Circumcision - a response to Bonobo3D and Dr. Dean Edell

[mraNewfoundland]

If you say that circumcision is suppose to be such a great thing why is it that the USA has the highest incidences HIV and Aids in the developed world (where the practice of circumcision is prevalent while in Europe where circumcision is not pracitced has a much lower infection rate I mean if it is an extra layer of protection then one would thing that you would see something very different the plain fact is the barrier is what is needed and what is being proposed for africa right now is just

[mraNewfoundland]

@mraNewfoundland crazy it will not work and it will increase the incidences of HIV and Aids, of that I have no doubt. Not to mention the probible incidences of SSI's (surgical site infections) because lets face it the conditions most African's live in are not the same as they are here in the west. The risk is far too high for a minimal benefit in the end condoms will still be needed to stop the exchange of bodily fluids. Because you have a circumcision don't mean you can stop useing condoms so

[mraNewfoundland]

@mraNewfoundland what is the use of it really?

[nthomas87]

Take that belt off your head and cape off your back. You're not Doug Funnie. But you are seriously moronic and uneducated and biased about what you're talking about and should be embarrassed to breathe the same air as the rest of us.

[sp00nytube]

Even if me being circumcised has lessened my susceptibility to Aids or any other Std, when do MY right and choices become a factor when discussing MY body?! You mention that Dean Edell's argument fell back on to emotional factors, and that is because IT IS an emotional topic for any human being that does not approve. Whatever potential medical benefits you can bring to the table, they cannot be used to justify a violation of human rights which is separate altogether.

[neechee5150]

SSanf: I am willing to bet that you have never actually read any of the WHO/CDC studies that you so often refer to. I will quote Auvert himself to show that Dr. Adel's concerns are shared by many in the medical and science community" It is rarely argued that male circumcision might worsen the epidemic" To say that Adel's point is without merit while the research you hold to be absolute truth itself admits that circucision could worsen the epidemic merely illustrates your lack of objectivity

[neechee5150]

Furthermore, Millet, Ding & Louby 2007 conducted a study of AIDS transmission rates and circumcision in a high risk population of American men, and once again circumcision had no preventative effect. Furthermore a review of the WHO's own data clearly reveals that the US has a much higher rate of AIDS transmission than does several modern European countries where few men are circumcised. Once again this points out that African studies do NOT translate to the US general population. 

[neechee5150]

You distorted Dr. Adells comments to suit your agenda. He clearly makes the point that studies in Africa do not and can not be applied to men in the US and other developed countries. The African sample population is NOT representative of the population in the US and other developed nations, and thus the bedrock rule of inferential statistical research has been violated. Kent, Kohn & Klouser's 2007 study of menin the USA found that circumcision made no difference in the transmission rates.

[THEultimatePANG]

In the three trials, they circumcised a total of 5,400 men and left a similar number. After less than 2 years, 64 of the circumcised men had HIV (but there's another 327 we don't know about), 132 of the non-circumcised. The WHOLE basis of the "60% reduction" claim rests on that 73-man difference. But they have no idea how many partners they had, or even whether they all got it heterosexually (the only way circumcision could possibly have protected them). The claims are far from "compelling".

[THEultimatePANG]

This 0,9% to1,6% absolute risk reduction alledgely shown by three infamously flawed studies by long time circumcision proponents like Ronald H Gray and Robert A Bailey, who have been desperately trying to establish a link between HIV and the foreskin for decades thereby wasting millions of dollars that could have been invested in effective prevention programms are far from convincing.

This sort of mock scienceonly serves to reveal the boundless deceptiveness of the circumcision lobby.

[THEultimatePANG]

Never heard so much nonsense in my life.

First find a cure for AIDS than skip circumcision. Are you mentally insane? So we have to find a cure for each and every disease in the world, that some circumcision fanatics claim can be in some iway to be pontentially related to the foreskin, before we may stop donig it.

That is the ill-logic of circumcision.

Only condoms and condoms alone prevent the sexual transmission of HIV, and nothing else.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Your comments are total NONSENSE. You resort to wordsmithing rather than REASON. Besides have you ever HAD a penis to play with, nor a foreskin to boot. I'll bet NOT so you don't know the circumcision issue at all.

