Circumcision & HIV

Interesting study.

I wonder what effect wearing a condom would have on HIV transmission. Plus it’d be a whole lot easier than surgery…

The uncircumcised men probably did more sex.
Remember the strongest anti-circ argument: It reduces sexual pleasure.
This study proves nothing.

I’ve heard of this study for some time now. If this held anything, then theoretically speaking the United States should have a much lower rate of HIV than it does.

Getting circumcised to combat against HIV is about as effective as surviving getting hit head on by a train holding a pillow out in front of you.

Not to mention that there are other possible variables at play too, such as the fact that circumcision and no circumcision reflects different cultural practices. If this is one difference of cultural practice perhaps sexual practices are different also.

I think a lot of people cling to pro-circumcision position because they believe it to be God’s will when people make a covenant to Him. And it follows that if it’s God’s Will that people should circumcise then there must be some tangible benefit to it and when a tangible benefit is found it can be seen from a faith based perspective as a confirmation a sign if you like of the Deity. This is of course in Judaism and Islam. However, this is strange this pro-circ approach being lauded by majority christian America, since after Paul and his arguments with James over the role the Torah had to play, the necessity of circumcision from a christian perspective was put to death.

Obviously, you are all far more qualified than the researchers who published the study. What was I thinking?

Please forgive my unbelief.

“.Obviously, you are all far more qualified than the researchers .”

Well, it IS very important to be both questioning and sceptical about any research concerning Africa and American/European researchers,.Africa is the place that scientists with an ‘angle’ go to to ‘prove’ (did you notice that thye had the audacity to use the word “prove” on the basis of one study involving less that 3000 men) their theories.

A recent BBC documentary had a horrifying story of a large American Christian ‘charity’ which is currently waging a war on the condom in central Africa,.to the extent that is is unconcerned about rising death rates due to the resulting increase in HIV. Apparently, churches in the US “bible belt” will only give money if condoms are portrayed as the work of the devil.

Nothing really changes in life,.is this just more exploitation of the ‘dark continent’ ?

You mean like this bugleone?

http://www.docu mentary-film.ne … istings.php?e=5

I’m not sure that this documentary has been broadcast in the UK because of the bullshit with the British scientific community.

I never thought you would be one to propose a technocratic order?

ThunderSS,.Interesting,

AND, a shameful outrage!!

This kind of thing reminds me of the ‘information’ based on ‘research’ given as sex education in British schools during the 1980’s,.The Ministry of Education being short of funds allowed pharmacutical companies who manufactured the contaceptive pill to fund the education material. This astonishing material showed the ‘official lethality’ of condoms!which turned out to be based on the idea that if a condom fails and a pregnancy results then there is a measurably risk of death due to childbirth..

I seem to remember that this was only changed due to queries over the word “official” and how that is defined.

Hmmm. That might be a good point if it were in fact what I was doing.

On second thought, the opposing arguments posted here could hardly be considered “insightful”.

People see what they want to see. I am people - you are people.

The article was posted for the edification of those who might be interested in what it had to say.
It has no direct relevance to me or mine. Just like your last post - come to think of it.

Rather than dealing with the substance of the concerns raised (which may or may not have validity) you made an appeal to authority: the authority of “the qualified”.

Fair enough. But I just thought that this was inconsistent with your critiques of evolution since unless you are a scientist in one of those fields you would exclude your legitimacy to raise these kind of queries.

Look again. I did not say that the authors were qualified. That is something I have no real experience with.
I was making a comparison based on what I DO know…and that what has been posted thus far in this thread.
It was the LACK of substance among the “concerns” raised in those posts that gave me the bearing to make that comparison. If an appeal to any authority was made, it was an attempt at contrasting.
You got a turtleneck? You got HIV? You from South Africa? Frankly, I couldn’t care less.

The article met with a degree of static that I was not expecting…but I should not always assume protest is putting one’s best foot forward. A query requires very little by the way of “qualification” (in this context).
A stupid question is an unqualified question. A probing question need not be posed by an erudite.
I have asked both kinds in my day.

No, you don’t know me. Allow me to introduce myself, jelqbeginner. I am the thorn in the flesh.

You going to have a good weekend, mate? Do try.

Often confused with a pain in the ass.

Have a good weekend goon. Nice signature you got there, it was an attempt at humor directed at Jaybee.

Ouch.

Try what. To go into a pro-circ v anti circ debate. Fine if I can be bothered. I have however got two essays I need to do over the weekend for university, so, if I have to put my intellectual energy anywhere over the next two days it will be there, so if you mean by ‘being the thorn in my side’ that you enjoy having the last word, then fine your perfectly welcome, I’ll save my energies for a debate I actually give a shit about.