Male Circumcision and HIV

[LevelHead]

"The number of HIV infections in young women is two-fold higher than that of young men."

Common sense would suggest that young teenage girls are getting the virus from older men through sex who are likely getting it themselves from sharing needles or visiting prostitutes.

yeah, let's blame the old guys !!

According to the mainstream, there is a much greater risk of male to female transmission, so in that respect the figures would be very much what one would expect.

I don't know how it goes for HIV but with infections in general, a common pattern is for one person to be very much more infectious than others, and thus pass the disease on to a high number of people. That would require someone quite promiscuous and able, and would probably predict that it would be a younger male.

It's always been a puzzle to me how these guys get infected themselves as heterosexual males are least likely to become infected. My feeling is that homosexuality, and drug use is much more common than one might think.

Personally, I don't wholly go with the mainstream regarding HIV anyway. Too many anomalies.

You have to get down to basics. HIV is a blood or blood products to blood transmission.

The initial reason that gay men got infected so much was thought to be down to unprotected anal sex which allowed easy transfer from semen to ruptured anus, as the act often breaks the skin the anal area.

Gay men know the dangers and have move to using condoms and lubricants in the "developed" world, however in third world countries unprotected anal sex is common.

It is also easy for a women to catch HIV as the man leaves a blood product (semen) inside her. The vaginal area has very thin walls and its very easy for the HIV virus to infect a woman.

As time goes by the incidence of female infection is rising as against gay men.

However, and sadly its not talked about much, a vast majority of men appear to be somewhat immune to HIV, well its not in fact immunity, its the fact that their body does not have the "receptor" on.

From studies its become apparent that circumsized men are far less likely to catch HIV from having sex (unprotected) with another man or woman.

They have found that the male foreskin is the "HIV receptor" in men. A man with a foreskin is far more likely to catch HIV than one without, the odds are not clear but could be more than a thousand times more likely.

So your basic (sex wise) high risk group are :

1/ Gay men who do not practise safe sex.

2/ Women who do not practise safe sex.

3/ Uncircumsized men who do not practise safe sex.

A normal hetrosexual circumsized man, the chances of getting HIV even when having sex (normal vaginal) with an infected female is close to zero.

Why they do not tell people this I do not know, however considering that circumsion started with the ancient Egyptians and (like say the ten commandments which also come from the Egyptians far before Moses, from a spell in the Book of the Dead) circumcision has been copied from the ancient Egyptions by both Jews and Muslims, its quite strange that Christianity and other smaller religions/beliefs have not adopted it.

If there was worldwide circumsion done, HIV could be nearly eradicated after a period of time.

However, as the worlds population explodes, and HIV really tends to only affect those who are very poor, uncircumsized or promiscious, perhaps they see it as a way of controlling population (the unwanted type) and thus food supplies.

I mean, if they were not being killed in some parts of Africa by HIV, they would be starving to death instead.

So now you know why the worlds "hotspots" for HIV are such :

Africa - poor non muslim countries as not circumcised

Asia - Non circumsized population.

South America - Non circumsized poplulation.

USA and Europe, owing to condom use has the problem under control.

Jewish and Muslim countries are less affected because.....well........circumsized.

Injecting drugs is a different matter, I think we all know.

So why are "they" hiding (or lets say not trumpeting from the rooftops) the fact that circumcision can prevent men from getting HIV, and thus stop the spread of it to females ??????????

Makes you wonder...................

[LevelHead]

To answer my own post somewhat, I could add, the reason they do not tell people is :

1/ Judaism is the oldest of todays religions, obviously. Christianity is the second oldest being around 1808 years old (it start about 200 years after the death of whoever "Jesus of Nazareth" was.) and of course Muhammed's Islam comes in much younger than both of them.

So if you consider most people forget the ancient Egyptians, the first of 'todays religions" that uses 100% circumcision is Judaism.

Oh my God............they all say. If we even incline that the Jews were right and people should be circumcised the political/religious fallout would be too great, so don't tell anyone.

And there you have it............quite simply the Jews and the Muslims, all being circumcised, have the "we were right" and all you beleivers of other incorrect faiths were wrong and are all going to die...............

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

[LevelHead]

Some links, although they do not "herald" the news........its rather "under reported and low key" for such vital news...............

EG, how many of you people here knew of this, before I posted about it ???????????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck

[Crushdepth]

To answer my own post somewhat, I could add, the reason they do not tell people is :

1/ Judaism is the oldest of todays religions, obviously. Christianity is the second oldest being around 1808 years old (it start about 200 years after the death of whoever "Jesus of Nazareth" was.) and of course Muhammed's Islam comes in much younger than both of them.

So if you consider most people forget the ancient Egyptians, the first of 'todays religions" that uses 100% circumcision is Judaism.

Oh my God............they all say. If we even incline that the Jews were right and people should be circumcised the political/religious fallout would be too great, so don't tell anyone.

And there you have it............quite simply the Jews and the Muslims, all being circumcised, have the "we were right" and all you beleivers of other incorrect faiths were wrong and are all going to die...............

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

Weird Post of the Day Award.

[TAWP]

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

It's nice to know that you promote mutilation of infant boys as a way to protect them against HIV.

Ofcourse you would be aware of the fact that the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality. Why not cut it off completely? This ough to reduce their chance of recieving it via sexual interactions to much lower levels...

So excuse me for not cheering in your joy of a few backwards religions actively performing physical abuse against their kids.

Using condoms and common sense is so much less painful.

[LevelHead]

LOL - yes of course, and you know all about the past history of humans.

Well, Ancient Egyptions, we are talking circa 3000 to 4000 years ago from the time when records are first available, practised circumcision.

Did you ask them why ? Although it says for cleanliness, I am sure you have access to some old stone tablets saying it was to stop them having a quick jerk off.

From the ancient Egyptions came Judaism, from there Christianity and Islam.

So, perhaps with that in mind, and you do not have any proof of evidence behind your "to stop the fun" comment, we can get back to the reality that circumcised men are much less likely to have HIV, and if all men were circumcised, HIV could be nearly eradicated.