[dwalk127]

This bitch needs to be held down on a table and have her tits cut off with a butcher knife. That way she will never have to worry about breast cancer....and she needs to thank us for acting in her best interest after we are done.

[antimutilation]

Circumcision is violent and abusive. Period. It is despicable that people grasp at straws to justify their hate crimes.

[MeissnerFlux]

how can a study tell if sensation is better or worse? THe only real way would be for uncircumsized men to become circumsized. I doubt they did that for the study.

[SSanf]

@MeissnerFlux Had you bothered to check into it, you would know that is exactly how they got the information. You are blocked from my channel for intellectual laziness. I have allowed the comments to run but I am sick and tired of the willfully ignorant commenting.

[psandbergnz]

@SSanf, your reply to MeissnerF. is correct. However, at least 85% of men who get circumcised as adults do so for a foreskin PROBLEM (usually phimosis). Therefore, testimony regarding their circumcision outcome is probably not representative of, or relevant to, the great majority of intact men, who have normal or healthy foreskin, which they WANT to keep. Other men choose circumcision from peer pressure.

Conclusion: those studies (adult circumcision) do not justify routine infant circumcision.

[SergeDevinge]

Circumcising infants is OK because on adult there is a healing period with higher risk of transmission..............

Jesus people are trying SO HARD to find justification to infant circumcision.

[TheWorstWarlock]

60%? I don't believe it.

"No one has maintained that circumcision by itself is a solution"

Ah, but many people do. People in whose interest it is to continue with this practice. I daresay that those who carried out these studies you speak of also had a stake in the outcome. I've heard from men who've been circumcized as adults and a few of them say they regret it.

[elishebabb]

I was listening to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio last night. A caller stated that he had not bathed for 6 months. Dr Edell said that he sees no health problem in not bathing for so long ( ! ). As a doctor he must know that the skin is the largest organ of the body & that it secretes waste & it also absorbs what is on it. As an example - health care workers are told to wash their hands within 20 minutes if blood was spilled on them. So, is his advice on circumcision reliable ?

[THEultimatePANG]

@elishebabb Are people who pour vile personal atacks on ethical doctors like Dean Edell reliable, or are they just some uncomfortable with the idea that America is growing ever more intact.

[Hugh7777]

"60% protection" is a factoid that won't lie down. In fact it is ENTIRELY based on 73 men who did not get HIV in less than two years after 5,400 men were circumcised. The absolute difference was 1.8% - in a region where HIV is rampant. Female-to-male transmission is an insignificant proporition of HIV infection in the US, so circumcision would make an insignificant difference. Nobody says FGC is the same as MGC but both arose from anti-sex mentalities and both are human rights abuses.

[Minotaurus2]

Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. Circumcised men, like Rock Hudson, get HIV too. Why don't young women get their breasts cut off so they won't get breast cancer? Yours is wishful thinking that circumcision "immunizes" a man against HIV.

[Mystoksor]

It's misleading to claim that circumcision reduces HIV transmission by 60%. The truth is that an intact man having vaginal intercourse with a woman who has HIV has a 2.4% chance of contraction. A cut man having sex with that same woman has a 1.6% chance of transmission. That's not compelling evidence to slice off an important part of your penis.

common sense people. HIV rates are highest in central Africa and the US., where circumcision is high, but low in Europe where circumcision is rare.

[Hugh7777]

@Mystoksor Not even "the same woman". There was no monitoring of partners. If circumcision conferred prestige where the studies were done, the circumcised men would have access to a "better" class of women, with a reduced likeihood of STD.

[endofscene]

It's high time that American males took their country back from psycho bitches like this who have no hessitation in cutting boys' genitals.

[gpmasterful]

Also, there is NO reason whatsoever to do this on infants because infants don't have sex. Use your brain and think for once. Its our god damned bodies, so leave our dicks alone you psycho bitch. If you can't handle that, then maybe someone should strap you down and cut up your genitalia.

[njmikec]

Your review of this Bonobo3D will lead to the reduction of the productivity of the human race. Therefore, it is toxic.

Why she wants to continue to hack away at male baby penises is (pretty obvious) not known but I'd love to ask her about female circumcision and just some random child mutilation questions that I have.

