http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14hiv.html?ex=1323752400&en=af128f63110c1c4d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Well, I don't have it. And I am single again, after kicking my pharmacist to the curb(fn neurotic doctors, not doing that again).

Where's the Trojans?

There was a similar study last year showing the same thing. All of these studies were stopped early because it would be "unethical" to continue.

All of them also suffer from a critical flaw: they fail to predict the long-term benefits, if any, from circumcision. Even if your risk drops in half, if you keep having unprotected sex, you're eventually going to get infected anyway. Factor in human nature, that will see this as a shield of invincibility instead of interpreting it rationally, and you're looking at more reckless conduct.

The better tool here is education, and empowering women in these countries so they can actually choose not to have sex.

I know all that.

One must also factor in that the transmission rates from females to male, is much lower than male to female(or male to male) rates. For obvious reasons.

Female squirters, notwithstanding, they are an exception.

I was just going to post about this.

The fact still remains, despite Tudamorf's correct assertations that education and equality would be more effective, that circumcision appears to provide a benefit =D

So suck on foreskin, you circumcision haters. Now I have reasons both religious and medical (not that I needed a medical reason).

circumcision appears to provide a benefit =DPerhaps. Or maybe the ones who were circumcised ended up having half as much sex as the others.

Perhaps. Or maybe the ones who were circumcised ended up having half as much sex as the others.

Or, on the other hand, maybe the cut guys are more sensible about using protection. (Having said which, I would hope that the study only looked at unprotected transmission rates).

I am tempted to say "It's probably because the uncut guys can only get the skanky chicks that are more likely to be infected", but of course that would be unfairly stigmatising women :)

I am tempted to say "It's probably because the uncut guys can only get the skanky chicks that are more likely to be infected", but of course that would be unfairly stigmatising women
Unless they go around wearing a button that proclaims the configuration of their private parts, how'd you know without actually sleeping with them? By that time you've decided they're keepers, at least, that's how it works with me. So unless men are wandering around pantless these days, I don't quite see it, Alaene.

how'd you knowThe man would know, which would affect his intercourse rate. Imagine you had a normal penis all your life, like most of the men around you, and as an adult, you had it chopped up as part of an experiment. Wouldn't you be self-conscious?

Well, probably not if most of the other men were also getting it done. I mean, it is usually things that make us stand out as different that makes us feel self-conscious.

But he was claiming it was uncut guys that would have a problem getting women interested.

Well, probably not if most of the other men were also getting it done. I mean, it is usually things that make us stand out as different that makes us feel self-conscious.My recollection of the studies is that they were done in areas were circumcision was unusual, and they took a group of men (all uncircumcised), and circumcised a portion of them.

So, if you're one of the circumcised guys, your sex organs have just been surgically altered to look different from everyone else's, it feels different, and so on, so you may shy away from sex.

All of these studies were also tainted by "ethical" issues that prevented a properly controlled sample. Basically the researchers were forced to convince people not to participate in the control group, they gave everyone "counseling" to not have sex, and they ended the studies early. Combine that with the lack of data on actual sexual activity (frequency, duration, and type) during the relevant period, and the result is somewhat dubious.

But he was claiming it was uncut guys that would have a problem getting women interested.

A practiced woman can, of course, sense whether a man has a snuffleupagus without having to de-pants him...

Seriously, though.... nothing like having a practicality get in the way of a prod in the general direction of the un-cut :P

A practiced woman can, of course, sense whether a man has a snuffleupagus without having to de-pants him...
What do they call that ability? Peendar? X-ray vision? Or do you make up an excuse to go through airport security and get one of those xrays done and bribe the TSA employee to let you see the parts that get blurred out?

It seems that if a part of your penis is cut off, you reduce HIV risk.

By common sense, and simple extrapolation, if all of your penis is cut off the HIV risk becomes almost negligible.

Was that Aidon volunteering for the full-Monty surgery? :)

http://www.ecanadanow.com/images/male-circumcisions-aids-hiv.jpg

Hey, i have set limits on where the snippity snip goes...