Circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%' (Ind.UK)

[White_Male_Canada]

It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years...(excerpt)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle1217831.ece

[Like Loving]

Or just use a fucking condom.

[greenkb]

saw a TV show on about this about 5 yrs ago, the BBC's horizon science programme.

[Vicki Richter]

This is why I only let circumsized men cum in my ass on the first date.

[Jamie Michelle]

It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years...(excerpt)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle1217831.ece

If this is true, then this will properly be something for human males to consider for themselves, not something for adults to force upon them against their will. A person old enough to decide to have sex is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants to be circumcized.

I doubt, though, that this is true to begin with, as most so-called "AIDS" cases in Africa have nothing to do with HIV. Rather, African "AIDS" is mostly due to starvation, dysentery, malaria, etc., which are labeled "AIDS" because that is where the international funding is at.

But these arguments are ex post facto justifications for circumcision. In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held ground, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought of in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual.

For more on this, see the below:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM):

http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48:

http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

[Jamie Michelle]

This is why I only let circumsized men cum in my ass on the first date.

And that is why you get the Wholesome Families' Safe-Sex Seal of Approval®.

[ARMANIXXX]

Jamie Michelle said,
If this is true, then this will properly be something for human males to consider for themselves, not something for adults to force upon them against their will. A person old enough to decide to have sex is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants to be circumcized.

I doubt, though, that this is true to begin with, as most so-called "AIDS" cases in Africa have nothing to do with HIV. Rather, African "AIDS" is mostly due to starvation, dysentery, malaria, etc., which are labeled "AIDS" because that is where the international funding is at.

But these arguments are ex post facto justifications for circumcision. In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held ground, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought of in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual.

For more on this, see the below:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM):

http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48:

http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

__________________________________________________ ________________________





No Jaime. This Idea of "circumcision" is not new or anything revolutionary. Circumcision is the product of biblical reference. In the Bible, both Christian and Jewish (Muslim Koran does as well), It speaks several times of circumcising children and it also makes numerous reference to those who are "UNCLEAN" (uncircumcised men).

I just think that it's facinating how a book thousands of years old and considered "obsolete" my many cynical pundits, I think it's facinating how that book can symbolically smack folks upside their head as if to tell them, "See, I was right, I tried to tell you silly basatards a long time ago and you hung me on a tree."

[White_Male_Canada]

This is why I only let circumsized men cum in my ass on the first date.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Witty,but true no doubt.

And stop making my cut one perk up when you say those things

[chefmike]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :P :P

[JRon]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :P :P

The same Republican that makes every attempt to explain why he supports George W. Bush actually just posted a picture of his dick on a Shemale message board. Does that seem contradictory to anyone else?