In a Way, Circumcision Is Beside the Point
Reader Comments
scheme ces
less imposed store probably activity main
adhd and phentermine healthboards
9Chgbh Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
how much weight loss on phentermine
c7udAf Great site. Good info.
cialis free prescription
Ia149p Great site. Keep doing.
Sex with a circumsized man is NOT safer for women
I poseted comments noting that the comments What about Women" were not factual. There are no studies that point out that sex with a circumsized man is safer for women. There is the Africa studies on male to female HIV transmission that show higher HIV transmission by circumcised men then natural men. This so far has been explained that circumcised men have sex too soon after the surgery. However, the data presents the possibility that HIV is more easily transferred to women by men that had their foreskin removed. Also, there are many studies (my last post had deatils) that indicate that cervical cancer is not passed by natural men differently from circumcised men.
These are valid points and the "what about women" comment was factually wrong and intended to mislead and promote amputation of healthy tissue. Post my comment please.
having sex with a circumsized man is NOT safer for women
The alleged 60% reduction is not fully linked with circumcision. They did not know who used condoms and the cut men were told to use condoms. The test was short and it is klnown that the cut men did not have sex during a part of the study. The Africa studies are treated as fact, when it is not clear that they are meaningful at all. The difference in chance of getting HIV (based on the studies) changes from someting like 3.2% to 1.8%. This means if the studies are to be trusted (many reasons not to), it is like 2 bullets in a 100 shooter vs 3. Not even worth thinking about if the same people would use condoms!
Other Africa studies showed that circumcised men pass HIV to women at a HIGHER rate. They dance around this and say it is because the men are not healed yet. However, it may be that women put thhemselves at greater risk haveing unprotected sex with cut men.
branwen of KS is wrong about cervical cancer. There is no data that shows this and it is another circumfreak myth.
No differences were found in circumcision status of husbands of cervical dysplasia patients and controls. The findings of this study are consistant with those reported by Aitken-Swan and Baird. They fail to provide evidence that circumcision status is related to invasive carcinoma or the cervix, carcinoma in situ, or cervical dysplasia...
What about women
What none of these studies point out is that having sex with a circumsized man is safer for women, who are liable to get all kinds of things from men. that's how they found out that cervical cancer was an std. They studied only married women, who had the disease and found that almost all of them had husbands who were not circumsized.
Good advice
It's amazing how many people ignore the obvious and then all of us are forced to share the expense incurred.
It's not just their choice and their problem when the costs that result are spread to all of us.
my word !
The Afican circ/HV studies are so flawed. The researchers say circumcision offers a lifetime of protection so you should, no, the world should buy it and be responsible by amputating half of all penises. That is 30% to 50% of skin off the top with the loss of 65% to 85% of the sexual nerves located in the frenulum and its ridged band. (Dr. Taylor). Totally gone is the most sensitive parts of the penis. (Sorrell et al.) The glans is the least sensitive. Don't be fooled by studies not testing these parts and so declaring there is no difference in sensitivity between intact and circ'd. Back on point, a lifetime of protection...No One Newly Circ'd. Man Has Lived His Life Out to Validate this Claim. The studies were not carried out as they were stopped premature. Perhaps if carried to term or realistically longer, the degree of slanted protection would take a nose dive. Researchers admittedly say this is not the best in prevention so why the promotion and hard sell? Other factors are at work. These are clique of people that have a long history of promoting circumcision. Doctors Opposing Circumcision outlines real flaws that should have been adjusted accordingly.
I am gay, age 51, had sex with +1,000 guys, and still HIV negative, and have settled in a monogamous relationship. I always say "It is not who you do, It's what you do". That said, I have had unprotected anal sex with 5 men, that I knew with some trust, towards the beginning of the HIV scare when coming out. Guardedly, I was willing to take my chances having so long been denied sex with men and so needing to know full sex, unbridled. (knowingly circumcision limits sexual acts and "full" sex as there is no "full body orgasms" as intact men describe but are "local" penile orgasms. With many years of losing sensation after choosing circumcision at age 5, I know some of what is lost. Though such full body orgasms I did experience back in the crystal meth craze. Is this the reason that meth is a fast growing drug problem? Men knowingly or not seeking what they are lacking naturally?
And of course, since you didn't bother to mention it above
3) While condoms are not 100% effective, they are one means of reducing your risk if you do plan to "alley-cat" around.