Considering that of the worlds population today, all Jews and Muslims are circumcised, along with many non-Jews and non-Muslims, its easy to suggest that in fact the ratio of cut to uncut might be quite close. I am sure the billions who are cut enjoy their masturbation just as much as you, so whats your issue ?

FACTS - cicumcision greatly reduces the chances of ever catching AIDS through normal vaginal sex.

Fighting facts for some sterotypical or religious reason is quite pathetic.

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

It's nice to know that you promote mutilation of infant boys as a way to protect them against HIV.

Ofcourse you would be aware of the fact that the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality. Why not cut it off completely? This ough to reduce their chance of recieving it via sexual interactions to much lower levels...

So excuse me for not cheering in your joy of a few backwards religions actively performing physical abuse against their kids.

Using condoms and common sense is so much less painful.

[TAWP]

LOL - yes of course, and you know all about the past history of humans.

Well, Ancient Egyptions, we are talking circa 3000 to 4000 years ago from the time when records are first available, practised circumcision.

Did you ask them why ? Although it says for cleanliness, I am sure you have access to some old stone tablets saying it was to stop them having a quick jerk off.

From the ancient Egyptions came Judaism, from there Christianity and Islam.

So, perhaps with that in mind, and you do not have any proof of evidence behind your "to stop the fun" comment, we can get back to the reality that circumcised men are much less likely to have HIV, and if all men were circumcised, HIV could be nearly eradicated.

Considering that of the worlds population today, all Jews and Muslims are circumcised, along with many non-Jews and non-Muslims, its easy to suggest that in fact the ratio of cut to uncut might be quite close. I am sure the billions who are cut enjoy their masturbation just as much as you, so whats your issue ?

FACTS - cicumcision greatly reduces the chances of ever catching AIDS through normal vaginal sex.

Fighting facts for some sterotypical or religious reason is quite pathetic.

Funny, I thought fighting for backwards traditions and the mutilation of infant boys would be quite pathetic.

One will hear many excuses on why one should behave like barbarians here before the ears fall off...

[LevelHead]

TAWP, you have already blatently lied.

By saying quote "the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality"

That is a total and utter lie. Circumcision does not effect in any way a boys ability to masturbate and have sex.

So now you have "lied and lost" you revert to now its just a "barbarian act".

So cutting of comething that can transmit HIV to its owner, that can be the cause of disease through unproper cleaning, that can carry disease through unproper cleaning, and that when its off you have a massive reduction in any chance of picking up HIV, and it makes no difference to your sexual ability, enjoyment or whatever.........now.........given that, all you can say is its "barbarian".

LOL - stereotypical nonsense.

Edited January 2, 2009 by LevelHead

[TAWP]

TAWP, you have already blatently lied.

By saying quote "the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality"

That is a total and utter lie. Circumcision does not effect in any way a boys ability to masturbate and have sex.

So now you have "lied and lost" you revert to now its just a "barbarian act".

So cutting of comething that can transmit HIV to its owner, that can be the cause of disease through unproper cleaning, that can carry disease through unproper cleaning, and that when its off you have a massive reduction in any chance of picking up HIV, and it makes no difference to your sexual ability, enjoyment or whatever.........now.........given that, all you can say is its "barbarian".

LOL - stereotypical nonsense.

You called me a lier without posting any counter-proof? That is very nice.

It IS a proven fact (by admission) that circumcision reduces a boys ability to masturbate and that is a very important reason to do it. I suggest you read papers on this, or, if you are the more TV-watching 'dude', watch episode 1 of Season 3 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit (Showtime) for a nice line-up including an admission by a Rabbi on the purpose of it.

Your claim that it isn't affected IS however a lie that NO science will attest to. Heck, even in some cases (for medical reasons with a to narrow foreskin) it will be an increase in sexual ability (as this is a medical surgery performed on adults it goes outside the abuse on infants, it is consensual) - how you can claim there is NO affect what so ever is insane. Why don't you prove some stats, figures, medical papers? I can give you a start: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...508378/PDFSTART (48% reported a decrease in masturbatory please, 8% reported an increase.)

Now add to this that modern science luckely can perform this with less risk (even as such, kids dies yearly world wide from this procedure) than 3000 years ago. And you can come and claim that it didn't affect your ability to masturbate then...

Listen, if you are going to be a proponent,be it. But don't call me a lier when medical science clearly shows me to be right. There IS a change.

And no-matter what you feel, for me a non-medical procedure on an infant IS barbaric. You can do whatever you want to your kids.

[LevelHead]

TAWP, you have already blatently lied.

By saying quote "the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality"

That is a total and utter lie. Circumcision does not effect in any way a boys ability to masturbate and have sex.

So now you have "lied and lost" you revert to now its just a "barbarian act".

So cutting of comething that can transmit HIV to its owner, that can be the cause of disease through unproper cleaning, that can carry disease through unproper cleaning, and that when its off you have a massive reduction in any chance of picking up HIV, and it makes no difference to your sexual ability, enjoyment or whatever.........now.........given that, all you can say is its "barbarian".

LOL - stereotypical nonsense.

You called me a lier without posting any counter-proof? That is very nice.

It IS a proven fact (by admission) that circumcision reduces a boys ability to masturbate and that is a very important reason to do it. I suggest you read papers on this, or, if you are the more TV-watching 'dude', watch episode 1 of Season 3 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit (Showtime) for a nice line-up including an admission by a Rabbi on the purpose of it.

Your claim that it isn't affected IS however a lie that NO science will attest to. Heck, even in some cases (for medical reasons with a to narrow foreskin) it will be an increase in sexual ability (as this is a medical surgery performed on adults it goes outside the abuse on infants, it is consensual) - how you can claim there is NO affect what so ever is insane. Why don't you prove some stats, figures, medical papers? I can give you a start: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...508378/PDFSTART (48% reported a decrease in masturbatory please, 8% reported an increase.)

Now add to this that modern science luckely can perform this with less risk (even as such, kids dies yearly world wide from this procedure) than 3000 years ago. And you can come and claim that it didn't affect your ability to masturbate then...