Sorry your dad was not there for you  Bonobo3D.

[endofscene]

I will leave you with a quote from Max Plank, one of the founders of the Quantum Theory of physics. Although one of the major contributers to the theory, he could never bring himself to accept its implications. Thusly, he said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[Chadolution]

The best way to get HIV is by having unprotected (no condom) anal sex. You can also get it from unprotected vaginal sex. Also oral sex, but that's even less likely than vaginal. It's uncommon for lesbians to contract HIV from each other. America has one of the highest rates of HIV in the world, and also the highest circumcision rate! Only CONDOMS PREVENT HIV effectively!

[chadpopstar]

Glad to see that I'm with the majority who DISLIKE this audio/photo 'video'.

[RapeOfInnocence]

ssanf... you have questioned conventional religion, i hope that you will someday question conventional medicine. "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" by Robt Mendelsohn, MD. CIRP dot ORG... my book & videos.

i sure would like to see you join us in protecting innocent, helpless babies -- figuring out better ways to solve the challenges circumcision doesn't really solve. it creates so many horrendous problems: PTSD, suicidal ideation, night terrors... think about it. i'd like you on my team. .

[daleyguy]

Circumsized men are more resistant to using condoms than intact men. The need for the feeling of friction is more important for cut men because there is much less (depending how tightly circumsized) penile skin movement. A condom on a natural penis will still provide that important movement of skin during sex. I'm surpised that this issue hasn't been addressed more widely!

[Mrmoc7]

@daleyguy

The mucosal layer under that foreskin which gives you your cherished *friction* also contains a high density of HIV-1 target cells.

~Donoval et al., American J. of Clinical Pathology, 2006: "HIV-1 Target Cells in Foreskins of African Men With Varying Histories of Sexually Transmitted Infections."

Would you care to cite the study which documents that circumcised men are less resistant to using condoms? I'm circumcised, and i can't fathom where in the world you got that idea from.

[SSanff]

Clipped cocks and snipped schwanzes!

[Hugh7777]

The Ugandan study that claimed to find no impairment in sex was done by some of the same researchers who did the HIV research. They have an agenda. They found all the men had virtually perfect sex both before and after circumcision (unlike the real world) so of course there was no difference. Either Uganda is a sexual paradise, or their questions were not sensitive enough.

[Hugh7777]

And again with "this is a decision parents must make". In most of the world, it isn't.

And what's with "It must be right for [the parents]"? It's none of their business! As one angry guy said "They're not going to [urinate] with my [penis], they're not going to [masturbate] with my [penis], and they're not going to [have sexual intercourse] with my [penis], what business have they got cutting parts off of my [penis]?"

[Hugh7777]

In the three trials, they circumcised a total of 5,400 men and left a similar number. After less than 2 years, 64 of the circumcised men had HIV (but there's another 327 we don't know about), 132 of the non-circumcised. The WHOLE basis of the "60% reduction" claim rests on that 73-man difference. But they have no idea how many partners they had, or even whether they all got it heterosexually (the only way circumcision could possibly have protected them). The claims are far from "compelling".

[Hugh7777]

"No-one disputes that ... condoms will help." The Pope is no-one? (though he's wrong again.)

[kleenex3000]

SSanf:

"The thing is that it is the uncircumcised men in America who have the greater incidence of HIV."

The thing is that you do not tell the truth in this regard

Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Circumcision is rare in Europe. And USA have three times the HIV incidence.

[freedom0f5peech]

SSanf,

Did you watch the video I posted as a response yet? It's been a couple months at least.

[canonhalo]

Who or what is this hick in this video? What cult does it belong to? Is it a female or a male with a very, very, very radical circumcision???

[Ashybasha]

circumcision reduces one's chances of catching AIDS and other STD's by 60% while Condoms reduce one's chances of catching and transmiting AIDS and STD's by nearly 100%.

Hmmm...If I still had it, I would tell this stupid deluded cunt that I'll keep the foreskin and use condems thank you very much.

[Bonobo3D]

Ashybasha you state that "circumcision reduces ones chance of catching AIDS and other STD's by 60%" yet that has not been proven. That's the CLAIM of circumcision proponents, but it certainly has not been proven.

