Doctors Urge Mass Circumcision

 
LabAnimal said:
quite honestly - the dumbest thing i've ever heard. So in otherwords, if guys can't clean it properly, they must just lop it off like it has no function!. If your foreskin had no function, then why are we born with it.
Click to expand...

Spot on. What's bizarre is that the circumcisions are being pushed for infants. What are the chances of an infant getting AIDS via sexual intercourse? And there's the ethical problem too, of removing body parts without consent.

bwana said:
All in all a 60% reduction is still a pretty significant number when you're talking about a pandemic.
Click to expand...

That 60% sounds great...except that it was the difference between 1.9% and 3.1% of study participants that contracted HIV. A 1.2 percentage point difference doesn't sound nearly as good, doesn't it? And the lead researcher, Bailey, also mentioned recently that condom usage in the circumcised portion of the study went up from 22 to 36% (my guess is that that was because they received additional reinforcement in condom usage when they went back fro medical checkups). Frankly, there are rather too many problems with those studies...
 
On or Off

Circumcising all the males in the country is not going to stop the spread of AIDS, only lessen it to certain extent, apparently.
Statistically it may be less likely to contract AIDS according to this research if a man is circumcised, but it is still a risk nevertheless.

How about Family Values?
Less promiscuity, more use of condoms, being faithful to one's partner, cleaning the male organ frequently etc etc.
The list is endless.
Other than certain Religious practiced there is no valid reason to circumcise every boy or man in this country. And I ask for the people out there that are Religious, why in God's Earth did God put a foreskin on a man in the first place, only for us to cut it off afterwards? :confused:

Small baby boys that have their private trimmed at birth have no say in the matter. Perhaps it should be illegal to disfigure a child at birth?
The child should be allowed to grow up, become a man and that stage if he so chooses, he can go to a Doctor and have the procedure done out of his own free will(y). :p

My 2c.
 
nice :D

...anagram could be "o min dic"

& BTTB = Bearing Timeously Truncated Boy
 
It does worry me that for two days running there has been a castration-anxiety undercurrent on MyADSL. What's the matter guys? :p
 
Xarog said:
Why not remove the whole thing? 99.9% reduction rate guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Eish! You think there'd be a demand? Our Centre will have to investigate!

In the meantime, our very own Dr. Ou Agadougou has taken receipt of an interesting device he ordered from SplayEmNFlayEm of Lagos - I'll keep you posted!

:D
 
bwana said:
You find a 60% reduction to be insignificant?
Click to expand...
I'm just saying, if you want to do a job do it properly.

But then I'm guessing you actually see value in the rest of the penis and the enjoyment it brings wheras the foreskin doesn't matter to you.

Which is all fine and well, but who decides whether or not something is valuable? Why should the pleasure you derive from your penis be any less important than the pleasure someone else derives from their intact foreskin?

So if we're not going to care about how people feel when it comes to their own body parts being chopped off, we might as well do a proper job and get rid of this AIDS problem once and for all. 100% reduction in sexual AIDS transmission sounds like a win to me. What do you think?

Claymore said:
That 60% sounds great...except that it was the difference between 1.9% and 3.1% of study participants that contracted HIV. A 1.2 percentage point difference doesn't sound nearly as good, doesn't it? And the lead researcher, Bailey, also mentioned recently that condom usage in the circumcised portion of the study went up from 22 to 36% (my guess is that that was because they received additional reinforcement in condom usage when they went back fro medical checkups). Frankly, there are rather too many problems with those studies...
Click to expand...
How odd. A 60% increase in condom usage resulted in a 60% drop in AIDS transmission. Just a coincedence, right? :confused:

BTTB said:
Circumcising all the males in the country is not going to stop the spread of AIDS, only lessen it to certain extent, apparently.
Statistically it may be less likely to contract AIDS according to this research if a man is circumcised, but it is still a risk nevertheless.

How about Family Values?
Less promiscuity, more use of condoms, being faithful to one's partner, cleaning the male organ frequently etc etc.
The list is endless.
Other than certain Religious practiced there is no valid reason to circumcise every boy or man in this country. And I ask for the people out there that are Religious, why in God's Earth did God put a foreskin on a man in the first place, only for us to cut it off afterwards? :confused:

Small baby boys that have their private trimmed at birth have no say in the matter. Perhaps it should be illegal to disfigure a child at birth?
The child should be allowed to grow up, become a man and that stage if he so chooses, he can go to a Doctor and have the procedure done out of his own free will(y). :p

My 2c.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Anyone lopping off body parts without there being a medical neccessity should be charged with nothing less than assault with intent to do grievious bodily harm.

chiskop said:
Which would of course become "Bad To The" if Xarog had her way.
Click to expand...
Oi. I haven't seen Dr Rwenzori yet so I'll thank you use pronouns that correctly reflect my state of masculine endowment. :p
 
Last edited:
Xarog said:
So if we're not going to care about how people feel when it comes to their own body parts being chopped off, we might as well do a proper job and get rid of this AIDS problem once and for all. 100% reduction in sexual AIDS transmission sounds like a win to me. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I must have missed the part that this proceedure would be anything other than voluntarily and no indication that they were targeting infants. In fact, this being an initiative to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS, by the time todays children become sexually active the spread of the disease might have been quelled.

BTW - as any guy who's ever bypassed queue of women waiting their turn you only need to use a urinal once to see the value of having the remaining 99%.
 
bwana said:
I must have missed the part that this proceedure would be anything other than voluntarily and no indication that they were targeting infants. In fact, this being an initiative to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS, by the time todays children become sexually active the spread of the disease might have been quelled.

BTW - as any guy who's ever bypassed queue of women waiting their turn you only need to use a urinal once to see the value of having the remaining 99%.
Click to expand...

From the article :
However Professor Alan Whiteside, also based at HEARD, called for the "routine offer of circumcision for every male child born in a public hospital."

"It is so blindingly obvious that there are real reasons for circumcision. It is going to happen. What we need is informed advocacy and communication."
Click to expand...

Just how do you plan to enact mass circumcision WITHOUT targetting children? Invite boys over on their 13th birthday?
 
Xarog said:
How odd. A 60% increase in condom usage resulted in a 60% drop in AIDS transmission. Just a coincedence, right? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, it's actually more complex than that. Bailey didn't mention numbers, but I would assume that there was some increase in condom usage by intact men too. Then there was also a fairly large drop in the number of reported sex partners by circumcised men, and also issues with the rates of HIV infection changing during the study. And while we're at it, 6 circumcised men contracted HIV despited reporting no sexual activity at all. This gives me reason to think that there have been some serious methodological problems with these studies; perhaps one of the reasons that Lancet declined to publish the study. (In fact, I think all three studies were terminated early).
 
Los Lobos

Seriously concerned how even so-called scientifically-minded medical people abuse simple statistics. Even if lobbing a bit off one's todger reduces the chances of getting HIV, what does this actually mean?
It means instead of getting HIV in 3 months, you'll get it in 6. Or instead of after 2 encounters, you'll get it after 4 (you might still get it on your first encounter, by the way).
These poor men queuing up by the hundreds at rural clinics for the chop - do they fully understand this? Not a chance. They are getting the snip for one reason and one reason only - because they now believe they have a level of protection they did not have before. To put it another way, as soon as the bandages are off and little Tommy is ready for action, it's down the shebeen for a night of pleasure with the local girls. Not one of these guys is having the op done so he can have less unprotected sex - it's so he can have more.
I'm afraid this is another screwed up message that will only fuel the pandemic - not slow it down.
These half-baked amateur statisticians should be ashamed of themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X