Listen, if you are going to be a proponent,be it. But don't call me a lier when medical science clearly shows me to be right. There IS a change.

And no-matter what you feel, for me a non-medical procedure on an infant IS barbaric. You can do whatever you want to your kids.

Its very easy to call someone who lies a liar.

So lets start with the history of it, its cleanliness.............not to prevent masturbation or stop pleasure.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm

So now we that "cleaned up" lets get on to your other points.

Firstly, boys with a foreskin will get used to the feeling of it when masturbating, so if you remove it they will feel different. They are used to the feeling of the foreskin on the organ.

Boys who have been circumcised will get used to the feeling of rubbing the organ directly, as opposed to with the foreskin.

Hence boys/men who have it removed will obviously feel very different....................doh....is that not easy to understand.

Most of the arguments about it are from those who are uncut, who like to try to portray being cut as something bad, evil, mutilation or whatever........cause they are not. This is why there are lots of misleading articles about all sorts of nonsense, it was all to stop fun, to stop sex, etc.......... As ever, misinformation acts to misinform.

Again, this is a prime example of why, even though its proven to drastiacally reduce chances of catching HIV, its not mainstream media. I thank you TAWP, your responses show a prime example of the sterotypical nonsense that abounds in society today, based on pure misinformation.

Too many uncut who want to proclaim cutting is a barbarian act, evil etc.....detrimential to pleasure etc..

Religious undertones cause the Chrisitans do not practise it (but Jews and Muslims do).

[TAWP]

TAWP, you have already blatently lied.

By saying quote "the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality"

That is a total and utter lie. Circumcision does not effect in any way a boys ability to masturbate and have sex.

So now you have "lied and lost" you revert to now its just a "barbarian act".

So cutting of comething that can transmit HIV to its owner, that can be the cause of disease through unproper cleaning, that can carry disease through unproper cleaning, and that when its off you have a massive reduction in any chance of picking up HIV, and it makes no difference to your sexual ability, enjoyment or whatever.........now.........given that, all you can say is its "barbarian".

LOL - stereotypical nonsense.

You called me a lier without posting any counter-proof? That is very nice.

It IS a proven fact (by admission) that circumcision reduces a boys ability to masturbate and that is a very important reason to do it. I suggest you read papers on this, or, if you are the more TV-watching 'dude', watch episode 1 of Season 3 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit (Showtime) for a nice line-up including an admission by a Rabbi on the purpose of it.

Your claim that it isn't affected IS however a lie that NO science will attest to. Heck, even in some cases (for medical reasons with a to narrow foreskin) it will be an increase in sexual ability (as this is a medical surgery performed on adults it goes outside the abuse on infants, it is consensual) - how you can claim there is NO affect what so ever is insane. Why don't you prove some stats, figures, medical papers? I can give you a start: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...508378/PDFSTART (48% reported a decrease in masturbatory please, 8% reported an increase.)

Now add to this that modern science luckely can perform this with less risk (even as such, kids dies yearly world wide from this procedure) than 3000 years ago. And you can come and claim that it didn't affect your ability to masturbate then...

Listen, if you are going to be a proponent,be it. But don't call me a lier when medical science clearly shows me to be right. There IS a change.

And no-matter what you feel, for me a non-medical procedure on an infant IS barbaric. You can do whatever you want to your kids.

Its very easy to call someone who lies a liar.

So lets start with the history of it, its cleanliness.............not to prevent masturbation or stop pleasure.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm

So now we that "cleaned up" lets get on to your other points.

Firstly, boys with a foreskin will get used to the feeling of it when masturbating, so if you remove it they will feel different. They are used to the feeling of the foreskin on the organ.

Boys who have been circumcised will get used to the feeling of rubbing the organ directly, as opposed to with the foreskin.

Hence boys/men who have it removed will obviously feel very different....................doh....is that not easy to understand.

Most of the arguments about it are from those who are uncut, who like to try to portray being cut as something bad, evil, mutilation or whatever........cause they are not. This is why there are lots of misleading articles about all sorts of nonsense, it was all to stop fun, to stop sex, etc.......... As ever, misinformation acts to misinform.

Again, this is a prime example of why, even though its proven to drastiacally reduce chances of catching HIV, its not mainstream media. I thank you TAWP, your responses show a prime example of the sterotypical nonsense that abounds in society today, based on pure misinformation.

Too many uncut who want to proclaim cutting is a barbarian act, evil etc.....detrimential to pleasure etc..

Religious undertones cause the Chrisitans do not practise it (but Jews and Muslims do).

You seem confused.

The EXCUSE is that is was for cleanliness. The EXCUSE is that it is for the individuals own good. Guess what excuse they use for full clitori removal in eastern africa?

Using religious postings as proof (now there is a fun thing, religion and proof has never gone hand in hand) that it was cleanliness that was the reason is just silly. The closest thing would be that you posted a 'because I/we say so'. Doesn't make it anymore true.

Your cleanliness argument doesn't hold water. Unless you are proclaiming that people specifically in the middle east and northern africa doesn't know how to use soap and water. Since neither souther africa, asia, northern europe nor the americanas followed this practise in the old days.

Your argument stink of religious excuse and then to proclaim that the insight that it is NOT needed in 2009 wuld be for religious reasons?! You must be joking. It would perhaps be for NON-religious reasons. Or you are trying to say 'for reasons of not believing in the right Lord'? It wouldmake it more obious just what kind of arguments you are trying to use.

Fun that you would call medical papers 'mislabeled articles' or 'misinformation'. Ofcourse it is...since it's not preaching what you are.

Listen, if you are circumcised and are happy, good for you. No-one is forcing you to not be it.

However when adults are forcing a child to undergo this painful procedure, not medically needed, without any other reason than traddition or religion as reason, it is just sad. And it IS a direct abuse of the child.

Every person should be free to make a choice regarding their own bodies, that is my standpoint. But not have others forcefully proclaim it upon them.

Ps. It's still funny that you would 'discard' the medical or social arguments and call me a liar (guess you didn't watch the material Ireferenced that proved me right) regarding the purpose and then have you link a 'catcholic encyclopediac'. Guess it has great things to say about condoms as well... Ds.

