# Alex\_Dubinsky And The Fatal Foreskin **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 24, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063 "2006-08-24T17:42:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/121 "2006-08-28T16:31:18Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] And for penises, too. To my mind, the case for circumcision isn’t sufficiently compelling. My point with the other issues is simply that medical tastes seem to change, as wwell. Circumcision was so clearly supported in the 1950s that everyone I knew had been. In more recent years the trend has been away from it. The attitude in this thread in favor of it seems to be new, and prompted wholly by the transmission of AIDS, and most of the atrguments seem to be that “we have to protect these people for their own good”. That argument has never appealed to me. [/QUOTE] Well, in my opinion I have nothing whatsoever against someone who decided that the case for this procedure was uncompelling and thus decided not to do it or have it done for a child. While I believe that the weight of legitimate scientific evidence demonstrates that the procedure is a net health benefit, seems like this is something on which reasonable people can disagree. 🙂 What I do dislike are those who, for whatever reason, feel that those persons who decide _differently_ - that think circumcision is a healthier choice - are somehow “barbarians” for so doing, and ought to be legally _prevented_ from having this option, “for the good of the children”. Seems to me that this attitude is a _far_ worse example of ‘paternalism’, as it is exercised against persons who are _adults_; after all, it is, to some extent, the job of parents to behave paternalistically towards their children, and attempt to protect them “for their own good” when making such choices. ---
**Author:** ![Chotii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Chotii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chotii)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/122 "2006-08-28T17:40:27Z")
I would have more respect for a parent who, looking at all the available medical information, chose circumcision for a child…than for a parent who “likes the look of it better” or “he has to look like his father” or “Ew, foreskins are gross” or “It’s just the done thing” or “My doctor asked me, so I said yes” or any of the other reasons people have. I do respect that people have the choice. I don’t have to respect the thinking that goes into it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/123 "2006-08-28T17:44:53Z")
[QUOTE=Chotii] I would have more respect for a parent who, looking at all the available medical information, chose circumcision for a child…than for a parent who “likes the look of it better” or “he has to look like his father” or “Ew, foreskins are gross” or “It’s just the done thing” or “My doctor asked me, so I said yes” or any of the other reasons people have. I do respect that people have the choice. I don’t have to respect the thinking that goes into it. [/QUOTE] I would have more respect for a parent who, looking at all the available medical information, chose not to circumcise a child…than for a parent who “likes the look of it better” or “he has to look like his father” or “Ew, no foreskins are gross” or “It’s just the done thing” or “My doctor asked me, so I said no” or any of the other reasons people have. I do respect that people have the choice. I don’t have to respect the thinking that goes into it. ---
**Author:** ![Chotii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Chotii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chotii)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/124 "2006-08-28T21:32:18Z")
You know, I’m still not convinced that in the long run, circumcised men who engage in unsafe sex, are any better off than intact men who engage in unsafe sex. It’s true that this one study (20 men vs 29 men) appeared to show a short-term protective measure, but it also included the healing time from the surgery, during which time those men who had been cut were probably not out engaging in sex of any kind, safe or not. The men on the restoration list are pretty much unanimous in this: intact (or restored) sex with a condom feels a LOT better than circed sex with a condom. Ergo, men who are cut, are less likely to be willing to wear a condom, because they can’t feel much with one on. So who is safer? Intact men who are willing to wear condoms because it still feels good even with one on, or cut men who are unwilling to wear one, because they can’t feel enough to make it worth the bother? So people say “It’s better to have built-in protection because not everybody will wear a condom all the time.” Except that the protection is only partial, and people who beleive they are safe will be even LESS willing to take extra precautions. Frankly, in my view that’s like giving somebody climbing a rock face a lightweight webbing rope in case they fall. It may make them feel safe, and take greater risks, but if they fall they’ll still get broken in several places. And again I say: the women get no protection at all. Particularly if these same cut men are LESS willing to wear condoms because of sensation problems. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/125 "2006-08-28T21:42:48Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Or maybe I was taking the opportunity to point and laugh at someone who was so irrational in their views that they exploded all over the board, lost their posting priviledges, and became the butt of innumerable jokes on this board. [/quote] I don’t even know who you’re talking about, but I know it’s poor board etiquette to poke fun at a banned poster who is unable to return to the boards to defend his/her position. > [@](#): > > Cite? Again, show me where I said _everyone_ should get snipped. Oh, wait, you can’t, because I _didn’t_. Okay then. Who IYO, _shouldn’t_ get snipped? You make (blanket) statements like: > [@](#): > > So, let’s discuss the ethics of a few centimeters of skin versus the lives of millions of people. > > Naturally, AD’s anti-circumcision stance has a rational basis to it, one that outweighs the potential of some 1.6 million lives being saved every year. Where do you even get this 1.6 million lives saved per year? Is this world-wide? Or are we still talking just Africa? I’ve dug up stats that say 2 million Sub-Saharan Africans died from AIDS in 2005. Almost