Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

HIV risk halved by circumcision

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
Unbeliever

Unbeliever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationCalifornia
I wasn't sure where to put this one, but here it is:

http://www.nytimes.c....html?th&emc=th

So, Paul says that Christ will avail you nothing if you're circumcised, but it's healthy?

#2
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,614 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
Condoms cut your HIV risk by much, much more than 50% and they do not require mutilation or the risk of infection involved in circumcision.

While the facts revealed in this study are no doubt true, they are also irrelevant. A much more effective and much less invasive protection against HIV is already available.

Let's hear it for Bill Clinton and Bill Gates trying to stem the tide of AIDS in Africa.

And fuck the Pope.

#3
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
Wait, wait, wait...

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse.

So they have speculation, but has it been proven?  Besides, even if this is true, wouldn't that make men more susceptible to other diseases?  I'd also like to know, what about the risk of infection from said diseases during the time it takes to heal?  Having a huge open gash on the surface can't possibly be good for you.

#4
Seti

Seti

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
There's some evidence that it also reduces the risk to women of getting cervical cancer, because that's often caused by the papilloma virus, which thrives in the smegma under the foreskin.
:farao:

#5
The Force

The Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • LocationThe Final Frontier
The underlying theory of this whole thing is absolutely true: *nerd alert* Langerhans cells have a receptor by which HIV enters, and they then transfer HIV to CD4 T-cells when they go to present the virus in lymph nodes. But are there any clinical studies showing statistical correlation between presence of a foreskin and risk of HIV infection? Truth is, Langerhans cells are ubiquitous in most skin tissue, so I doubt that removing a small piece of skin is going to decrease your chances of acquiring HIV by a whole lot. You've still got skin on the rest of your, uh, meat-and-two-veg, so you'd still be better off sticking with condoms.

#6
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
Bumped just so I could post this Penn & Teller episode on circumcision, which was added about a week ago, and you can watch until it gets removed from Google video:

http://video.google....170599481985716

There's really no good reason whatsoever to go through with the procedure, because 50% is not a guarantee.  Wearing a condom cuts the risk of STDs by 99%, and you don't have to chop off a piece of dick either.

#7
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,614 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
I think it is very unlikely that any large number of adult men are going to submit voluntarily to surgery on their most private part for prophylactic reasons.

Parents of newborn boys may be influenced by this study though.

#8
Unbeliever

Unbeliever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationCalifornia
I've been without a foreskin all my life (I know, too much info), and I find it difficult to imagine sex being any better than it has been. But wow, if sex would've been better had I not been circumcised, I'd've really been a sexoholic!


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users