A major hole in the HIV/circ movement

[1Taoist]

A particular hole in the HIV/circ movement has become clear to me, which I wanted to document and share with others who may find themselves on this topic of discussion:

The proponents claim circ reduces incidence of HIV in African men. The science behind this is the foreskin has receptors which facilitate infection. Some conflicting medical studies claim the opposite: these receptors actually BLOCK infection, almost as if nature has built in a protective mechanism. Hmm? Which of these sounds more interesting? More possible?

The odd part is when we consider the known method of infection. Besides IV drug use, gay sex is the only other way. And not just gay sex...specifically anal sex. And not just anal sex...specifically receptive anal sex. Yes, I said the primary (some say EXCLUSIVE) way to get HIV sexually is if you put an HIV+ penis in your ass. Current medical understanding- as odd as it may sound -is even claiming HIV infection from an HIV+ ass to an HIV- penis won't likely occur...meaning the penis isn't even a good receptor for infection. Hmmm.

The rectum has many qualities that make it conducive to transmission. Namely, it is an internal environment with a slightly higher temperature than the rest of the body. The tissue is thin and blood vessels are easily accessed. And the rectum really isn't designed like a vagina, meaning for in-and-out motion and pressure. It is designed for holding and exiting. Not receiving AND back-and-forth motion. The only fact that strays from this is suppository medication, which is a direct way to get something into your blood by insertion and holding. Hmm. Kind of like the result of sex (semen) which is inserted and retained in the rectum after sex.

The problem here is the medical slander upon foreskin. But maybe that's not the whole story. Maybe it's more of a social manipulation.

Those saying "removing the foreskin will protect you from disease" (in this case HIV), which is the same thing they said so long ago- circ prevents disease. But this doesn't fit with the known method of transmission. How does cutting off a piece of the penis help when the way you get it is anally??

The truth is probably...it doesn't. It reduces INFECTED people from transmitting it.

What? That can't be cuz plenty of circ'd men in the US transmit it. I didn't say it blocks it, just reduces it. Maybe. This may be because, contrary to what is said, perhaps the receptors that help protect the penis...also transmit. This means foreskin isn't a victim- it's a preditor. Now why don't they establish this? Cuz you can go to people and say "Im gonna cut this piece off your dick so you won't get HIV". You'd have a hard time sayin "I'm gonna cut this piece off your dick so you don't infect others". People would give them the finger. "Get the fuck outta here". Even HIV+ people would be able to claim disease discrimination, and maybe even a Nazi-esque final solution scenario where we start physically mutilating diseased individuals...rather than cure the disease.

Something to think about.

Once again, if the act of infection is anal penetration, the vehicle is the penis. This HAS to mean the foreskin somehow "facilitates" the virus transmission, in an appropriate environment, during a particular act. Oral sex? Not really. Saliva...it turns out...is known to neutralize the virus. Go figure.

Perhaps the foreskin, which makes the end of the penis a somewhat "internal" environment, may protect against disease as much as it can transmit it (if someone is infected first). This falls back to the idea you gotta be a responsible, healthy adult more than you gotta be circumcised. But the idea of circ was invented because...the masses are asses. Interesting analogy there, since HIV is acquired via the shitter.

If any of this is the case- that the mucosal skin contains receptors for transmission and the subsequent moisture/temp conducive to the transmission of HIV, then circ in Africa is meant to degrade the penis' ability to transmit it- not the other way around. Now, in the US many say there is no reported higher incidence of HIV among uncuts...but that wouldn't be the case anyway, since anal-receptive sex is the way you get it. What would be the case is a higher rate of TRANSMISSION by uncuts to anal-receptors, which would be hard to document.

Cont.

[1Taoist]

If you could establish this, folks, it would indeed wipe out the intactivism movement. It is a throw-back to the heathen canaanites. Perhaps the Jews, being as smart as they are, knew that in the case of other diseases, and the propensity of rape from canaanites on Jewish women, wanted to degrade their ability to transmit disease introduced by the canaanites uncut- and diseased -members. The Jewish people are a patriarchal set, and it would seem this male-circ' attempt at reducing disease would be in line with them. Who knows.