half the currently HIV infected & I presume deaths, are women. Never mind the children. We’re talking about a possible pay-off we won’t see for twenty years. > [@](#): > > Show me where I suggested that this was the _only_ solution to HIV _anywhere_. I don’t believe I said that. > [@](#): > > Right, because obviously millions of African men are doing such a good job of stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa. If African men aren’t doing a bang-up job of stopping AIDS in Africa, how is circumcision going to help? Make circumcision mandatory? Forced? And again I have to ask, who’s going to be performing the circumcisions, and under what sanitary conditions? > [@](#): > > In fact, they’ve done such a good job that AIDS is no longer an issue in Africa. :rolleyes: About all I can do with this statement is :rolleyes: right back at ya. > [@](#): > > Well, let’s see here, so far you’ve attempted to put words in my mouth, I did? > [@](#): > > accused me of wanting to make my thread an egofest, I never called it an egofest per se, but you’ve already admitted you wanted to poke fun at a banned poster who couldn’t defend himself. > [@](#): > > and either deliberately, or because you lack the cognitive ability, have misinterpreted everyone’s post on the opposite side of the issue as you Wow, I have super powers. > [@](#): > > (as well as refusing to respond to direct questions and ignoring **Helen’s Eidolon** ’s cites to medical journals on the issue), so what does that make you? These cites? [QUOTE=Helen’s Eidolon] Okay. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006 Jul 31 - Epidemiology of HIV-1 Infection in Agricultural Plantation Residents in Kericho, Kenya: Preparation for Vaccine Feasibility Studies.Sateren WB, Foglia G, Renzullo PO, Elson L, Wasunna M, Bautista CT, Birx DL Exerpt from the abstract: "Among men, elevated HIV-1 prevalence was seen with increasing age, peaking in those older than 30 years (10.3%), marriage (10.4%), Luo tribe affiliation (23.5%), employment (8.9%), travel (11.0%), and being uncircumcised (29.2%). " PLoS Med. 2006 Jul 11;3(7):e262 [Epub ahead of print] The Potential Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, Hankins C, Getz WM, Hargrove J, de Zoysa I, Dye C, Auvert B. Exerpt from abstract: "A randomized controlled trial (RCT) has shown that male circumcision (MC) reduces sexual transmission of HIV from women to men by 60% (32%-76%; 95% CI) offering an intervention of proven efficacy for reducing the sexual spread of HIV. " These cites satisfy you? I think it’s important to note that no one is suggesting we start circumcising everyone in Africa right this second. Two more studies are currently taking place and everyone hopes that these do confirm that circumcision will have a significant impact on the rate of new infections. If/when that is show, THEN new procedures will be put in place. [/QUOTE] First off, I have to point out **Helen** blithely dismissed & ignored all my cites. I don’t see why I’m obligated to respond to hers. Personally, if condoms were only 60% effective at keeping me HIV negative or becoming an unplanned father, I’d _never_ rely on them. Helen goes on to state: > [@](#): > > If/when that is show, THEN new procedures will be put in place. What new procedures? In his remarks to the Closing Session of the XVI International AIDS Conference, Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, only included one paragraph regarding male [circumcision](http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200608190001.html). Most of his remarks had to do with gender inequality. > [@](#): > > Number 3: Circumcision, as a preventive intervention, should not be subject to bureaucratic contemplation forever. We have enough information now to know that it is an intervention worth pursuing. What remains is a single-minded effort to get the word out, respect cultural sensitivities, and then for those who want to proceed, make certain that we have well-trained personnel to do the operating. I see two problems. First, it’s “for those who want to proceed.” What if they don’t? Second, “make certain that we have well-trained personnel to do the operating.” Well, hasn’t that always been the problem? We don’t have sufficient personnel to do the vaccinating, the water treatment, the educating, distributing of drugs - there are all sort of problems in Africa we don’t have the well-trained personnel to do. How is circumcision going to be any different? Oh, but once the word gets out I guess it’s going to go like this, according to Mr. Lewis: > [@](#): > > The men are lining up for the procedure in Swaziland. And when I was in the Zambian copper belt, just a couple of weeks ago, at an animated meeting with the District Commissioner, he indicated that he was a part of an ethnic group which was circumcised. I then revealed that I was circumcised, and there followed a joyous frenzy of male bonding amongst all the circumciseees. The fact of the matter is that even in the remotest parts of Africa there is now an awareness of the issue; it’s important to act on it. Yes, that’s right. Once word gets out there will be a joyous frenzy of male bonding throughout Africa amongst all the circumciseees. :rolleyes: See, when we start going around Africa extolling the virtues of circumcision I’m afraid it isn’t going to be a rational education program. It’s going to lots of phrases like, “joyous frenzy” and “male bonding.” Wow, makes it sound fun! “Can’t wait for my circumcision! I want to be just like all the other cool guys!” What happens twenty years from now when African men realized they were duped? “Hey, waitaminute. How come Europeans, Americans, Australians etc; aren’t getting circumcised but they’re making us Africans get circumcised?” ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/126 "2006-08-29T07:11:57Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] I don’t even know who you’re talking about, but I know it’s poor board etiquette to poke fun at a banned poster who is unable to return to the boards to defend his/her position. [/quote] Gee, you’ve been here long enough, that you should have heard of **Jack Dean Tyler** , and it’d be poor etiquette if I’d made a huge production of it, but the gentle jab I made is no worse (and far milder) than the usual references made about him. (I’ll give you a hint, any time you see **JDT** that’s who they’re talking about.) > [@](#): > > Okay then. Who IYO, _shouldn’t_ get snipped? How about anyone who doesn’t want to be snipped. > [@](#): > > You make (blanket) statements like: > > Where do you even get this 1.6 million lives saved per year? Is this world-wide? Or are we still talking just Africa? I’ve dug up stats that say 2 million Sub-Saharan Africans died from AIDS in 2005. Almost half the currently HIV infected & I presume deaths, are women. Never mind the children. We’re talking about a possible pay-off we won’t see for twenty years. Well, if you’d actually bothered to read my post, you’d see where I got those figures, but reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong points. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe I said that. Oh come now, you’ve accused me of wanting to impliment a program where _everyone_ on the planet is forcibly snipped (even though I never said such a thing), and you’ve patently ignored where it’s been pointed out that this _might_ be a way of slowing the spread of HIV. Play coy all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is, you have a fantasy of stopping me from running around with a pair of scissors and cutting off everyone’s foreskins, even though I’ve _never_ suggested I want to do such a thing. So tell me, in your fantasy, do the crowds chant, “Behold, **levdrakon** savior of foreskins!” or is simply “ **levdrakon**! **levdrakon**! **levdrakon**!”? > [@](#): > > If African men aren’t doing a bang-up job of stopping AIDS in Africa, how is circumcision going to help? Make circumcision mandatory? Forced? And again I have to ask, who’s going to be performing the circumcisions, and under what sanitary conditions? One more weapon is better than none. And training people in the proper methods of performing circumcision is a _hell_ of a lot easier and cheaper than setting up pharmacuetical factories and it’s also _cheaper_ than spending $10K per person per year for anti-AIDS medications. > [@](#): > > About all I can do with this statement is :rolleyes: right back at ya. So when I nail you on an issue, rather than reexamine your position on the matter, you’re just going to back away? Nice. > [@](#): > > I did? I never called it an egofest per se, but you’ve already admitted you wanted to poke fun at a banned poster who couldn’t defend himself. Wow, I have super powers. You said: > [@levdrakon](#): > > You’re upset because the thread wasn’t all “rah, rah, rah, yay **Tuckerfan** , rational discussion, rational discussion, rational discussion!” Or are you just a sourpuss who’s upset the whole world doesn’t share your “everyone should get circumcised and we’ll all be saved” fantasy? Sure sounds like you’re calling it an egofest to me. Note, also that I’m **not** the only one who mentioned **JDT** in this thread. Heck, I wasn’t even the first person to name him. > [@](#): > > These cites? > > First off, I have to point out **Helen** blithely dismissed & ignored all my cites. I don’t see why I’m obligated to respond to hers. Well, aren’t you supposed to be the one holding the moral high ground? Thus, you should be above using the same tactics as those you disagree with. > [@](#): > > Personally, if condoms were only 60% effective at keeping me HIV negative or becoming an unplanned father, I’d _never_ rely on them. Well, a 60% effective rate is a helluvalot better than nothing, which is what many people are relying on now. > [@](#): > > Helen goes on to state: What new procedures? Uh, you know, promoting circumcision, something that we’ve been talking about. > [@](#): > > In his remarks to the Closing Session of the XVI International AIDS Conference, Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, only included one paragraph regarding male [circumcision](http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200608190001.html). And, yet, in his statement, he says that we should get the word out, and specifically states that we should **not** allow it to be tied up in buerocratic nonsense. > [@](#): > > Most of his remarks had to do with gender inequality. Also an important issue in Africa. Feel free to start your own thread on the matter. > [@](#): > > I see two problems. First, it’s “for those who want to proceed.” What if they don’t? Then they don’t get snipped. You can hand out condoms all you want, but if the people don’t want use them, there’s really fuck all we can do about it, isn’t there? > [@](#): > > Second, “make certain that we have well-trained personnel to do the operating.” Well, hasn’t that always been the problem? We don’t have sufficient personnel to do the vaccinating, the water treatment, the educating, distributing of drugs - there are all sort of problems in Africa we don’t have the well-trained personnel to do. How is circumcision going to be any different? So what do you propose we do as an alternative? _Nothing?_ If you want to start a petition which says we should pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as we can and then spend $1 billion a week fighting AIDS in Africa (even if those methods _don’t_ include circumcision), I’ll be more than happy to sign it. > [@](#): > > Oh, but once the word gets out I guess it’s going to go like this, according to Mr. Lewis: Yes, that’s right. Once word gets out there will be a joyous frenzy of male bonding throughout Africa amongst all the circumciseees. :rolleyes: Certainly better than male bonding over being HIV+, don’t you agree? > [@](#): > > See, when we start going around Africa extolling the virtues of circumcision I’m afraid it isn’t going to be a rational education program. It’s going to lots of phrases like, “joyous frenzy” and “male bonding.” Wow, makes it sound fun! “Can’t wait for my circumcision! I want to be just like all the other cool guys!” What happens twenty years from now when African men realized they were duped? “Hey, waitaminute. How come Europeans, Americans, Australians etc; aren’t getting circumcised but they’re making us Africans get circumcised?” The same issues are raised with dicussions of population control (Hey! The whities are just bitching because there’s more of us than there are of them!), environmental protection, “ethnic cleansing” (Hey! You guys in America did that with the Native Americans, so why are you bitching about us?), and damned near every other issue involving the developing world and the industrialized nations. Circumcision has at least been shown to have _some_ positive effects in regards to AIDS, whereas this Administration is more focused on promoting abstinence than anything else (which is 100% effective **if** you can convince people to use it, which is a hard sell in many cases). Don’t forget that the Catholic Church claims that condoms will **not** protect you from sexually transmitted diseases, even though this is a well known falsehood. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/127 "2006-08-29T08:45:27Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Gee, you’ve been here long enough, that you should have heard of **Jack Dean Tyler** , and it’d be poor etiquette if I’d made a huge production of it, but the gentle jab I made is no worse (and far milder) than the usual references made about him. (I’ll give you a hint, any time you see **JDT** that’s who they’re talking about.) [/quote] Never heard of him. Guess I’m not cool. > [@](#): > > How about anyone who doesn’t want to be snipped. Yah! > [@](#): > > Well, if you’d actually bothered to read my post, you’d see where I got those figures, but reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong points. Still not gonna cough it up, huh? > [@](#): > > Oh come now, you’ve accused me of wanting to impliment a program where _everyone_ on the planet is forcibly snipped (even though I never said such a thing) Neither did I. > [@](#): > > and you’ve patently ignored where it’s been pointed out that this _might_ be a way of slowing the spread of HIV. No I didn’t. I’ve been trying to point out that _might_ isn’t good enough when it comes to circumcision. > [@](#): > > Play coy all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is, you have a fantasy of stopping me from running around with a pair of scissors and cutting off everyone’s foreskins, even though I’ve _never_ suggested I want to do such a thing. Trust me, I have no fantasies which involve you. > [@](#): > > So tell me, in your fantasy, do the crowds chant, “Behold, **levdrakon** savior of foreskins!” or is simply “ **levdrakon**! **levdrakon**! **levdrakon**!”? Mostly just the “ **levdrakon** ” part. None having anything to do with this topic. I’m not the Foreskin Avenger. Thanks though. > [@](#): > > One more weapon is better than none. And training people in the proper methods of performing circumcision is a _hell_ of a lot easier and cheaper than setting up pharmacuetical factories and it’s also _cheaper_ than spending $10K per person per year for anti-AIDS medications. The cost of AIDS meds is pretty relative. Western pharmaceuticals won’t allow African nations to produce generics for instance, because it would cut into profits. Anyway, you’re assuming circumcision is going to abrogate the need for AIDS meds, treatment & the training to administer it? They’ve already got meds in the pipe which are pretty easy to administer. There is also already an infrastructure set up for treating HIV & AIDS. There’s no such infrastructure set up for cutting men. How much is that gonna cost? > [@](#): > > So when I nail you on an issue, rather than reexamine your position on the matter, you’re just going to back away? Nice. You haven’t nailed me on anything. Not try though. > [@](#): > > You said:Sure sounds like you’re calling it an egofest to me. Note, also that I’m **not** the only one who mentioned **JDT** in this thread. Heck, I wasn’t even the first person to name him. You’re right. I apologize. You were making your thread an egofest. > [@](#): > > Well, aren’t you supposed to be the one holding the moral high ground? Thus, you should be above using the same tactics as those you disagree with. Well at least you admit to those tactics. > [@](#): > > Well, a 60% effective rate is a helluvalot better than nothing, which is what many people are relying on now. Uh, you know, promoting circumcision, something that we’ve been talking about. The 60% is still under contention. But at least I got you to admit you are promoting circumcision. You’re not going to fire back: _“I didn’t say I wanted everyone in the universe cut! I just said maybe. Sorta. Kinda. Perhaps. In some instances. Sometimes. If they want it. Cite!”_ Are you? That seems to be your MO. > [@](#): > > And, yet, in his statement, he says that we should get the word out, and specifically states that we should **not** allow it to be tied up in buerocratic nonsense. Actually, he said “bureaucratic contemplation.” I’m for more bureaucratic contemplation on this issue. > [@](#): > > Also an important issue in Africa. Feel free to start your own thread on the matter. So you don’t want to tackle the gender inequality component of HIV-AIDS in Africa? You just want to cut everybody? Oh wait! I can’t say that. You never said they should cut everybody! > [@](#): > > Then they don’t get snipped. You can hand out condoms all you want, but if the people don’t want use them, there’s really fuck all we can do about it, isn’t there? Correct. But cutting men _is_ something we can do fuck all about? > [@](#): > > So what do you propose we do as an alternative? Nuke 'em from space. It’s the only way to be sure. > [@](#): > > If you want to start a petition which says we should pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as we can and then spend $1 billion a week fighting AIDS in Africa (even if those methods _don’t_ include circumcision), I’ll be more than happy to sign it. Me too. According to Mr. Lewis: > [@](#): > > Any straight line projection will take us to $30 billion in 2010 - the moment of universal access to treatment, prevention and care. But what are the odds of that happening. Can we at least agree on that? > [@](#): > > Certainly better than male bonding over being HIV+, don’t you agree? Whatever. First I’d have to agree circumcision is worth the theoretical benefits. You haven’t convinced me. > [@](#): > > Circumcision has at least been shown to have _some_ positive effects in regards to AIDS, But is it worth it? All I’m asking is wait & think about it. At least until more studies are done. Did you know South Africa barred [Stephen Lewis?](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/137289.asp) If South Africa says, “cutting works” I want more opinions. They think garlic, beetroot & lemons work. > [@](#): > > whereas this Administration is more focused on promoting abstinence than anything else (which is 100% effective **if** you can convince people to use it, which is a hard sell in many cases). Don’t forget that the Catholic Church claims that condoms will **not** protect you from sexually transmitted diseases, even though this is a well known falsehood. No way I’m defending conservative Christian attitudes about sex, condoms, birth control or STD prevention. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/128 "2006-08-29T09:45:56Z")