I'm with you on your other point that condoms are vastly preferable to amputating body parts, especially when AIDS is used as a pathetic excuse for surgically violating children's genitals.

[Ashybasha]

True: my bad. Still even if the claim was true, I'd much rather willingly and responsibly put on a rubber than unwillingly be strapped down and have a scalpel brought to my cock.

[seaco2000]

THIS BITCH IS A WASTE OF TIME!!

[Bauericek]

OMG she is so ignorant . I love those people who force somebody else to mutilate somebody else penis. MGM- male genital mutilation, removing health sexual tissues from somebody is violation humans rights of genital integrity. No matter what you say we still live in a world when people at least most decide freely.

[TLCTugger]

It's completely monstrous to propose circumcising infants to fight HIV or any STD. A male has a right to make his own choice about risky non-emergency amputations.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. The CDC is very wrong if they said that the foreskin does not contribute to sexual pleasure for both partners.

The US developed it's HIV incidence (3 times the European rate) while most adults here were aleady circumcised.

This is a PRIVATE decision for only the OWNER of the penis to make.

[enithhernandez]

actually there is a vaccine coming... AND why don't we let the boy decide if he wants to become an irresponsible adult sleeping around with both men and women all over town, then see if he wants to have part of his penis cut off????

just sayin'

[CarbonSuit]

this is such mindless nonsence. child circumcision is not the cure for aids. it is genital mutilation without consent. if someone wants to cut off their forskin they have that right, but no one should be doing it to a child.

[fishlips90210]

oh snap, I love being a circumcised male. And for the record masturbation has always been a breeze. I hate that the insurance companies do not want to pay for this procedure on an infant but are willing to pay for the countless urinary tract infections that will be incurred by the owner of the foreskin as well as those spread to his partners.

I know that an uncut cock can be almost as clean as a cut one, if the bearer washes it ten times a day. Sadly, most folks don't even wash their hands.

[blackstarzero]

Third the more extreme the circumcision is the more rare it is, so comparing male and female circumcision is possible when you compare apples to apples. Forth the original reason to circumcise in western countries was to significantly reduce pleasure to help prevent masturbation, also there are recent studies that state circumcision significantly reduces sexual pleasure.

[blackstarzero]

First of all no one has the right to remove health tissue from another person without their consent doing that to anyone violates their human rights. Second there has never been any follow up studies to confirm the so called 60% resistance to HIV, just because a study says something doesn't make it true. Look at the MMR vaccine people used to think it causes autism because of one study yet today we know it doesn't cause autism.

[sltr1]

Type "functions of the foreskin" into youtube or google.

Intact babies require no care, so it is less hassle for the parent.

Why anyone would want to cause pain and discomfort to a newborn is beyond me.

Coming from the U.K, a non-circumcising culture (like the rest of Europe) I can tell you that those that don't have foreskin have missed out.

It is harder to masturbate as there is no skin to move up and down so you have to resort to artificial lubrication.

[ilovethepighat]

You know we could go on about how no medical association recommends it and how the HIV studies are flawed and the function of the foreskin, but there's no use.

You circumcised your kid(s) and once you've done that there's no way you'll admit you inflicted a permanent, damaging practice on your children.

You have to act like it was the right decision to live with yourself.

[Stretchalot1]

If you were to ask me, should the U.S. be promoting circumcision, my answer would be, no

Dr. Ronald Gray, lead researcher of the circumcision studies in Uganda

NY Times, 29 August 2009.

[raku217]

Go have your clitoris circumcised if you're so adamant about the procedure- and while you're at it have your breasts removed too bcuz that will prevent you from having problems down the road.

[ilovethepighat]

"It is a much more invasive operation."

Yeah, when you're a woman.

[Krensharpaw]

Also, in this video, you show a double standerd.

If there was a study that showed that females getting much the same kind of thing would do much of the same, as you claim here, you should be for that to.  If not, you're showing a double standerd and being a hypocrite.

It could lead one to think you are only for this since, you're not a male.

[Krensharpaw]

He also said that it is unneeded also because good hygine and not having sex with ppl with hiv, is a way to make sure that this is unneeded.