[LevelHead]

No, I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as its old, and therefore not subject to the latest corruptions of politics and religion, although yes itself has been subjected to the corruptions of prior religious zealots.

No, you are a liar, based on the fact there is no evidence, and can be no evidence to conclude that circumcision of a baby is detrimental effects in any way their ability to enjoy masturbation or sex. Quite simply their can be no evidence as there is no possible comparison.

You are suggesting that for an adult, who is used to using their foreskin for masturbation, then to have it removed will feel strange and lower their pleasure. This is not an argument or proof of anything apart from those used to masturbating with their foreskin as part of the process, will have to get used to a whole new way of doing it without it.

HOWEVER, this is a change of ways of doing it, as opposed to the pleasure acheived from it.

Similar, if a woman only has sex in the missionary position, and is later forced to do it in a different position and does not like it, then she could be surveyed as "study proof" that some women find missionary the best. It means nothing and you are simply another one of these people who takes misinformation and uses it to misinfom. THere are lots of studies that show smoking is good for you in some way, do you beleive these and project smoking is good full stop ?

There is no medical or clinical or survery proof that circumcision of a baby has any effect on their ability to masturbate or enjoy sex later in life. That is FACT. That is NOT DISPUTABLE. Lets not confuse the issue with adults who have pre-determined ways of doing things and then must undergo change.........babies.

A high percentage of the worlds population are all circumcised (all Muslims and Jews and many non-Muslim and non-Jew) and they all enjoy masturbation and sex, and if you want to get clinical its actually reported in the lastest surverys of 2007 and 2008 that it can "enhance sexual pleasure" !!!!!!! So if you want to quote anything now, make it 2008 studies only, as that is the latest. Nothing pre "Kreiger" please.

"In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[75] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[87] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[88]"

Now, getting back ON TOPIC.

It is FACT that circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman through normal vaginal sex. Thats FACT.

A condom can be forgotten, someone is too tired to go out and buy one, too drunk to remember to use one, the girl does not want one to be used and a million and one reasons why its not a good system. Circumcision will virtually elimnate the chances of the male picking up HIV from an infected girl, add on a condom on top if you want, but your basics are good.

As I said this is why we are having this discussion, too many people have had their minds brainwashed with misinformation that circumcision is bad, evil, not good etc..... and this is why, even now when its PROVEN to virtually PREVENT male infection from an infected female through normal vaginal sex, there is no great rush of people to get babies circumcised.

That I am afraid is due to the misinformaton about it, put about by Jew and Miuslim haters, who do not want to see their belief (mostly Christian) to be seen to be "incorrect" for not requesting them as parents to circumcise their child.

[wolfmanjack]

No, I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as its old, and therefore not subject to the latest corruptions of politics and religion, although yes itself has been subjected to the corruptions of prior religious zealots.

No, you are a liar, based on the fact there is no evidence, and can be no evidence to conclude that circumcision of a baby is detrimental effects in any way their ability to enjoy masturbation or sex. Quite simply their can be no evidence as there is no possible comparison.

You are suggesting that for an adult, who is used to using their foreskin for masturbation, then to have it removed will feel strange and lower their pleasure. This is not an argument or proof of anything apart from those used to masturbating with their foreskin as part of the process, will have to get used to a whole new way of doing it without it.

HOWEVER, this is a change of ways of doing it, as opposed to the pleasure acheived from it.

Similar, if a woman only has sex in the missionary position, and is later forced to do it in a different position and does not like it, then she could be surveyed as "study proof" that some women find missionary the best. It means nothing and you are simply another one of these people who takes misinformation and uses it to misinfom. THere are lots of studies that show smoking is good for you in some way, do you beleive these and project smoking is good full stop ?

There is no medical or clinical or survery proof that circumcision of a baby has any effect on their ability to masturbate or enjoy sex later in life. That is FACT. That is NOT DISPUTABLE. Lets not confuse the issue with adults who have pre-determined ways of doing things and then must undergo change.........babies.

A high percentage of the worlds population are all circumcised (all Muslims and Jews and many non-Muslim and non-Jew) and they all enjoy masturbation and sex, and if you want to get clinical its actually reported in the lastest surverys of 2007 and 2008 that it can "enhance sexual pleasure" !!!!!!! So if you want to quote anything now, make it 2008 studies only, as that is the latest. Nothing pre "Kreiger" please.

"In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[75] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[87] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[88]"

Now, getting back ON TOPIC.

It is FACT that circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman through normal vaginal sex. Thats FACT.

A condom can be forgotten, someone is too tired to go out and buy one, too drunk to remember to use one, the girl does not want one to be used and a million and one reasons why its not a good system. Circumcision will virtually elimnate the chances of the male picking up HIV from an infected girl, add on a condom on top if you want, but your basics are good.

As I said this is why we are having this discussion, too many people have had their minds brainwashed with misinformation that circumcision is bad, evil, not good etc..... and this is why, even now when its PROVEN to virtually PREVENT male infection from an infected female through normal vaginal sex, there is no great rush of people to get babies circumcised.

That I am afraid is due to the misinformaton about it, put about by Jew and Miuslim haters, who do not want to see their belief (mostly Christian) to be seen to be "incorrect" for not requesting them as parents to circumcise their child.

I didn't know that christian religions forbade circumcision. I would be willing to bet that most people in the USA are circumcised since the hospitals did it at birth with the reason being to prevent infection if not kept clean properly. My family is christian and i was circumcised at birth. I think the hospitals ask the parents what their preference is now but when i was born i think it was done automatically.

Are you sure that it prevents HIV infection or only reduces the chances ??? Have there been any studies done on the number of hetero sexual HIV transmissions or lack of transmissions in circumcised or non circumcised men ???

[bravingbangkok]

Circumcised men are theoretically more likely to get infected with the HIV virus because the head area of the penis which is usally covered by the foreskin is not covered by normal skin and is easily teared or cut. Having said this I would not go as far to say that in reality a circumcised male is more likely to become infected than a un-circumcised man.

