Circumcision to AIDS Risk

So lemme get this straight. Instead of spreading the concept of self restraint and fidelity to STOP the spread of AIDS, circumcision is whats going to cut the risk in half. Wow!!!

EDIT: Forgot to post the link. Sorry.

From the article:

The end.

Actually, maybe they should start a “Cash for Foreskins” program - the medical industry needs a bailout.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
From the article:
But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.

The end.

Actually, maybe they should start a “Cash for Foreskins” program - the medical industry needs a bailout. [/quote]

But if it’s not going to work why bother with even entertaining the idea? On top of that do we really need the government messing with our johnsons?

[quote]jawara wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
From the article:
But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.

The end.

Actually, maybe they should start a “Cash for Foreskins” program - the medical industry needs a bailout.

But if it’s not going to work why bother with even entertaining the idea? On top of that do we really need the government messing with our johnsons?[/quote]

Not our johnsons. Other people’s johnsons.

If my wife and I were to have another boy and this were to happen I would laugh picturing my toddler telling the government to suck his d**k not cut skin off of it.

[quote]jawara wrote:
So lemme get this straight. Instead of spreading the concept of self restraint and fidelity to STOP the spread of AIDS, circumcision is whats going to cut the risk in half. Wow!!!

EDIT: Forgot to post the link. Sorry.

Maybe we didnt read the same article but to me the article said circumcision reduces the chance of infection for hetero males.

not circumcision = have all the sex you want now.

im quite certain if you asked the CDC if reducing sexual encounters with multiple peoples for at least concentrating on monogamy as a means to reduce spread and infection is a good idea, they would say yes.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
So lemme get this straight. Instead of spreading the concept of self restraint and fidelity to STOP the spread of AIDS, circumcision is whats going to cut the risk in half. Wow!!!

EDIT: Forgot to post the link. Sorry.

Maybe we didnt read the same article but to me the article said circumcision reduces the chance of infection for hetero males.

not circumcision = have all the sex you want now.

im quite certain if you asked the CDC if reducing sexual encounters with multiple peoples for at least concentrating on monogamy as a means to reduce spread and infection is a good idea, they would say yes.[/quote]

I really don’t know what the CDC’s opinion is but I really don’t see them backing any abstenance only, or no sex till marriage campaign. I know the government gives away a metric f**k ton of condoms and it really doesn’t seem to help. Wasn’t there a rapper that was pushing for testing, saying that more test was what we needed?

[quote]Maybe we didnt read the same article but to me the article said circumcision reduces the chance of infection for hetero males.
[/quote]

So we want to halve an already vanishingly small risk? I’m on board. Throw money at the problem!

[quote]jawara wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
So lemme get this straight. Instead of spreading the concept of self restraint and fidelity to STOP the spread of AIDS, circumcision is whats going to cut the risk in half. Wow!!!

EDIT: Forgot to post the link. Sorry.

Maybe we didnt read the same article but to me the article said circumcision reduces the chance of infection for hetero males.

not circumcision = have all the sex you want now.

im quite certain if you asked the CDC if reducing sexual encounters with multiple peoples for at least concentrating on monogamy as a means to reduce spread and infection is a good idea, they would say yes.

I really don’t know what the CDC’s opinion is but I really don’t see them backing any abstenance only, or no sex till marriage campaign. I know the government gives away a metric f**k ton of condoms and it really doesn’t seem to help. Wasn’t there a rapper that was pushing for testing, saying that more test was what we needed?[/quote]

If they want to stop the spread of HIV, they need to figure out how to reduce male-on-male sex and IV drug use. No one so far has figured out how to do that.

So lemme guess, if there was an HIV vaccine you would be against it?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jawara wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
So lemme get this straight. Instead of spreading the concept of self restraint and fidelity to STOP the spread of AIDS, circumcision is whats going to cut the risk in half. Wow!!!

EDIT: Forgot to post the link. Sorry.