The theory here is uncut penis' transmit disease, not acquire it. So to speak. Nothing is fool-proof. But historically, this seems to indicate- per Sodom and Gomorrha -that anal sex has always been a method of destruction...and the foreskin plays a role. The farther we get from the alegories of the old test, the closer we find ourselves to it's secrets.

Unfortunately, they didn't spell out the real problem. In Africa, this is going to be a disaster. Men are going to think they are safe cut, and they are not. They will continue to propagate disease with the tool of transmission. Albeit, a tool slightly degraded in it's ability to transmit.

[greg_b]

I think you may be drawing too fine a line between the forskin transmitting the disease and the rectum recieving it. While it may be true that the chances of the reciever getting HIV vs the penetrator getting it are quite different, I doubt very many would argue that you do not have to worry about having unprotected anal sex with HIV positive people.

In addition, my understanding is that vaginal intercourse also carries significant risk. So it does not appear to me to be soley the result of anal sex.

But I do agree with you that amputating foreskins does not provide much protection. Instead it merely reduces your chances a little. So even if your foreskin is removed, you still need to practice safe sex, just like anyone with a foreskin would have to. The minor reduction in aquiring HIV will only be in the cases where either you chose not to practice safe sex or your protection failed (ex condom broke) in some way. And if you do it enough, you will get HIV just like anyone else, it just may take a few more sexual encounters.

Weighing this minor benefit against the major reduction in sexual function and feelings that a foreskin provides, I think a strong argument can be made that it is not worth it to circumcise people as a way to prevent HIV. And even if your feeling of risk tolerance makes you wish to use circumcision as a way to reduce you chances of aquiring HIV, it still makes no sense to impose it on babies, just yourself. Each person needs to make their own choice based upon their own feelings of risk and the tradeoffs.

Regards

[cloud7]

there are other holes in the arguments at least towards forced cutting of infants...

let's assume that the inner foreskin does contract HIV for this argument. a typical infant circumcision leaves much of the inner foreskin leaving them with little protection, adult circumcisions (such as used in the trials) can more easily amputate the inner foreskin.

so even if the circumcision does reduce the chance of contracting aids then it only furthers that circumcision should wait until that person can decide on their own so that they could have the full benefit either way

again this is making an assumption and I really doubt the claims of hiv protection

[z726]

The Jewish people are a patriarchal set, and it would seem this male-circ' attempt at reducing disease would be in line with them. Who knows.

I think there's an unwritten theory at work here: if you make sex less desirable, chances are that men will be less promiscuous and therefore less likely to contract diseases. This, of course, is in addition to strict moral values on the topic of sex.

[1Taoist]

Greg, where exactly do you get your understanding that vaginal reception is risky? What exactly is your evidence? And where exactly are your infected vaginas?

Hmm?

Nobody seems to know. Sounds good on paper, though.

[admin]

where exactly are your infected vaginas?
I thought that 2/3 of the new HIV cases in Africa were women, or similar.

-Ron

[rtnt]

According to the CDC females are more likely to get AIDS from sex than men. I can't remember the exact numbers, but according to the CDC females have some where around 1 chance in 400 of catching AIDS per time they have unprotected sex with an AIDS infected male, where as males have around 1 chance in 1,200 of getting AIDS per time they have unprotected sex with an AIDS infected female. Semen has a very high concentration of the AIDS virus, so when a female gets AIDS from sex I think almost always she gets it from the semen depostited in her, not from the penis. Also when gay men get AIDS I think almost always they get it from semen deposited in them, not from the penis. So I don't think that circumcision decreases the risk of males giving AIDS to others.

[finman]

If an HIV free man shares a man or woman with an HIV+ man, or engages in practices like 'docking', he might come into contact with HIV+ sperm and so, if the virus enters through the inner foreskin, may a have a temporary protection if there is less or none (Lots of IFs). Otherwise I guess the transmission is from vaginal fluid, again maybe, maybe not, through inner foreskin.

