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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay then. Who IYO, shouldn’t get 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.
I don’t believe I said that.
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?
About all I can do with this statement is :rolleyes: right back at ya.
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.
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. 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:
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. Most of his remarks had to do with gender inequality.
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:
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?”
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.)
How about anyone who doesn’t want to be snipped.
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.
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!”?
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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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.
Also an important issue in Africa. Feel free to start your own thread on the matter.
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?
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.
Certainly better than male bonding over being HIV+, don’t you agree?
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.
No I didn’t. I’ve been trying to point out that might isn’t good enough when it comes to circumcision.
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.
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?
You haven’t nailed me on anything. Not try though.
You’re right. I apologize. You were making your thread an egofest.
Well at least you admit to those tactics.
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.
Actually, he said “bureaucratic contemplation.” I’m for more bureaucratic contemplation on this issue.
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!
Correct. But cutting men is something we can do fuck all about?
Nuke 'em from space. It’s the only way to be sure.
Me too. According to Mr. Lewis:
But what are the odds of that happening. Can we at least agree on that?
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? If South Africa says, “cutting works” I want more opinions. They think garlic, beetroot & lemons work.
No way I’m defending conservative Christian attitudes about sex, condoms, birth control or STD prevention.
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.”
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.
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.
Pardon me if I don’t believe you.
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.
I’m not, but I am assuming that it will slow the increase for the demand for those things.
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.
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.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, baby.
Snort. Try again.
Uh, no.
Only by some people.
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.
Your reading skills are sorely lacking, obviously, if you think that’s my MO.
Let’s see, he’s the expert on this issue, you’re not, so why should I think that your position has any merit?
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.
Now, you’re starting to get it.
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.
Ha, ha. That’s hysterical considering earlier you said
So what’s your reason for changing you attitude on the matter?
Well they’re certain to be 100% against if people don’t do something.
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.
First intelligent thing you’ve said this whole thread.
Help a retard out. Say it again. Cutting will save 1.6 million lives/year. Yes? No? WHAT?
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.
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.
You’re scaring me here. What is “necessary effort?”
You realize don’t you, that lots & lots & LOTS of diseases are a “side effect” of HIV. Right?
No prob, poochie-kins.
Good.
The Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I’m cool with the first sentence. The second sentence requires one of those misplaced idealistic Tuckerfan leaps of dick-cutting optimism.
More health clinics. Cool!
My position of waiting before we all run out into the countryside wielding sharp cutting objects?
Pussy.
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)
:rolleyes: Obviously they were cherry-picking results. Well, that’s what my cites get dismissed as.
More. Not just more. I’d like to hear more about the circumcised groups’ behavior & cultural practices vs. the uncircumcised groups’ behavior & cultural practices.
Longer than your attention span.
So you are pro-global warming, and you don’t want more studies?
So like when we were using DDT all over the place & we didn’t listen to you tree-hugging little Bald-Eagle loving whiners?
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.)
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.
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.
And that somehow makes the issue less important? Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons is better than doing nothing.
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.
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.
My point exactly.
“Good” to what? That we have the highest drug costs or that the pharma companies are allowing nations to produce their own drugs?
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).
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.
Indeed.
Yes, that one.
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 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.
Ah, yes. There you go, holding the moral high ground again. :rolleyes:
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?
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.
Or any other of a number of problems.
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?
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?
I’m sure the role of sex education can’t be underestimated.