answer.

It's a very good answer, because it't true.

Post by m***@gmail.com
One reasons millions of people, especially in Africa, don't use them, is because the pope tells them not to,

So what? It doesn't matter what the reason is. It might be religion, it might be the cost of condoms, it might be that the partners want to have children, it might be that the men prefer sex without condoms. The fact is they are often not used, and the HIV epidemic is proof of that.

Post by m***@gmail.com
and idiots like Bono and the WHO tell them that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

The World Health Organization is an idiot? And the CDC, and the Gates and Clinton Foundations? And the governments that have circumcision campaigns to combat HIV? Sorry, but they base their recommendations on scientific evidence. They would be idiots not to!

For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

And I might have forgotten to post this one about smegma

http://www.medicaldaily.com/just-what-smegma-and-why-does-it-make-us-cringe-334414