However for example if you made a tiny tear in the same place on two men, one was circumcised and the other not than I would say it would be slightly more likely for the circumcised man to become infected if both men were to have sex with the same women who is HIV positive at different times of the same day but the same day. This is due to the openess of the wound. However HIV can just as easily travel through the urethra.

The average rate of transmission for a hetro sexual male vaginal inter course with a hetro sexual female who is HIV postive with no condom use is around 100/1 chance of becoming infected, this depends on how advanced the female partners HIV infection is, the more advanced she is the greater the chances of being infected. flip the HIV positve

Condoms with lots of lubrication is basically 100% protection, do not believe the Catholic bullshit that condoms do not work because it just is not true.

I think regardless of whether or not you are cirumcised an opening (tear/cut) is an opening and by GOD will that bitch of a virus find its way there.

[LevelHead]

No, I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as its old, and therefore not subject to the latest corruptions of politics and religion, although yes itself has been subjected to the corruptions of prior religious zealots.

No, you are a liar, based on the fact there is no evidence, and can be no evidence to conclude that circumcision of a baby is detrimental effects in any way their ability to enjoy masturbation or sex. Quite simply their can be no evidence as there is no possible comparison.

You are suggesting that for an adult, who is used to using their foreskin for masturbation, then to have it removed will feel strange and lower their pleasure. This is not an argument or proof of anything apart from those used to masturbating with their foreskin as part of the process, will have to get used to a whole new way of doing it without it.

HOWEVER, this is a change of ways of doing it, as opposed to the pleasure acheived from it.

Similar, if a woman only has sex in the missionary position, and is later forced to do it in a different position and does not like it, then she could be surveyed as "study proof" that some women find missionary the best. It means nothing and you are simply another one of these people who takes misinformation and uses it to misinfom. THere are lots of studies that show smoking is good for you in some way, do you beleive these and project smoking is good full stop ?

There is no medical or clinical or survery proof that circumcision of a baby has any effect on their ability to masturbate or enjoy sex later in life. That is FACT. That is NOT DISPUTABLE. Lets not confuse the issue with adults who have pre-determined ways of doing things and then must undergo change.........babies.

A high percentage of the worlds population are all circumcised (all Muslims and Jews and many non-Muslim and non-Jew) and they all enjoy masturbation and sex, and if you want to get clinical its actually reported in the lastest surverys of 2007 and 2008 that it can "enhance sexual pleasure" !!!!!!! So if you want to quote anything now, make it 2008 studies only, as that is the latest. Nothing pre "Kreiger" please.

"In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[75] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[87] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[88]"

Now, getting back ON TOPIC.

It is FACT that circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman through normal vaginal sex. Thats FACT.

A condom can be forgotten, someone is too tired to go out and buy one, too drunk to remember to use one, the girl does not want one to be used and a million and one reasons why its not a good system. Circumcision will virtually elimnate the chances of the male picking up HIV from an infected girl, add on a condom on top if you want, but your basics are good.

As I said this is why we are having this discussion, too many people have had their minds brainwashed with misinformation that circumcision is bad, evil, not good etc..... and this is why, even now when its PROVEN to virtually PREVENT male infection from an infected female through normal vaginal sex, there is no great rush of people to get babies circumcised.

That I am afraid is due to the misinformaton about it, put about by Jew and Miuslim haters, who do not want to see their belief (mostly Christian) to be seen to be "incorrect" for not requesting them as parents to circumcise their child.

I didn't know that christian religions forbade circumcision. I would be willing to bet that most people in the USA are circumcised since the hospitals did it at birth with the reason being to prevent infection if not kept clean properly. My family is christian and i was circumcised at birth. I think the hospitals ask the parents what their preference is now but when i was born i think it was done automatically.

Are you sure that it prevents HIV infection or only reduces the chances ??? Have there been any studies done on the number of hetero sexual HIV transmissions or lack of transmissions in circumcised or non circumcised men ???

Christianity does not forbid it, down the wrong track there. The religious issue is that when they set up Christianity in around 200AD they did not, like the Jews and later Muslims, make it mandatory for all to be circumcised.

Not an issue, until now when they find that circumcision greatly reduces the chances of getting infected.

Studies to prove it...........many many many and its not denied.......the trouble is they do not tell people about it.

One link here :

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck

And i quote from that :

How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?

Robert Szabo, medical resident ^a, Roger V Short, professor ^b.

^a Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Wellington Road, Melbourne 3168, Australia, ^b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Melbourne 3053, Australia

Correspondence to: R V Short

In his otherwise excellent review of the AIDS epidemic in the 21st century, Fauci presented no new strategies for preventingthe spread of the disease.¹ He made no mention of male circumcision,yet there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significantprotection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two toeight times less likely to become infected with HIV.² Furthermore,circumcision also protects against other sexually transmittedinfections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, ^{3 4} and sincepeople who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to fivetimes more likely to become infected with HIV,⁵ circumcisionmay be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of theprotective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couplesin Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the womanwas HIV positive and her male partner was not.⁶ No new infectionsoccurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time.Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensiveinstruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (whichwere continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms,and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmissionof HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientificattention onto the foreskin. ......................

Edited January 3, 2009 by LevelHead

[LevelHead]

Circumcised men are theoretically more likely to get infected with the HIV virus because the head area of the penis which is usally covered by the foreskin is not covered by normal skin and is easily teared or cut. Having said this I would not go as far to say that in reality a circumcised male is more likely to become infected than a un-circumcised man.

However for example if you made a tiny tear in the same place on two men, one was circumcised and the other not than I would say it would be slightly more likely for the circumcised man to become infected if both men were to have sex with the same women who is HIV positive at different times of the same day but the same day. This is due to the openess of the wound. However HIV can just as easily travel through the urethra.

Sorry but that is nonsense.

Have you had an erection ? On an erect penis the foreskin goes back and the head (organ) sticks out and looks remarkably just like a circumcised one.

It is medically proven that the the foreskin is "AN HIV RECEPTOR". meaninng it attracts and takes in HIV virus if it is exposed to it. No need for cuts or anything, its like a magnet.