He also said that doing this brings on other problems. Perhaps you should come up with better evidence then this, as seeing as you are not a expert in this field.

As said before, if removing the brests would remove breat cancer 100%, you should be for that also.

[Stretchalot1]

"Actually, I think that 60% of the circumcised men didn't get sexually transmitted diseases period"

I suspect you will be really surprised to discover where the 60% figure come from. Check it out and let us know.

I wonder: were your dearest male friend and step son circumcised?

It would make sense. Nearly every man in the US who has died of AIDS was circumcised at birth. Routine circumcision has given the US the highest rate of AIDS of all first world countries.

What drugs are the CDC on???

[Sambucca]

There is no emperical evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60%. None of these studies take into account important factors such as socio-economic background, education, religion etc, which would of course influence their sexual behaviour. In a great many cases the tests were biased in favour of circumcision; condoms were issued to circed men but not to the intact group.

Other studies have even shown that the partners of circed men are more likely to contract HIV.

[Sambucca]

Studies also indicate that female circumcision, specifically removal of the clitoral hood and labia minora, can be used as an HIV preventative. Do you advocate the routine circumcision of baby girls?

[SSanf]

I have already stated my current opinion regarding female circumcision several times and I am not going to go over it yet again.

However, what I think about it is irrelevant. Female circumcision is not an option on the table at this time and therefore is a moot point.

Male circumcision is an option on the table and that is what needs to be discussed.

[njmikec]

@Sambucca

FEMALE CIRCUMCISION????

ARE YOU THAT STUPID?

[Sambucca]

@njmikec

Read my post properly. I think you're missing my point.

[SSanf]

On what basis do you make the claim that all 26 CDC studies were flawed? Do you have a specific study in mind regarding condom distribution? Which one? Or, are you just repeating what you heard?

The issue is not one of behavior or back ground. The issue is whether HIV is more likely to infect a man who is uncircumcised when having unprotected sex with an infected partner than it is likely to infect a circumcised man.

The answer is yes, the uncircumcised man will become infected more readily.

[procircaustralia]

thankyou!

for speaking your mind and challenging the mindless anti-circumcision types.

keep it up!! :D

[gpmasterful]

@SSanf No, the answer is NOT yes. These studies are garbage, plain and simple. They are highly flawed. Also, one's behaviour AND background do play a part. These studies are conducted in THIRD world countries. In these countries, somehow having a foreskin means you are more likely than to get HIV, yet it doesn't seem to hold true in first world countries. Sorry to break it to you, but most men in the world are intact, and there isn't an epidemic of HIV among us compared to circumcised guys.

[Hugh7777]

@SSanf "26 CDC studies" The CDC doesn't even DO studies. It cited studies done by others, and selective citing is a notoriious way to prove anything you want.

[yogabear1962]

I really think that it is wrong to amputate part of the body without the concent of the body owner.

[xxxild]

I guess I disagree with infant circumcision in general. I know you feel strongly about the AIDS issue, but I'm not sure we even know what the hell AIDS is. I haven't done any research on it in awhile. Last I knew another virus, HHV6 was found present in the brains of AIDS victims, and even in MS patients' brains (my brain is donated when I kick). Because they had already given the award to the AIDS doctor... research was stalled on HHV6.

[xxxild]

Still, people are getting a horrible immune compromising disease from having sex unprotected. Just teach them how to use a condom ffs.

[MeIoco]

I respectfully disagree

[theVAGINAtheist]

There is clearly no arguing with you here. You are obviously biased and desperately grasping for any reason you can use to support circumcision.

If you just put your biases aside, and thought rationally, you would see that circumcision is only religious baggage.

As promoters of freedom, we must break away from the antiquated traditions that only hold us back.

You can't start with the conclusion that circumcision is correct and work your way back; it doesn't work.

[SSanf]

No, I am starting with a very recent news article on Fox that took me to the CDC home page and another site that I Googled for additional information since I wanted more verification.

[wyrdness1]

Fox has never been a reputable source before... The CDC is politically manipulable, regardless of the trust you have in them. They are not infallible.

[SSanf]

WOW!! My Granddaughter just told me that they talked about circumcision in her health-med class and that they said that it is good to have it done to prevent disease and infection. She is a high school senior. I guess the word is getting out.