Cites for the following **FACTS** were given by myself in posts in 1999 and 2002 that I have been as yet unable to discover using the search function. (I also note that the anti-scientific anti-circ zealots haven’t provided legitimate scientific cites for their case outside of the blatantly political propaganda from places like CIRP). The facts themselves come from a previous post that referenced the cite-containing post but unfortunately did not provide a link. In 5 major series in the USA since 1932, not one man with penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally. [i.e., infant circumcision appears to be a 100% effective preventive measure against penile cancer in the U.S.] - Of 33 cross-sectional studies, 22 have reported statistically significant association, by univariate and multivariate analysis, between the presence of the foreskin and HIV infection (4 of these were from the USA). 5 reported a trend (including 1 US study). The 6 that saw no difference were 4 from Rwanda and 2 from Tanzania. In addition there have been 5 prospective studies and 2 from Kenya and 1 from Tanzania reported statistically significant association. The increased risk in the significant studies ranged from 1.5 to 9.6 [e.g., the risk of contracting HIV is at least 150% greater – but could well be as much as 960% greater – for uncut men as compared to circumcised men. - Clinical and neurological testing has not detected any difference in penile sensitivity between men of each category. - Slightly higher sexual activity in circumcised men. - The National Health and Social Life Survey in the USA found that uncircumcised men were more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions. This was slight at younger ages, but became quite significant later in life and included finding it twice as difficult to achieve or maintain an erection. It was also discovered that circumcised men engaged in a more elaborate set of sexual practices [i.e., cut men were typically less conventional lovers]. Not surprisingly, in view of the findings above, circumcised men received more fellatio. “… uncircumcised men had a higher prevalence of HIV infection than circumcised men” “Women whose husband or usual sex partner was uncircumcised had a threefold increase in risk of HIV, and this risk was present in almost all strata of potential confounding factors.” “CONCLUSION: Male circumcision has a protective effect against HIV infection” “HIV infection was significantly associated with uncircumcised status” “A logistic regression model adjusted for behavioral and historical [factors] showed that HIV-1 positivity was independently associated with being uncircumcised … Male circumcision should be considered as an intervention strategy for AIDS control.” “The decision to discourage newborn circumcision in the UK and the resultant decrease in the number of circumcised males occurred before the accumulation of this evidence about the protective effect of circumcision against UTI and HIV infection. Particularly in the face of an expanding worldwide AIDS epidemic, these benefits are a powerful argument in favour of encouraging universal newborn circumcision.” “Over 95% of attributable risk in men with STD was either genital ulceration or the presence of a foreskin.” “Uncircumcised men were more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea…” “The medical benefits of circumcision appear to exceed the risks of the procedure.” “It has been established that lack of circumcision increases the risk of urinary tract infection in infants. … Our results also support the role of the prepuce as a reservoir for sexually transmitted organisms.” “Male circumcision consistently shows a protective effect against HIV infection. … The prevalence of HIV infection is 1.7 to 8.2 times as high in men with foreskins as in circumcised men, and the incidence of infection is 8 times [800%] as high.” RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health." “…as the safest and most commonly performed surgical procedure in [the USA], the benefits of posthetomy [circumcision], which include a reduction in some kinds of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, well outweigh the risks cited by those who oppose it.” ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/129 "2006-08-30T07:35:31Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] Never heard of him. Guess I’m not cool. [/quote] Neither am I, but I’d heard of him. > [@](#): > > Still not gonna cough it up, huh? Still not going to bother reading the post? > [@](#): > > Neither did I. You might as well have. Since you’re obviously too lazy to scroll up[, I’ll quote you here. > [@levdrakon](#): > > And one instance should make Africa a universal circumcision zone? Because little ol’ **Tuckerfan** knows better than millions of African men what’s good fer 'em? What conceit. > [@levdrakon](#): > > If African men aren’t doing a bang-up job of stopping AIDS in Africa, how is circumcision going to help? Make circumcision mandatory? Forced? And again I have to ask, who’s going to be performing the circumcisions, and under what sanitary conditions? There’s just two examples where you certainly imply that I think the solution is massed and forced snipping of everyone. Weasel around the terminology all you want, but your meaning was clear. > [@](#): > > No I didn’t. I’ve been trying to point out that _might_ isn’t good enough when it comes to circumcision. According to a recent Pentagon report, the _greatest_ threat to stability in Africa is AIDS (that’s why Shrub’s suddenly decided to start spending money on the matter). Normally, I’d be inclined to take anything the Pentagon says with a grain of salt, but considering that combating AIDS doesn’t involve the Pentagon getting any shiney new toys, I’m gonna trust them on this one. We’ve botched Iraq and Afghanistan because we’ve been unwilling to put the necessary effort behind the tasks, do you really want to take the same chance with an entire continent? Bear in mind that there’s a new strain of TB in Africa which kills in 16 days, is totally immune to **any** treatment, and it’s thought that it’s a “side-effect” of the AIDS problem. > [@](#): > > Trust me, I have no fantasies which involve you. Mostly just