I quote from the BMJ report :

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck

Summary points

The majority of men who are HIV positive have been infected through the penis

There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men

The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man

Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection

The development of HIV receptor blockers, which could be applied to the penis or vagina before intercourse, might provide a new form of HIV prevention

.

Edited January 3, 2009 by LevelHead

[TAWP]

No, I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as its old, and therefore not subject to the latest corruptions of politics and religion, although yes itself has been subjected to the corruptions of prior religious zealots.

No, you are a liar, based on the fact there is no evidence, and can be no evidence to conclude that circumcision of a baby is detrimental effects in any way their ability to enjoy masturbation or sex. Quite simply their can be no evidence as there is no possible comparison.

You are suggesting that for an adult, who is used to using their foreskin for masturbation, then to have it removed will feel strange and lower their pleasure. This is not an argument or proof of anything apart from those used to masturbating with their foreskin as part of the process, will have to get used to a whole new way of doing it without it.

HOWEVER, this is a change of ways of doing it, as opposed to the pleasure acheived from it.

Similar, if a woman only has sex in the missionary position, and is later forced to do it in a different position and does not like it, then she could be surveyed as "study proof" that some women find missionary the best. It means nothing and you are simply another one of these people who takes misinformation and uses it to misinfom. THere are lots of studies that show smoking is good for you in some way, do you beleive these and project smoking is good full stop ?

There is no medical or clinical or survery proof that circumcision of a baby has any effect on their ability to masturbate or enjoy sex later in life. That is FACT. That is NOT DISPUTABLE. Lets not confuse the issue with adults who have pre-determined ways of doing things and then must undergo change.........babies.

/../

It is FACT that circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman through normal vaginal sex. Thats FACT.

/../

That I am afraid is due to the misinformaton about it, put about by Jew and Miuslim haters, who do not want to see their belief (mostly Christian) to be seen to be "incorrect" for not requesting them as parents to circumcise their child.

Since you cannot and will not use honest arguments nor sources in a debate I find it very boring to counter your obious flawed points.

You claim that babies cannot have reduced masturbation experience since they have never done it before they underwent the procedure. Apart from that you fail to realise that not every religion cut it at birth and therefor we HAVE comparision data from before and after even in kids, your argument is like inane.

It's like I would proclaim that we should cut off all penises at the root. When you claim it isn't fair since it would reduce your sexual experience I proclaim that you cannot use that as an argument as children will have no frame of reference and therefor we should do it.

You can only counter other peoples points with calling them 'lies', even when medical science supports them. I call it sad.

And here, my dear friend, you have posted a LIE. You claim that 'circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman' [sic]. No, it doesn't. There are medical studies that circumcision can reduce the chance, but far from eliminating it.

"The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV."

They clearly always state that the procedure IS NOT an act of prevention and should ALWAYS be used in combination with other methods. Preferrrably those that are safer to begin with, as condoms are.

Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.

One question...what is your position on usage of condoms?

And my opposition with circumcision is those cases it is forced upon a child. It's an abuse on their rights. You, being a proponent of the religion as you are, are ofcourse not concearned about peoples rights being trampled on.

[bravingbangkok]

Circumcised men are theoretically more likely to get infected with the HIV virus because the head area of the penis which is usally covered by the foreskin is not covered by normal skin and is easily teared or cut. Having said this I would not go as far to say that in reality a circumcised male is more likely to become infected than a un-circumcised man.

However for example if you made a tiny tear in the same place on two men, one was circumcised and the other not than I would say it would be slightly more likely for the circumcised man to become infected if both men were to have sex with the same women who is HIV positive at different times of the same day but the same day. This is due to the openess of the wound. However HIV can just as easily travel through the urethra.

Sorry but that is nonsense.

Have you had an erection ? On an erect penis the foreskin goes back and the head (organ) sticks out and looks remarkably just like a circumcised one.

It is medically proven that the the foreskin is "AN HIV RECEPTOR". meaninng it attracts and takes in HIV virus if it is exposed to it. No need for cuts or anything, its like a magnet.

I quote from the BMJ report :

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck

Summary points

The majority of men who are HIV positive have been infected through the penis

There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men

The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man

Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection

The development of HIV receptor blockers, which could be applied to the penis or vagina before intercourse, might provide a new form of HIV prevention

.

Oh do not get me wrong I totaly agree with you, In fact I would disagree completely that there is any difference between circumcised and un-circumcised. Seems to be that the most likely course of HIV infection in this case is through open wounds and open wounds regardless of circumcision or not.

Edited January 3, 2009 by bravingbangkok

[LevelHead]

Since you cannot and will not use honest arguments nor sources in a debate I find it very boring to counter your obious flawed points.

You claim that babies cannot have reduced masturbation experience since they have never done it before they underwent the procedure. Apart from that you fail to realise that not every religion cut it at birth and therefor we HAVE comparision data from before and after even in kids, your argument is like inane.

It's like I would proclaim that we should cut off all penises at the root. When you claim it isn't fair since it would reduce your sexual experience I proclaim that you cannot use that as an argument as children will have no frame of reference and therefor we should do it.

You can only counter other peoples points with calling them 'lies', even when medical science supports them. I call it sad.

And here, my dear friend, you have posted a LIE. You claim that 'circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman' [sic]. No, it doesn't. There are medical studies that circumcision can reduce the chance, but far from eliminating it.

"The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV."

They clearly always state that the procedure IS NOT an act of prevention and should ALWAYS be used in combination with other methods. Preferrrably those that are safer to begin with, as condoms are.

Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.

One question...what is your position on usage of condoms?

And my opposition with circumcision is those cases it is forced upon a child. It's an abuse on their rights. You, being a proponent of the religion as you are, are ofcourse not concearned about peoples rights being trampled on.

Firstly - I did not say "eliminate", I said as is correct, "virtually eliminates" which means, if you understand English, that it eliminates to a high degree although not entirely.

Secondly - condoms should be used by all - however - this is often not the case due to "male ego" - "female request" - "alcohol" - "not having them handy at the time" - many other reasons.

