No offense, but if someone is sticking his unprotected penis into someone who has HIV, you've already lost the battle. The slim chance that not having a foreskin will help sounds about as desperate as raping virgins as a cure. All thinks like this do is give people looking for an excuse to have unprotected sex one more detail to help them not worry while they do it.

It's irresponsible and shameful.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De Cock of the World Health Organization."


Well how bout that huh? Ya mean God knew what he was talking about after all? .......

All thinks like this do is give people looking for an excuse to have unprotected sex one more detail to help them not worry while they do it.

well now you're talking about curing stupidy.....and that's a whole nuther subject.

It is also said to reduce some cancers for males by the circumcision since the uncircumsized male has the folds that breed bacteria and fungi.  In the final analysis, it is not harmful (unless done by a drunk Rabbi), and potentially helpful.  For males.

Females are a whole nother subject.

Agrees Dr De COCK?

I guess that guy was really "cut out" for hit profession huh?

I'm not quite with this speculation. Dirty boys and dirty girls are the cause of the spread of HIV. Dirty boys, uncircumcised or not, spread the infection, and, dirty girls
spread it to dirty boys in turn. Is there any logic in saying that circumcised men are less at risk? Depends who they sleep with.

All thinks like this do is give people looking for an excuse to have unprotected sex one more detail to help them not worry while they do it.

I'm not to sure about this Baker. I really wonder if the people of Uganda and Rakai have the option to run down to the 7/11 to pick up a package of rubbers when the heat is on to begin with? How available are condoms in some of these countries and can folks afford them? In countries where AIDs is prolific amongst heterosexual couples, my guess is anything that helps prefent the spread HIV would be a blessing.

Actually, the way I see it, is this article is bent in no way shape or form on safe-sex, but rather to find any way possible to reduce the spread of HIV.

No offense, but if someone is sticking his unprotected penis into someone who has HIV, you've already lost the battle.

According to the study, this is false.

The slim chance that not having a foreskin will help sounds about as desperate as raping virgins as a cure.

I don't see a 50% chance as being slim Baker. How do you see it this way? Raping virgins as a cure? I'm quite interested to hear you explain this one.

.....and that's a whole nuther subject.

Absolutely, and completely separate from the thrust of this article.

I'm not quite with this speculation. Dirty boys and dirty girls are the cause of the spread of HIV. Dirty boys, uncircumcised or not, spread the infection, and, dirty girls spread it to dirty boys in turn. Is there any logic in saying that circumcised men are less at risk? Depends who they sleep with.

I'm thinking you did not read the study, or you have no understanding of medical research and how it works in finding solutions to the worlds medical epidemics.

"According to the study, this is false."

That's laughable. So you're really saying that people who are circumcised don't get HIV? I have almost daily contact with an HIV clinic, and that's bullshit, frankly. If it gives you a 2%, or a 5%, or a 50% chance it is meaningless, and my statement stands:

If someone is sticking his unprotected penis into someone who has HIV, you've already lost the battle.

...people that laud stupid stuff like this just promote people dying. If you told people that spitting on it gave you a 2% chance of dodging the virus, people would be 20% more likely to risk it. Studies like this kill people.

That's laughable. So you're really saying that people who are circumcised don't get HIV?

I dont think that was ever said or even implied. The study said "cut the risk" not eliminate it. Condoms "cut the risk" but they do not eliminate it either.

"I dont think that was ever said or even implied. The study said "cut the risk" not eliminate it. Condoms "cut the risk" but they do not eliminate it either."

That's not how xythe is portraying it. Evidently to him this is the third world's answer to the condom. What such an ignorant perspective ignores is the fact that the small percent of a chance you won't get the disease promotes a LOT more irresponsible behavior from people who believe they are protected.

In Africa right now HIV is becoming as common as the cold here. In that kind of environment, you want to tell them that if you are circumcised there's not as much to worry about? These people perpetuate myths that raping virgins cures AIDS, how do you think this will effect their behavior?

This is an in-fighting issue between healthcare, religious people, etc., and the result will be people dying. They don't care, though. If you sold condoms that ripped 50% of the time, no one would be hailing them as a "worldwide value". Most people with a brain would call them dangerous because they promote a false sense of security.

But, because of the continual 'to circumcise or not' debate, this will get a lot of play. Then, circumcised people will have one more excuse not to bother with protecting themselves with something that isn't mythological in nature. Then people will die.

What Xythe isn't talking about are the other people in the studies who contracted HIV. These are people in developing countries that don't have much of a chance of getting the drugs they need. They are going to die.

I guess it's worth it so people can make a point about how their penis configuration is the superior style.

I guess it's worth it so people can make a point about how their penis configuration is the superior style.

Somehow, and maybe I missed that part, I did not see that here.

I thought this was "it does no harm, and may do some good". And in that, medical science seems to agree.

"I thought this was "it does no harm, and may do some good". And in that, medical science seems to agree."

A false sense of security does great harm. Anyone who has to deal with STDs will tell you that one of the greatest problems they have are these little urban myths that make people feel less apt to protect themselves. You put out information on a practice that produces a 2% chance you won't get the virus, you're going to have 20% more cases because of one more excuse you've handed the irresponsible.

How many times have we seen studies like this that ended up being overturned 10 years later? Again, what about those 22 who will die now in the study above? Now you'll have people going to get circumsised to "protect" themselves. You think that will decrease the number of AIDS cases? Hardly.

What people like Xythe either don't understand or don't care about is that one irresponsible person in a community ends up killing many. HIV is a disease perpetuated among many by a few. You give one person a false sense of security and they produce multiple cases.

Those 22 cases that contracted AIDS, if given the idea they are somehow more protected, will infect exponentially more people before they find out. And that's if they ever get tested at all since they believe themselves to be protected. You can usually trace the infection in a community to a single digit percent of the population, so those 22 can do great harm.

You give one person a false sense of security and they produce multiple cases.

Well I don't see this as a false sense of security either. It's plain to see from the article that circumcised men and uncircumcised men get HIV the same way....unprotected sex. The only difference is for some reason, as stated, the uncircimcised seem more suseptible than circumcised. But it doesn't let circumcised men off the hook. Otherwise it'd be like Russian Ruellette.

I don't think Mom's are all now going...."Oh I think I'll have my sons circumcised so that when they have unprotected sex later they won't catch that dreadful HIV."

So what's the alternative? Don't tell people the truth because they might be irresponsible with the info?

Who knows? Maybe Baker's right. Ignorance is bliss after all. Maybe we know just too much.

I always thought more knowledge brought more responsiblilty. The more you know the more you would be accountable for.

If you were dealing with people who would act responsibly based upon this information, sure. You aren't. As I said, if circumcision is a factor in whether or not you get AIDS, then you've ALREADY done something you weren't supposed to do.

If people use condoms and behave responsibly, the chance of circumcision making a difference is nil. If people don't, posing circumcision as a ghetto condom just gives people a false sense of security. This is just another of those irresponsible studies that will end up killing more people than it protects.

"I don't think Mom's are all now going...."Oh I think I'll have my sons circumcised so that when they have unprotected sex later they won't catch that dreadful HIV."

No. You have a nation of predominately uneducated, superstitious, poverty stricken people who are contracting HIV in hordes every year. What you'll see is grown men either lauding the fact that they are circumcised and being more careless, or men rushing out to be circumcised so they can be more careless.