[nicanicabad]

It's just bullshit that's getting out. No one is butchered here btw--they wouldn't THINK of it.

[SSanf]

Perhaps, they don't have the same problems with the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases where you are. If not, that is a very good thing.

Here we have to deal with a real problem and fight it any way we can. The lives of real people are really being destroyed by the spread of disease as we type.

For us this is not just an academic discussion. It is a rare person who has not been impacted by a friend or relative who has suffered from HIV.

[Aspartame69]

You dont promote circumcision as a preventative measure for STD's because even 60 percent is a total waste of time.

Sex with a new partner needs to be protected, people that dont do that deserve a darwin award and will get one very soon if they are cut or not.

Doctors would consider a treatment that was 60% successful a very risky procedure, and considering that your precious 60% is invoked everytime someone fucks a new partner its 0% protection in the real world.

[SSanf]

Actually, I think that 60% of the circumcised men didn't get sexually transmitted diseases period. It didn't mean that they got diseased 6 out of 10 times that they had sex. That would be a pretty silly reason for them to promote circumcision.

[Aspartame69]

60% of men not getting STD's period seems like a nieve interpretation of the statistics imo

[nicanicabad]

SSanf--saying 'any way they can' is dangerous talk.

[2live42day]

I have a 14 year old daughter who knows that it is wrong to mutilate baby boys. She knows that condoms not circumcision stops disease. I hope your granddaughter doesn't count on some boy's circumcised penis protecting her because it won't.

Please get the word to her. Circumcision does NOT stop disease. It's scary that they are even telling students that in health class.

[nicanicabad]

watch?v=LFrLTMX8njw

lol

[SSanf]

LOL!! Nica, we need to talk..

[rafen8705]

You have 2.5/5 stars from what i can see but i gave you five even if i dissagree with what you say, I think Its great that you are saying it.

[SSanf]

Thank you. I knew what I was getting into when I brought up the subject. Feelings about infant circumcision run strong.

So, I am not overly annoyed by the stars or thumbs down. If everyone is afraid to talk about certain subjects for fear of being unpopular, we have come to a pretty sorry pass.

[dackjaniels555]

There is SIGNIFICANT loss of sensation.

There are 240 FEET of NERVES in the FORESKIN.

How many times do I need to repeat that.

Without the protection of the glans via the foreskin the glans becomes DRY, LEATHERY and KERATINIZED leading to yet MORE loss of sensitivity.

[nicanicabad]

she just won't listen to all the reason put forth in comments--she's AIDsaphobic imo

[SSanf]

Nica my dearest male friend has HIV and one step son died from AIDS. My bias is to prevent people from getting the disease. I think we need to help people avoid it with all the tools we have available.

[nicanicabad]

Ah--the bias--at last!--I too have known people who've died-nut it does not change what the REAL problem is--unsafe sex-and a huge monoculture of humans who need to be taken out one way or another-AIDS is just one way this is happening.

[SSanf]

I am biased against sexual behavior that can lead to disease transmission. Being biased does not mean that I am wrong on this subject.

If I came out of left field and did not have reputable resources, one might wonder. However, I do have reputable resources. I am not just pulling this out of my ass.

In this case, bias just means that I have a personal interest in the subject.

[nicanicabad]

-the operative word here is BEHAVIOR --not mutilation.

you are just wrong--so wrong-

[endofscene]

@SSanf So now we see your true motives. Your stepson died of AIDS. Obviously now you are on a mission to banish AIDS and will do whatever it takes. And obviously someone with your background will consider male sexuality a second priority to this agenda.

[endofscene]

@SSanf May I ask if your dearest male friend is circumcised? Was your stepson circumcised? I think these are important questions considering your perspective.

[THEultimatePANG]

@SSanf The only tools available are condoms

[SSanf]

So, you are saying basically that you are right and the CDC is wrong. It has to be one or the other. Guess which one I am going to believe.

[Aspartame69]

Condoms is the answer, have a condom surgically attached to your kid at birth.

[SSanf]

LOL!! That's what we need, creative solutions!