You are wrong as you attempt to deny that circumcision is a good protection against HIV, you attempts to portray it in any bad light possible, by the use of incorrect data, debunkable studies etc.. is pathetic.

The WHO has approved it as has the UN as an "effective means to reduce HIV spreading".

So if the World Health Organistaion and the UN KNOW ITS PROVEN - why do you try to fight it ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm (WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan)

Are you worried women will no longer want men who are not cut ???????? LOL

Thailand should embark on a campaign for circumcision and education of women about it, its the only way to give some protection to the women from men who refuse to use condoms.

[TAWP]

Since you cannot and will not use honest arguments nor sources in a debate I find it very boring to counter your obious flawed points.

You claim that babies cannot have reduced masturbation experience since they have never done it before they underwent the procedure. Apart from that you fail to realise that not every religion cut it at birth and therefor we HAVE comparision data from before and after even in kids, your argument is like inane.

It's like I would proclaim that we should cut off all penises at the root. When you claim it isn't fair since it would reduce your sexual experience I proclaim that you cannot use that as an argument as children will have no frame of reference and therefor we should do it.

You can only counter other peoples points with calling them 'lies', even when medical science supports them. I call it sad.

And here, my dear friend, you have posted a LIE. You claim that 'circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman' [sic]. No, it doesn't. There are medical studies that circumcision can reduce the chance, but far from eliminating it.

"The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV."

They clearly always state that the procedure IS NOT an act of prevention and should ALWAYS be used in combination with other methods. Preferrrably those that are safer to begin with, as condoms are.

Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.

One question...what is your position on usage of condoms?

And my opposition with circumcision is those cases it is forced upon a child. It's an abuse on their rights. You, being a proponent of the religion as you are, are ofcourse not concearned about peoples rights being trampled on.

Firstly - I did not say "eliminate", I said as is correct, "virtually eliminates" which means, if you understand English, that it eliminates to a high degree although not entirely.

Secondly - condoms should be used by all - however - this is often not the case due to "male ego" - "female request" - "alcohol" - "not having them handy at the time" - many other reasons.

You are wrong as you attempt to deny that circumcision is a good protection against HIV, you attempts to portray it in any bad light possible, by the use of incorrect data, debunkable studies etc.. is pathetic.

The WHO has approved it as has the UN as an "effective means to reduce HIV spreading".

So if the World Health Organistaion and the UN KNOW ITS PROVEN - why do you try to fight it ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm (WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan)

Are you worried women will no longer want men who are not cut ???????? LOL

Thailand should embark on a campaign for circumcision and education of women about it, its the only way to give some protection to the women from men who refuse to use condoms.

You are just sad.

Try to read my post again. Perhaps more slowly since you fail to grasp what is written. Or perhaps you are mixing it up with posts of others?

First of all, I have never denied that there IS an altered risk in contracting HIV. I even WROTE IT IN MY POST. Go ahead, read it again.

Found it yet?

However, your characterisation that is is an 'virtual elimination' [sic] is incorrect. There is a reduction of chance. No need to overstate it as it leads to people making the wrong assumptions (or practising unsafe methods).

Your staw man arguments are boring.

And UNs position on circumcision is a proposition as an extended method for *drums* africa. Where sex education and the availability of contraceptives (especially condoms) are worse then let's say, Asia and Europe. Don't compare apples and oranges. They have never claimed it to be a method that 'should be applied to Europe' for instance. Why? Becouse, outside the catcholic black wholes of logic, in Europe the sex education and availability of free contraceptives are doing a decent job already. It's not a rampant epidemic as it is in Africa.

And again, as a matter of fact it wouldn't matter if circumsicion would offer 100% protection against HIV or other STDs, guarantee super strength and prosperity for life, the fact of the matter is still that the medical procedure is a brutalone that shouldn't be forced upon children. If they themselfs elect it have it when they are of age tomake that decision, then fine. But forcing it upon a defenseless child (afraid your 2 week old is going to have sex...? ) is a violation of their human rights.

Edited January 3, 2009 by TAWP

[LevelHead]

Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.

Well, it could be construed from your comment here by inserting "flawed" that you think it is useless. Condoms are also "flawed" and yet you promote them without a care in the world of mentioning "flawed".

Anyway, we now have even you "admitting" that circumcision can greatly reduce the chances of infection for a man having normal vaginal sex with a women.

Thats good to have that "extracted" from you.

[bravingbangkok]

More than a few of my relatives are MD's and they always say the thing about HIV and all that surrounds it is still actually amazingly not for certain. Nothing is a certainy in relation to prevention, meds or anything else.

[TAWP]

Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.

Well, it could be construed from your comment here by inserting "flawed" that you think it is useless. Condoms are also "flawed" and yet you promote them without a care in the world of mentioning "flawed".

Anyway, we now have even you "admitting" that circumcision can greatly reduce the chances of infection for a man having normal vaginal sex with a women.

Thats good to have that "extracted" from you.

I find it disturbing that you cannot even pretend to have an honest debate on the subject.

Circumcision isn't a prevention, it's a risk-reducer for high risk individuals. You know, like NOT going to prostitutes in Africa is a risk-reducer.

And I do find it deplorable that you would word the riskreduction of circumcision and condom usage with the same words. They are not of the same level, not even close.

I venture you are a very man-centric individual. In your world circumcision, reducing the risk for men, is a good risk reduction for men. But I am a little bit disturbed by the fact that you mentioned that woman should be 'educated' about the benefit. For woman there is no benefit if their temporary date is circumcisied. THEY are still equally at risk. The riskreduction we are talking about is only towards the man in question, not from him.

And no, circumcision cannot 'greatly' reduce the chance. That is a mis-wording that the medical papers doesn't support. There is a reduction, that is all. A great reduction in risk would be condom usage.

Edited January 3, 2009 by TAWP

[henryalleman]

To answer my own post somewhat, I could add, the reason they do not tell people is :

1/ Judaism is the oldest of todays religions, obviously. Christianity is the second oldest being around 1808 years old (it start about 200 years after the death of whoever "Jesus of Nazareth" was.) and of course Muhammed's Islam comes in much younger than both of them.