It is obvious from this that uncircumcised new-born male babies should be stopped from having sex...where has my illogical logic taken me?:confused:

[greg_b]

Greg, where exactly do you get your understanding that vaginal reception is risky? What exactly is your evidence? And where exactly are your infected vaginas?

Hmm?

Nobody seems to know. Sounds good on paper, though.

Here are some quick references:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm#transmission

http://www.avert.org/howcan.htm

http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/transmission.html

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2339.html

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hivaids/page2_em.htm

Again, I am only pointing out that anal sex is not the only way that people can get HIV. It may well be the most effective. It may well be that if you restrict yourself to penetrating only, you may be at a lower risk.

But the issue is one of risk tolerance. I do not think it will serve our cuase well to argue against foreskin removal because only the recievers are at risk in anal sex when this is not apprently true.

But it will serve us well to argue against removing foreskins to prevent HIV transmission because the protective effect is minimal, the circ'd guy has to do everything else right, and he loses important advantages in sexual function and feeling.

And since it is a risk averse decision, only the owner of the foreskin can truely decide whether it is worth it.

Regards

[Joseph]

I think you do a good job of analyzing the flaws in the imagined hiv/circumcision connection, but I think you arrive at the wrong conclusion.

The current HIV studies are based on the premise that the Langerhans cells act as receptors for HIV. Removing the Langerhans cells (which, is by the way, impossible, since there is no way to completely obliterate the langerhanse cells through circumcision) is supposed to reduce this "risk." The principle is obstensably simple: remove the Langerhans cells, reduce HIV reception, and only through penetrative sexual intercourse.

If the following studies are correct, however, this invalidates any "study" made under the aforementioned premise.

http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/

You draw three good conclusions. First, that "Besides IV drug use, gay sex is the only other way [to transmit HIV]. And not just gay sex...specifically anal sex. And not just anal sex...specifically receptive anal sex."

Second, that "the penis isn't even a good receptor for infection."

And third, that "The rectum has many qualities that make it conducive to transmission... it is an internal environment with a slightly higher temperature than the rest of the body. The tissue is thin and blood vessels are easily accessed. And the rectum really isn't designed like a vagina, meaning for in-and-out motion and pressure. It is designed for holding and exiting. Not receiving AND back-and-forth motion."

And then you say that "The only fact that strays from this is suppository medication, which is a direct way to get something into your blood by insertion and holding. ... Kind of like the result of sex (semen) which is inserted and retained in the rectum after sex." No, I don't think this fact strays away; the thin blood vessels that are easily accessed in the rectum are the whole premise behind the invention of the suppository.

Having come to these conclusions, however, I don't see where you draw the possibility that "perhaps the receptors that help protect the penis...also transmit."

You reitterate that "if the act of infection is anal penetration, the vehicle is the penis." But how do you draw the conclusion that "[t]his HAS to mean the foreskin somehow "facilitates" the virus transmission"? How do you make that jump, having come to the above conclusions? Where's the science in that explanation?

You seem to imply that the foreskin as a facilitator of transmission is a fact that pro-circ quacks don't want to establish because "[y]ou'd have a hard time sayin "I'm gonna cut this piece off your dick so you don't infect others". However, I think that if anything, the establishment that the presence of the foreskin plays ANY role in increasing HIV transmission, whether it's reception or transmission, would help bolster the circumcision movement. You make an unexplained jump to the conclusion that since "it doesn't receive, then it MUST transmit." But why must this necesarily be the case?

A conclusion more in line with what you have already established (that the Langerhans cells BLOCK the disease, that the only form of transmission is receptive anal sex, that the inside of the rectum provides optimum environment for reception, being warm, moist, and of easy access to the bloodstream) would be that HIV transmission would have absolutely nothing to do with the foreskin at all, but rather whether the person giving anal sex were HIV positive, period.