Maybe we didnt read the same article but to me the article said circumcision reduces the chance of infection for hetero males.

not circumcision = have all the sex you want now.

im quite certain if you asked the CDC if reducing sexual encounters with multiple peoples for at least concentrating on monogamy as a means to reduce spread and infection is a good idea, they would say yes.

I really don’t know what the CDC’s opinion is but I really don’t see them backing any abstenance only, or no sex till marriage campaign. I know the government gives away a metric f**k ton of condoms and it really doesn’t seem to help. Wasn’t there a rapper that was pushing for testing, saying that more test was what we needed?

If they want to stop the spread of HIV, they need to figure out how to reduce male-on-male sex and IV drug use. No one so far has figured out how to do that.

[/quote]

I don’t its so much the act of M/M sexual contact, I think its the M/M promiscuity that is the main problem. If 2 men were committed to each other and go test before they had sex and stayed faithful to each other they would reduce their risk better than any condom would. At least thats what I think…

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Actually, maybe they should start a “Cash for Foreskins” program - the medical industry needs a bailout. [/quote]

At first I thought it possibly could be a Jewish conspiracy. Now I’m convinced.

[quote]jawara wrote:
I really don’t know what the CDC’s opinion is but I really don’t see them backing any abstenance only, or no sex till marriage campaign. [/quote]

I think you’re confusing it with the Center for Dogmatic Catholics. In the real world, “no sex till marriage” must sound like science-fiction to kids these days.

Does AIDS even exist? I know that there is illness but many scientists are still not convinced. Its all about $$$$$.

People would balk to pay for diseases spread by the gay lifestyle (and then giving it to heteros) so con artists invented AIDS and pinned it on a relatively innocuous virus called HIV. Speaking of which, only the anti-body to HIV has ever been detected, not the virus itself. Very unusual for such a virulent pathogen!

This is obviously not my field but anytime someone wants a BIG sack of my money, they better be VERY convincing. So far, I am unconvinced.

You’re all missing the point. What we really need is more genital mutilation.

God forbid we teach kids about condoms and safe sex.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
God forbid we teach kids about condoms and safe sex.[/quote]

God most probably doesn’t.

Humans is another story.

[quote]jawara wrote:
I don’t its so much the act of M/M sexual contact, I think its the M/M promiscuity that is the main problem. If 2 men were committed to each other and go test before they had sex and stayed faithful to each other they would reduce their risk better than any condom would. At least thats what I think…[/quote]

Bingo.

[quote]lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
I really don’t know what the CDC’s opinion is but I really don’t see them backing any abstenance only, or no sex till marriage campaign.

I think you’re confusing it with the Center for Dogmatic Catholics. In the real world, “no sex till marriage” must sound like science-fiction to kids these days. [/quote]

Holy crapola you and I agree on somthing!!!

[quote]forlife wrote:
jawara wrote:
I don’t its so much the act of M/M sexual contact, I think its the M/M promiscuity that is the main problem. If 2 men were committed to each other and go test before they had sex and stayed faithful to each other they would reduce their risk better than any condom would. At least thats what I think…

Bingo.[/quote]

x2…that goes for M/M, M/F, F/F, M/M/F(I could keep going) A little fidelity would do wonders for the AIDS world, and STD’s in general.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does AIDS even exist? I know that there is illness but many scientists are still not convinced. Its all about $$$$$.

People would balk to pay for diseases spread by the gay lifestyle (and then giving it to heteros) so con artists invented AIDS and pinned it on a relatively innocuous virus called HIV. Speaking of which, only the anti-body to HIV has ever been detected, not the virus itself. Very unusual for such a virulent pathogen!

This is obviously not my field but anytime someone wants a BIG sack of my money, they better be VERY convincing. So far, I am unconvinced.[/quote]

You should travel to Africa where 1.5 million people have died and 11 million children have been orphaned due to AIDS that it doesnt exist, it would probably brighten up their day.