[dackjaniels555]

You will ignore the FACTS and agree with the fucking CDC because you think Chopping Up Little Boy's Genitals is Righteous.

Why don't you go get your lungs amputated, That'll sure reduce the risk of lung cancer.

Why Circumcision? Why not go all the way and CASTRATE CHILDREN.

That would be 99% effective at stopping the spread of STI's and STD's.

Oh wait, It's just as effective to USE A FUCKING CONDOM.

[dackjaniels555]

Circumcision IS NOT reasonable.

Stop 'rationalizing', You're making a fool of yourself.

Oh and yeah, I'm sure you know more than an Educated Male Doctor about Male Genitalia.

You arn't taking this seriously at all, It's disgusting...

How would you feel if your parents removed your Labium when you where an infant?!

The labia is the female counterpart to the foreskin, as is the clitoris to the glans.

[dackjaniels555]

What's with this fucking 60% figure, Some idiot pulled that right out of there ass!

[freedom0f5peech]

First of all, the studies were all canceled early. If you get a circumcision, you have to abstain from sex for up to several months. That will instantly make the instances of HIV higher for the group that's still having as much sex as before. Secondly, the studies show that the circumcised men were given safe sex advice, but they don't claim that the same advice was given to the intact men.

[Aspartame69]

1. He does say circumcision will not preven HIV in Africa, and uses Amercais high rate of circumcision and high rate of STD's as an example.

2. He says the adult males that get it done are mislead to believe there are great advantages to having hte procedure and may go on to not properly protect themselves with a condom.

3. He says circumcision is not a cure or even remotely a prvention for HIV, any more than washing you todger.

[Aspartame69]

4. 60% is not a good preventative measure, thatjust means you catch it after 3 fucks rather than 1.

5. You comments on female curcumcision dont seem to make any sense to me.

[Aspartame69]

You might as well come clean SSanf, you use foreskins in your witches brews and potions.

[SSanf]

LOL!! You're a corker.

The thing is that it is the uncircumcised men in America who have the greater incidence of HIV.

If all American men were circumcised, his argument would make more sense.

Perhaps, in Africa men are mislead to think they are safe after circumcision. Here that is not the case. Very few men have it done in the US after infancy so it really doesn't apply.

We are discussing infant circumcision.

[SSanf]

If you understood him to say that it is ineffective as a preventative measure, then that is erroneous. It is 60% effective.

[Aspartame69]

No, i said no more effective than washing your todger, which is exactly what he said.

[Aspartame69]

No, you are replying to the Dr. in that video and misrepresenting nearly everything he said so that you can get your hands on beutiful foreskins for your witches brews.

[SSanf]

LOL!!

I have seen no studies comparing it to washing your toger. However, I would think that both might be better than either one separately.

[Aspartame69]

And you wont hear one about washing your todger compared to cutting, because its not in any lobbiests interests to promote that study, tho it exists unless you are calling the Dr. a liar?

[freedom0f5peech]

"The thing is that it is the uncircumcised men in America who have the greater incidence of HIV."

Could you please provide a reference for that claim? Thank you.

[Loserido]

Condoms reduce the chance of contracting aids far more than 60%, and sex is most of the time consensual in the west. You choose to have it, just like you choose to eat unhealthy food and die from a hart attack. By your logic we should ban McDonald's because it is a health risk.

[SSanf]

No one is arguing against the use of condoms. It is the lack of use of condoms that makes the argument.

[Loserido]

It's exactly that I'm trying to say. People don't use condoms when they have sex because they're stupid, just like people eat at McDonald's because they're stupid.

Should we ban McDonald's because of this, or should we leave things be and let stupid people be stupid?

[SSanf]

Don't worry. They are coming after fat people just like they did smokers. They will put so much tax onto McDonald's that you won't be able to get one, anyway.

[Loserido]

So you're answer is "yes"?

[SSanf]

LOL! Do I think people should be banned from McDonalds? It would be sweet revenge for smokers.

However, at this point, I am only on record as believing that TheAmazingAtheist should be banned from McDonalds. I am still considering what to do about the rest of you.

[RoseFink]

Circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis.

[dackjaniels555]

It also deteriorates the sensitivity of the glans.

--first hand experience...