So if you consider most people forget the ancient Egyptians, the first of 'todays religions" that uses 100% circumcision is Judaism.

Oh my God............they all say. If we even incline that the Jews were right and people should be circumcised the political/religious fallout would be too great, so don't tell anyone.

And there you have it............quite simply the Jews and the Muslims, all being circumcised, have the "we were right" and all you beleivers of other incorrect faiths were wrong and are all going to die...............

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/

This article prove without a shadow of a doubt that circumcision do not protect against AIDS at all Their is no Health risk reason what so ever to perform it, furthermore they regard it as an criminal act.

Its not only completely unnecessary but its also take a way more than 50% of the male pleasure and delight in making love

only some religious fanatics for some backward religious reason are still in favour of it. In fact performing a circumcision is a spit in the eyes of their god, because they have the audacity to say that he allow an imperfect human being is born, and they have to correct his mistake. Or do they approve circumcisions of girls also. and if not what is the difference with boy's.

I'm not religious but when I read some of the comments I'm glad I'm an heretic.

[mommysboy]

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

It's nice to know that you promote mutilation of infant boys as a way to protect them against HIV.

Ofcourse you would be aware of the fact that the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality. Why not cut it off completely? This ough to reduce their chance of recieving it via sexual interactions to much lower levels...

So excuse me for not cheering in your joy of a few backwards religions actively performing physical abuse against their kids.

Using condoms and common sense is so much less painful.

What's more the theory about circumcision is not now generally supported.

The poster himself acknowledges that HIV is very difficult for males to acquire through heterosexual sex, seems to point to males acquiring it through blood transfer in either anal sex or needle use, but then suggests some odd health programme.

The last thing this very messy, already contaminated area of science needs are wierd cultist beliefs.

Somewhat off topic anyway.

[mommysboy]

Circumcised men are theoretically more likely to get infected with the HIV virus because the head area of the penis which is usally covered by the foreskin is not covered by normal skin and is easily teared or cut. Having said this I would not go as far to say that in reality a circumcised male is more likely to become infected than a un-circumcised man.

However for example if you made a tiny tear in the same place on two men, one was circumcised and the other not than I would say it would be slightly more likely for the circumcised man to become infected if both men were to have sex with the same women who is HIV positive at different times of the same day but the same day. This is due to the openess of the wound. However HIV can just as easily travel through the urethra.

The average rate of transmission for a hetro sexual male vaginal inter course with a hetro sexual female who is HIV postive with no condom use is around 100/1 chance of becoming infected, this depends on how advanced the female partners HIV infection is, the more advanced she is the greater the chances of being infected. flip the HIV positve

Condoms with lots of lubrication is basically 100% protection, do not believe the Catholic bullshit that condoms do not work because it just is not true.

I think regardless of whether or not you are cirumcised an opening (tear/cut) is an opening and by GOD will that bitch of a virus find its way there.

Bad figures full stop. Sorry go off and get it right.

[LevelHead]

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/

This article prove without a shadow of a doubt that circumcision do not protect against AIDS at all Their is no Health risk reason what so ever to perform it, furthermore they regard it as an criminal act.

Its not only completely unnecessary but its also take a way more than 50% of the male pleasure and delight in making love

only some religious fanatics for some backward religious reason are still in favour of it. In fact performing a circumcision is a spit in the eyes of their god, because they have the audacity to say that he allow an imperfect human being is born, and they have to correct his mistake. Or do they approve circumcisions of girls also. and if not what is the difference with boy's.

I'm not religious but when I read some of the comments I'm glad I'm an heretic.

I find it laughable that you should link to a year 2000 article.........

When the real research into this subject began in 2005, and all 2007 and 2008 reports, sponsered and confirmed by the CDC, WHO and UN all confirm it does assist in protection against HIV transmission to male from female.

How can so many people preach is all disproven and quote old articles and no articles, when all the worlds foremost disease control specialists (the CDC, WHO and UN) all confirm that it does act as preventation in transmission to male from infected female.

If you are unable to keep up with the latest research (2007/2008) from the top specialists in the world, then what else can you say, people have other agenda's for the pushing of their medically proven (2007/2008) incorrect assertion that circumcision makes no difference.

LOL- and yes, I put a thread up in the Health section simply as its remarkable so many truly biased, and unaccepting of confirmed medical evidence from 2007/2008 people there are.

If you want to protect teenage girls, then stop the men getting infected is one route, and with all solutions, it needs a multiple route approach.

People really need to get over their bias and stigma and strange feelings towards circumcision and get it made popular in Thailand. Its medically proven that it assists in preventing the transfer of HIV from female to male in vaginal sex.......PROVEN........by 2007/08 CDC/WHO/UN reports.

[henryalleman]

People really need to get over their bias and stigma and strange feelings towards circumcision and get it made popular in Thailand. Its medically proven that it assists in preventing the transfer of HIV from female to male in vaginal sex.......PROVEN........by 2007/08 CDC/WHO/UN reports.

This article refers to an African study, where personal hygiene is very low. But I hope that in the western world, it is certainly in Thailand, personal hygiene is of a much more higher level.

So therefore the study of 2000 don't lost his value at all. Lack of personal hygiene is the same as using used condoms from your neighbour. And in one issue, the article mentioned is very firm, circumcision is mutilation of an innocent child who will affect the rest of his life and can be life threatening due to infections also stated in that article. And therefore a criminal offence.

I'm not circumcised and I thank my parents every day for it.

[LadyHeather]

Despite the rather silly premise of the Health Departments conclusions I find it very interesting that an article that was about increased HIV transmission among young teenage girls is now all about men and circumcision.

[mommysboy]

Despite the rather silly premise of the Health Departments conclusions I find it very interesting that an article that was about increased HIV transmission among young teenage girls is now all about men and circumcision.

YES.

And there is now a sep. thread on the health forum to discuss other related matters.

This health education initiative does seem very muddled.

It's all about saying no or using condoms.

Simplicity and straightforwardness are not noted Thai traits however.