Circumcision may prevent HIV
According to a CBS news male circumcision would prevent 3 million deaths over 20 years in Africa.
Circumcising the males would be just as effective as the AIDS vaccine.
The excess skin undoubtedly is a factor in the spread of infections and diseases. I think all men should be circumcised as a necessary precaution.
Africa has the highest rate of HIV infections and the AIDS virus but the study that found this new discovery can benefit Americans and the rest of the world.
Besides, most women I think would prefer to have the excess skin removed. It's a healthier way to have sex!
posted by Stephanie @ 10:14 AM
3 Comments:
Tell the 850,000 American men who died from AIDS about circumcision. The AIDS epidemic took off in the US at a time when virtually all men were circumcised. Maybe, just maybe, the risk of transmission might be reduced in a single sexual encounter, if the male is circumcised, but with repeated sexual exposure to HIV over time, virtually everyone will become infected. That's why it is completely wrong to compare circumcision to a vaccine.
As for what women prefer, most American women, if they have only been with circumcised men, are missing the full sexual experience of an intact penis, with the natural gliding action and lubrication that the foreskin provides. As for hygiene, men can learn to wash their genitals just as women can.
Besides, most women I think would prefer to have the excess skin removed.
Most men, according to stereotype, would prefer women with larger breasts. Therefore, it's just as rational for me to say "all women should have breast implants." Anyone who would judge a potential partner because they haven't had surgery is shallow and unworthy of that partner.
More to the specific point on HIV/AIDS, Georganne is correct. The risk of HIV has nothing to do with circumcision status, although I agree that it may make a difference in individual encounters. But that's not the issue. Personal responsibility matters. It's unethical to amputate body parts (the foreskin is not excess skin) from all boys because a few will be irresponsible.
Consider this story:
In September this year, President Thabo Mbeki effectively sidelined the controversial Tshabalala-Msimang -- infamous
internationally for promoting the use of African potatoes, garlic, lemon and beetroot as an Aids treatment -- by handing the management of government's Aids policy to Mlambo-Ngcuka.
Manto Tshabalala-Msimang is the health minister for South Africa. Also, a South African politician charged with raping an HIV+ woman (he was acquitted) explained that he reduced his chance of infection by showering after sex with her.
Should we rationally believe that circumcision is the panacea when such ridiculous ignorance prevails? After circumcision, would we argue that condoms are no longer necessary and that men can be promiscuous without consequence? Of course not. Education is the first step to responsible behavior. Not surgical amputation.
You attribute the AIDS story to CBS, but they just picked it up from WebMD, which picked it up from somwhere else.
This is utter rubbish. The US has a high rate of HIV transmission and a high rate of cut men. Europe has a low rate of HIV transmission and few cut men. Why are these researchers hiding in Africa when the "experiment" is over. Circumcision does not prevent AIDS.
The article even says men would not be immune and would still need to practice safe sex. So why not just do that?
You want to save lives? Amputate one breast from every woman and about 3% of the world's women WILL DEFINITELY AVOID BREAST CANCER. Why not do that? Oh, yeah; because people have a right to enjoy the whole body they were born with.
Post a Comment
<< Home