the “ **levdrakon** ” part. None having anything to do with this topic. I’m not the Foreskin Avenger. Thanks though. Pardon me if I don’t believe you. > [@](#): > > The cost of AIDS meds is pretty relative. Western pharmaceuticals won’t allow African nations to produce generics for instance, because it would cut into profits. Actually, that’s changing. Several countries in Africa have worked out deals with the pharma companies to be able to manufacture generics and more are in the process. Remember, we 'Merkins have the _highest_ drug costs. > [@](#): > > Anyway, you’re assuming circumcision is going to abrogate the need for AIDS meds, treatment & the training to administer it? I’m not, but I am assuming that it will slow the increase for the demand for those things. > [@](#): > > They’ve already got meds in the pipe which are pretty easy to administer. Not all the meds are easy to administer, and there’s certainly not enough in the pipeline to care for everyone who needs them. Slowing down the rate of new infections will enable the various governments and aid agencies to catch up. > [@](#): > > There is also already an infrastructure set up for treating HIV & AIDS. There’s no such infrastructure set up for cutting men. How much is that gonna cost? what makes you think they can’t share the same pipeline? At least one group working in Haiti (not Africa, but in just as bad shape) is working to reopen health clinics to treat not only HIV, but other health issues as well. According to them, it’s cheaper to do it that way. > [@](#): > > You haven’t nailed me on anything. Not try though. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, baby. > [@](#): > > You’re right. I apologize. You were making your thread an egofest. Snort. Try again. > [@](#): > > Well at least you admit to those tactics. Uh, no. > [@](#): > > The 60% is still under contention. Only by some people. > [@](#): > > But at least I got you to admit you are promoting circumcision. I never denied it. I took issue with the clear implication that I was suggesting **manditory** circumcision or that it was the **only** solution to AIDS. > [@](#): > > You’re not going to fire back: _“I didn’t say I wanted everyone in the universe cut! I just said maybe. Sorta. Kinda. Perhaps. In some instances. Sometimes. If they want it. Cite!”_ Are you? That seems to be your MO. Your reading skills are sorely lacking, obviously, if you think that’s my MO. > [@](#): > > Actually, he said “bureaucratic contemplation.” I’m for more bureaucratic contemplation on this issue. Let’s see, he’s the expert on this issue, you’re **not** , so why should I think that your position has any merit? > [@](#): > > So you don’t want to tackle the gender inequality component of HIV-AIDS in Africa? I never said that. I said taht it was an important issue and that you were free to start your own thread on the matter. But there’s that lack of reading comprehension again. > [@](#): > > You just want to cut everybody? Oh wait! I can’t say that. You never said they should cut everybody! Now, you’re starting to get it. > [@](#): > > Correct. But cutting men _is_ something we can do fuck all about? Hey, it’s **one** step forward, certainly **not** the only step forward, but it is one, which is more than you’ve offered so far. > [@](#): > > Nuke 'em from space. It’s the only way to be sure. Ha, ha. That’s hysterical considering earlier you said > [@levdrakon](#): > > You seem to like to play “pretend.” I don’t feel like playing on this topic. Sorry. So what’s your reason for changing you attitude on the matter? > [@](#): > > Me too. According to Mr. Lewis: But what are the odds of that happening. Can we at least agree on that? Well they’re certain to be 100% **against** if people don’t do something. > [@](#): > > Whatever. First I’d have to agree circumcision is worth the theoretical benefits. You haven’t convinced me. But is it worth it? All I’m asking is wait & think about it. At least until more studies are done. Did you know South Africa barred [Stephen Lewis?](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/137289.asp) If South Africa says, “cutting works” I want more opinions. They think garlic, beetroot & lemons work. Didja notice in the original thread where people linked to _other_ studies which reported the **same** results? Those ain’t enough for you? How many studies do you want? How many people in those studies? How long do you want them to run? It’s the same tactic those against global warming use, “We need more studies!” Sooner or later, you’ve got to shit or get off the pot, and the longer you wait, the bigger the mess you’ve got to clean up. It took us a helluva long time to even admit that AIDS was a problem, and that delay cost at least thousands of lives. You seem content to continue in that pattern. > [@](#): > > No way I’m defending conservative Christian attitudes about sex, condoms, birth control or STD prevention. First intelligent thing you’ve said this whole thread. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/130 "2006-08-30T09:18:14Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] “The decision to discourage newborn circumcision in the UK and the resultant decrease in the number of circumcised males occurred before the accumulation of this evidence about the protective effect of circumcision against UTI and HIV infection. Particularly in the face of an expanding worldwide AIDS epidemic, these benefits are a powerful argument in favour of encouraging universal newborn circumcision.” [/QUOTE] It makes you wonder what sort of a place the UK is to live in! 😕 I’m sure the role of sex education can’t be underestimated. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/131 "2006-09-01T01:46:09Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Neither am I, but I’d heard of him. [/quote] You get a cookie. > [@](#): > > Still not going to bother reading the post? Help a retard out. Say it again. Cutting will save 1.6 million lives/year. Yes? No? WHAT? > [@](#): > > You might as well have. Since you’re obviously too lazy to scroll up[, I’ll quote you here.There’s just two examples where you certainly imply that I think the solution is massed and forced snipping of everyone. Weasel around the terminology all you want, but your meaning was clear. I said I don’t want forced, mass-cutting. I said that I never said you said you want forced mass-cutting. Not that you don’t. I just never said you did. > [@](#): > > According to a recent Pentagon report, the _greatest_ threat to stability in Africa is AIDS (that’s why Shrub’s suddenly decided to start spending money on the matter). Normally, I’d be inclined to take anything the Pentagon says with a grain of salt, but considering that combating AIDS doesn’t involve the Pentagon getting any shiney new toys, I’m gonna trust them on this one. I’ve been hearing for awhile that AIDS & its destabilizing effect on 3rd world countries brings it to a matter of concern & perhaps national security. The fact that Shrub is concerned just means his handlers told him if they all die it might cut into profits. > [@](#): > > We’ve botched Iraq and Afghanistan because we’ve been unwilling to put the necessary effort behind the tasks, do you really want to take the same chance with an entire continent? 😕 You’re scaring me here. What is “necessary effort?” > [@](#): > > Bear in mind that there’s a new strain of TB in Africa which kills in 16 days, is totally immune to **any** treatment, and it’s thought that it’s a “side-effect” of the AIDS problem. You realize don’t you, that lots & lots & LOTS of diseases are a “side effect” of HIV. Right? > [@](#): > > Pardon me if I don’t believe you. No prob, poochie-kins. > [@](#): > > Actually, that’s changing. Several countries in Africa have worked out deals with the pharma companies to be able to manufacture generics and more are in the process. Remember, we 'Merkins have the _highest_ drug costs. Good. > [@](#): > > I’m not, but I am assuming that it will slow the increase for the demand for those things. The Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt. > [@](#): > > Not all the meds are easy to administer, and there’s certainly not enough in the pipeline to care for everyone who needs them. Slowing down the rate of new infections will enable the various governments and aid agencies to catch up. I’m cool with the first sentence. The second sentence requires one of those misplaced idealistic **Tuckerfan** leaps of dick-cutting optimism. > [@](#): > > what makes you think they can’t share the same pipeline? At least one group working in Haiti (not Africa, but in just as bad shape) is working to reopen health clinics to treat not only HIV, but other health issues as well. According to them, it’s cheaper to do it that way. More health clinics. Cool! > [@](#): > > Let’s see, he’s the expert on this issue, you’re **not** , so why should I think that your position has any merit? My position of waiting before we all run out into the countryside wielding sharp cutting objects? > [@](#): > > I never said that. I said taht it was an important issue and that you were free to start your own thread on the matter. Pussy. > [@](#): > > Hey, it’s **one** step forward, certainly **not** the only step forward, but it is one, which is more than you’ve offered so far. So if cutting isn’t the right answer but I can’t come up with something better than cutting is the right answer in **Tucker-world**? Woo-hoo! Bring on the leeches & maggots! (Yes I know leeches & maggots actually have their uses these days, but you’re not off the hook) > [@](#): > > Didja notice in the original thread where people linked to _other_ studies which reported the **same** results? :rolleyes: Obviously they were cherry-picking results. Well, that’s what my cites get dismissed as. > [@](#): > > Those ain’t enough for you? How many studies do you want? How many people in those studies? More. Not just more. I’d like to hear more about the circumcised groups’ behavior & cultural practices vs. the uncircumcised groups’ behavior & cultural practices. > [@](#): > > How long do you want them to run? Longer than your attention span. > [@](#): > > It’s the same tactic those against global warming use, “We need more studies!” So you are pro-global warming, and you don’t want more studies? > [@](#): > > Sooner or later, you’ve got to shit or get off the pot, and the longer you wait, the bigger the mess you’ve got to clean up. So like when we were using DDT all over the place & we didn’t listen to you tree-hugging little Bald-Eagle loving whiners? > [@](#): > > It took us a helluva long time to even admit that AIDS was a problem, and that delay cost at least thousands of lives. So? We know it’s a problem now. > [@](#): > > You seem content to continue in that pattern. Where exactly am I claiming AIDS isn’t a problem? [QUOTE] > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Don’t forget that the Catholic Church claims that condoms will not protect you from sexually transmitted diseases, even though this is a well known falsehood. > > > [@](#): > > > > No way I’m defending conservative Christian attitudes about sex, condoms, birth control or STD prevention. > > First intelligent thing you’ve said this whole thread. You’re so generous. ---
**Author:** ![Chotii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Chotii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chotii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/132 "2006-09-01T02:35:13Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Bear in mind that there’s a new strain of TB in Africa which kills in 16 days, is totally immune to **any** treatment, and it’s thought that it’s a “side-effect” of the AIDS problem. [/QUOTE] Just to be a bit more accurate about this: The patients are dying between 1 and 120 days of being brought to hospital. Their symptoms have been ‘not that dire, not dying’ but some have died before analysis of their sputum could be completed. Others, obviously, have not died that rapidly. All have been HIV positive. (The article does not say what criteria is used to determine HIV status.) [source](http://www.medpagetoday.com/2005MeetingCoverage/IAC/tb/3957) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063/133 "2006-09-01T06:58:20Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] You get a cookie. [/quote] Gee thanks. > [@](#): > > Help a retard out. Say it again. Cutting will save 1.6 million lives/year. Yes? No? WHAT? Why should I? It’s obvious that you’re either A.) Too dense to understand it no matter how simply I explain it. Or B.) Just trying to yank my chain. How do I know this? Because if my math was too difficult for people to follow, there’s enough people on this board who’d like to serve me my ass on a platter that they’d have jumped in before now and said that they didn’t get it either. > [@](#): > > I said I don’t want forced, mass-cutting. I said that I never said you said you want forced mass-cutting. Not that you don’t. I just never said you did. Ah, there we go again, playing the little linguistic game where you try to imply that I want forced mass-cutting, even though I’ve clearly said I don’t. I would have thought that you’d be tired of this by now, but then again, maybe you _weren’t_ kidding when you called yourself a retard. > [@](#): > > I’ve been hearing for awhile that AIDS & its destabilizing effect on 3rd world countries brings it to a matter of concern & perhaps national security. The fact that Shrub is concerned just means his handlers told him if they all die it might cut into profits. And that somehow makes the issue less important? Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons is better than doing nothing. > [@](#): > > 😕 You’re scaring me here. What is “necessary effort?” You really don’t pay attention to much of anything, do you? We’ve sent inadequate numbers of troops, with inadequate equipment into both countries, which is why the whole mess is falling apart. “Necessary effort” means giving them the gear and the personnel to be able to get the job done. Of course, we may now be too late to stabilize Iraq and have to let the nastiness burn itself out. I’m optimistic enough to think that with decent leadership in charge we might yet be able to pull this one off. > [@](#): > > You realize don’t you, that lots & lots & LOTS of diseases are a “side effect” of HIV. Right? Yup, and if we’ve got one that we know that’s getting worse because of AIDS, then it’s only a matter of time before others do so as well. Of course, I might just be overly optimistic in this assesment. > [@](#): > > No prob, poochie-kins. My point exactly. > [@](#): > > Good. “Good” to what? That we have the highest drug costs or that the pharma companies are allowing nations to produce their own drugs? > [@](#): > > The Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt. No, it ain’t, but given that you’ve shown an awful lot of willful ignorance in this thread (not to mention plain ignorance of the facts), it’s pretty obvious as to which one of us is riding the barge and which one ain’t (and it ain’t me on that barge, bubba). > [@](#): > > I’m cool with the first sentence. The second sentence requires one of those misplaced idealistic **Tuckerfan** leaps of dick-cutting optimism. Well, I’m going to give the various nations the benefit of the doubt and believe that they’ll be able to mobilize better as the disease comes under control, and you see, I happen to believe that will work, **no matter what** slows the progression down. Doesn’t matter if that’s caused by circumcision or some other method. If you choose to believe that the disease will continue to rage on no matter what we do, that’s your business. > [@](#): > > More health clinics. Cool! Indeed. > [@](#): > > My position of waiting before we all run out into the countryside wielding sharp cutting objects? Yes, that one. > [@](#): > > Pussy. Not at all. If I’d wanted to discuss women’s inequal treatment in Africa and it’s relationship to AIDS **and** circumcision, I would have included it in the original thread, but I hadn’t stumbled across an article discussing that, so it wasn’t relevant to the thread. Note I never said that if you started such a thread that I **wouldn’t** participate. > [@](#): > > So if cutting isn’t the right answer but I can’t come up with something better than cutting is the right answer in **Tucker-world**? Woo-hoo! Bring on the leeches & maggots! (Yes I know leeches & maggots actually have their uses these days, but you’re not off the hook) So far, you haven’t come up with any evidence that cutting **isn’t** the answer. Given that my cite comes from the **experts** at the conference dedicated to combatting AIDS, and yours **don’t** , seems to me that if you’re going to that the contrary position of mine, your evidence has to be **better** than mine. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Obviously they were cherry-picking results. Well, that’s what my cites get dismissed as. Ah, yes. There you go, holding the moral high ground again. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > More. Not just more. I’d like to hear more about the circumcised groups’ behavior & cultural practices vs. the uncircumcised groups’ behavior & cultural practices. Ah, of course. And if you get those studies, done exactly the way you want them will you change your mind? Or will you simply call for more studies? Or are you again going to say that you don’t want to play “let’s pretend” because you’re too chickenshit to admit how you really feel? > [@](#): > > Longer than your attention span. So you are pro-global warming, and you don’t want more studies? Nice evasion of the matter there, and trying to twist me around. Sorry, it won’t work. It’s quite obvious that you’re using the “we need more studies” excuse to evade answering the questions put to you. > [@](#): > > So like when we were using DDT all over the place & we didn’t listen to you tree-hugging little Bald-Eagle loving whiners? Or any other of a number of problems. > [@](#): > > So? We know it’s a problem now. Hey, we knew Afghanistan was a problem before 9/11, we knew Osama was a problem before then as well. Did we do anything about it? Not really. Lobbed a couple of cruise missiles in his direction, stuck a Predator drone on his ass for a while. Fat lot of good that did us, huh? > [@](#): > > Where exactly am I claiming AIDS isn’t a problem? Hmm, you know, I could play the weasel here and twist your words around, but, well, that’s **you’re** style and not mine, so I’ll just state things simply for you: Drugs alone, aren’t enough. Education alone, isn’t enough. Condoms aren’t enough. We simply need to throw everything we can at the problem. Now, maybe, just maybe, circumcision won’t save any lives (See? I can consider the contrary position to be valid. You should try it some time. It’s really not that hard.), but if someone thinks, “Hmm, my two choices are, if I don’t want to get AIDS, but _do_ want to have sex, is to either get the end of my dick snipped or slap a rubber on my willy. You know, I don’t really think that I’d like getting my dick snipped, maybe I’d better just wear a rubber on my willy.” Is that so bad? Or am I being overly optimistic again? > [@](#): > > You’re so generous. Overly so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alex_dubinsky-and-the-fatal-foreskin/370063.md?page=6)