If HIV is found primarily in semen how would removing the foreskin possibly prevent its spread? IMO there is obviously no correlation between HIV and circumcision but it does incur measurable profits to both hospitals and doctors performing the surgery. In the U.S., circumcision rates have been progressively declining since the 1970's with the advent of education which could possibly be the reason for the resurgence of pro-circumcision advocates (NIH, etc.).
I guess these Africans are just too uncontrollable in their sexual urges and just too dumb to be educated on safe sex and condom use thus the need to circumcised them. I am pretty sure this is the attitude these pro-circs people are coming from.
@PungiFungi Indeed. The propaganda to "roll out" the circumcision campaign for Africans smacks of paternalistic, colonial and racist intent. The fact that promoting and carrying out genital cutting is the priority, before education, shows how distorted the priorities of those who promote genital cutting are.
@PungiFungi Until I see proof that a circumcised man can have sex with a HIV+ woman and be 90% confident he won't contract the virus himself, then I'll continue to call bullshit. Maybe 90% isn't even good enough.
@TLCTugger Oh wait, I guess he would say that those men were homosexual/bisexual and the African circumcision studies only show a difference for heterosexual transmission for men.
Here's what's annoying: If tobacco companies ever presented "studies" that show that "smoking cuts lung cancer rates," and then suggested that organizations to stop lung cancer would help "provide" cigarettes to people, they'd be completely rejected.
Yet, here, we have biased studies produced by long-time circ advocates who suddenly became interested in HIV, and they're immediately given credibility, and much worse, given FUNDS to promote it and in some cases even PAY for it. Horrendous!
The key point here is that this latest idea that circumcision will "prevent" (their language, not mine) HIV is a hijacking of the AIDS epidemic. While money and resources should be going towards a preventable by vaccine cure, and distribution of condoms (and clean running water), it's instead going to cut boys... giving them the false impression of being immune to HIV, which will UNDOUBTEDLY result in the rise of HIV infection down the road. i.e., many will end up dead as a result of this push.
I recently had a discussion (in the pub haha) with a couple of well educated guys, and they kept going on about the supposed the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men, being lowered by up to 60% after having being circumcised. I explained to them that these statistics are simply wrong, and that the studies that were carried out were were done so from a position of bias, and that their design was flawed from the beginning, and that obviously, a flawed study...
Even if circumcision can reduce the risk of contracting HIV (I haven't yet seen data that supports it) the mere suggestion that by doing this on such a large scale - when there is almost no data to support the efficacy of such an act - is not only ludicrous, but it's unethical and immoral too.
How do I help? My son's are not mutilated(circumcised). I used to feel a little guilty, today I am proud I listened to my doctor and the midwives.
joude64 1 month ago
If HIV is found primarily in semen how would removing the foreskin possibly prevent its spread? IMO there is obviously no correlation between HIV and circumcision but it does incur measurable profits to both hospitals and doctors performing the surgery. In the U.S., circumcision rates have been progressively declining since the 1970's with the advent of education which could possibly be the reason for the resurgence of pro-circumcision advocates (NIH, etc.).
raku217 5 months ago
I guess these Africans are just too uncontrollable in their sexual urges and just too dumb to be educated on safe sex and condom use thus the need to circumcised them. I am pretty sure this is the attitude these pro-circs people are coming from.
PungiFungi 6 months ago
@PungiFungi Indeed. The propaganda to "roll out" the circumcision campaign for Africans smacks of paternalistic, colonial and racist intent. The fact that promoting and carrying out genital cutting is the priority, before education, shows how distorted the priorities of those who promote genital cutting are.
Bonobo3D 6 months ago
If circumcision PREVENTS HIV, then I suppose it is safe for a cut man to have unprotected sex then?
PungiFungi 11 months ago
@PungiFungi Until I see proof that a circumcised man can have sex with a HIV+ woman and be 90% confident he won't contract the virus himself, then I'll continue to call bullshit. Maybe 90% isn't even good enough.
TheWorstWarlock 11 months ago
Good Argument.
sincityfire 1 year ago 2
Stephen Lewis knows that most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. I told him, when he spoke in Lincoln Park in Chicago.
TLCTugger 2 years ago 11
@TLCTugger What was his response?
endofscene 1 year ago
@TLCTugger Oh wait, I guess he would say that those men were homosexual/bisexual and the African circumcision studies only show a difference for heterosexual transmission for men.
endofscene 1 year ago
Here's what's annoying: If tobacco companies ever presented "studies" that show that "smoking cuts lung cancer rates," and then suggested that organizations to stop lung cancer would help "provide" cigarettes to people, they'd be completely rejected.
Yet, here, we have biased studies produced by long-time circ advocates who suddenly became interested in HIV, and they're immediately given credibility, and much worse, given FUNDS to promote it and in some cases even PAY for it. Horrendous!
JLC981 2 years ago 7
This is a great argument.
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 years ago 7
The key point here is that this latest idea that circumcision will "prevent" (their language, not mine) HIV is a hijacking of the AIDS epidemic. While money and resources should be going towards a preventable by vaccine cure, and distribution of condoms (and clean running water), it's instead going to cut boys... giving them the false impression of being immune to HIV, which will UNDOUBTEDLY result in the rise of HIV infection down the road. i.e., many will end up dead as a result of this push.
freedom0f5peech 2 years ago 17
@freedom0f5peech
I recently had a discussion (in the pub haha) with a couple of well educated guys, and they kept going on about the supposed the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men, being lowered by up to 60% after having being circumcised. I explained to them that these statistics are simply wrong, and that the studies that were carried out were were done so from a position of bias, and that their design was flawed from the beginning, and that obviously, a flawed study...
bettySwollox 1 year ago 4
@freedom0f5peech
...will produce flawed results.
Even if circumcision can reduce the risk of contracting HIV (I haven't yet seen data that supports it) the mere suggestion that by doing this on such a large scale - when there is almost no data to support the efficacy of such an act - is not only ludicrous, but it's unethical and immoral too.
bettySwollox 1 year ago 6