If all this is true then circumscision will increase the transmission rates from male to female due to injuries even if it lowers the rate of male infection. Would it be enough to offset the transmission from male to female.
If you are HIV+ then you owe it to your partners to let them know. This goes for any STD.
I have to say I think you are really really lucky. Im glad for that but I wouldn't advise the same risk.
Indeed... on all...
The situation in Africa with the WHO now officially sanctioning circumcision enrages me to no end. All the medical communities know other methods are more efficient and none of these medical associations condone circumcision in their own countries, yet, when it comes to Africa... These studies are so depressing.
One rule and set of expectations for the first world and another for the third. Can't help but wonder if we are about to get hit in the head by a BRICK. (Brazil, India, China, Korea.)
Im un=subbing to this chat. All has been said. Love to chat with you elsewhere TNT.
@Eric R. "Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so."
Female genital mutilation is far more barbaric. I've heard it compared to cutting off the end of the penis, rather than just the foreskin.
^^ Female genital mutilation is far more barbaric ^^
WHEN IT IS. But NOT when it's NOT.
MOST FGM affects the hood only (most of the victims alive today are in Indonesia and Malaysia) and in places like Egypt it is done mostly in a very clinical setting.
Both MGM and FGM are done by force or coercion, are enthuisiastically supported by victims, and send hundreds to the grave annually.
The MAIN difference is that 94% of the world's females are covered by laws that have no religious exemption. No males are protected. No males have legal recourse. In California, they recently passed a law with 100% of both houses agreeing ANYONE with no training must have the right to hack at boy parts. Males are LOSING ground. California's courts ruled foreskins are exactly as unworthy of protection as puppy tails and kitten claws.
We don't need to obsess about male or female cutting being worse. What's true is that far more boys are cut, infant cutting is very haphazard, and all children need protection.
By having circumcision completely banned, it makes our foundations much stronger when speaking to the rest of the world about banning their genital mutilations. We can lead by example, which is always the best way to lead.
There is a Facebook page on this objective:
I now view Facebook solely as a free advertising tool, helping us to cover all angles in this crazy profit driven world.
I am thoroughly convinced that humans are less than apes...have you ever, EVER, seen or heard of circumcision, smoking, hanging, electrocution, shooting, bombing, burning, or other such crap among other primates?
Don't get me started!!! I think our supposed intelligence has served practically no good on this planet, other than to self multiply to ludicrous amounts of humans. I would like to see our brains put to a very different use!
True intelligence is enjoying and appreciating the gifts of the earth without an insane desire to steal, plunder, rape, and kill. The most insane title I have ever heard is "Alexander the Great". Great? He was a professional killer, looter, thief, rapist, and finally died from his stupidity at a young age. Who in their right mind could call him greaT?
not to mention when the drug deals go sour the faux good-will preachers turn to gang related teen prostitution.. what?
New research answers question about benefits to risks of circumcision.
In an important new study, authors have shown that the benefits of infant male circumcision to health exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin, the researchers suggest.
In infancy the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidney in half of babies who get a UTI. Morris and co-investigator Tom Wiswell, MD, Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, showed last year that over the lifetime UTIs affect 1 in 3 uncircumcised males.
In a landmark systematic review, Morris, with John Krieger, MD, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure. This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.
Professor Morris stated, "The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. ... [emphasis mine]
That is just a big hot pile of manure. Canadian and European babies DO NOT have higher rates of UTIs or VD or any of the excuses of pro-mutilation lobbies. Furthermore, for anyone to say that there is no loss of sexual function is completely ridiculous. It was the main purpose of circumcision in the first place and as a female who's had sex with many of circumcised condition and intact males, I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that I never again want to have circumcised sex. But of course most religious and circumcised males will swear up and down and under oath that their lacking of a body part does not impede their sexual performance. They are deluded.