Why? Because circumcised or not, if the partner has HIV and he is not using a condom, then he is releasing viral load directly into the rectum where it would have easy access to the bloodstream. Especially, since the inside of the rectum is actually quite fragile, and it tears with the in-and-out action of a persistent member, breaking blood vessels and making the access for the HIV virus in the semen of an infected partner easier.

"If any of this is the case- that the mucosal skin contains receptors for transmission and the subsequent moisture/temp conducive to the transmission of HIV, then circ in Africa is meant to degrade the penis' ability to transmit it- not the other way around."

The key word here is "if." But you'd be giving credibility the idea that circumcision actually does anything for HIV prevention eitherway.

"Now, in the US many say there is no reported higher incidence of HIV among uncuts...but that wouldn't be the case anyway, since anal-receptive sex is the way you get it. What would be the case is a higher rate of TRANSMISSION by uncuts to anal-receptors, which would be hard to document."

The problem with this is that it would have to be assumed that a), your conclusion is indeed correct, and that b), intact men are only givers and not receivers of anal sex. Could the reason there's probably no reported higher incidence in HIV among intact men be because... having a foreskin/being circumcised has nothing to do with it?

I don't exactly see why you feel the need to mention Jews and "how smart they are." Even if your conclusion were proven true, how would it make sense for Jews to circumcise their own boys to reduce disease transmission brought on by the rape of the Canaanite's hypothetical rape of Jewish women? "The Jewish people are a patriarchal set, and it would seem this male-circ' attempt at reducing disease would be in line with them. Who knows." ... "The theory here is uncut penis' transmit disease, not acquire it." This would mean that only women raped by circumcised and diseased Jewish men would benefit. :confused:

But historically, this seems to indicate- per Sodom and Gomorrha -that anal sex has always been a method of destruction...and the foreskin plays a role. The farther we get from the alegories of the old test, the closer we find ourselves to it's secrets. OK, mentioning Jews, circumcision and Sodom and Gomorrha look like real non-sequiturs here. Biblically it was GOD who rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrha, because anal sex was an abomination to HIM. What it has to do with the foreskin, circumcision and disease prevention seems extremely disconnected to me.

I really don't want to sound insiteful, but could you please leave religion and theology out of scietific analysis?

I will agree with you that "the idea of circ was invented because...the masses are asses," and that "[i]n Africa, this is going to be a disaster. Men are going to think they are safe cut, and they are not. They will continue to propagate disease..."

The penis is a "tool of transmission" alright, but I really doubt the foreskin has anything to with it, and the higher rate of transmission from givers to receivers of anal sex has more to do with the release of viral load into the rectum. Since the penis of an HIV positive man releases HIV positive semen, foreskin or not, it will transmit.

Bottom line, whether the foreskin transmits, recieves, or not at all, condoms, condoms, condoms.

[1Taoist]

Vaginal transmission is apparently NOT happening. Talk to a doctor. These reports and CDC efforts are not accurately reflective of reality. They CAN'T. They can only report "reports". Current medical understanding can't square why women in Africa are getting it and women in US...aren't? EVerything comes down to drugs. There is also the black-Hispanic woman/white woman thing, which CDC reports but doesn't have a way to explain...other than drugs.

This is a sociological problem. It's irresponsible to tell people they aren't getting it through normal sex, cause you can't prove it due to lying.

[1Taoist]

My discussion here has nothing whatsoever to do with sacraficing sensation and sexual pleasure/function. That is a separate issue. What this is about is whether the circ/HIV-prevention effort is even medically truthful.

Sure, the penis can transmit and receive all sorts of disease, cuz it's a two-way street. But people love to keep citing this myth of women getting this- and even getting it through regular vaginal sex...when the only "reported" women getting it are African (for some reason). Meanwhile...anybody anywhere in the states know any women anywhere who've gotten it? I sure don't. And no docs I know see it either...except with drugs. It all comes down to that. It's a war on drugs being waged with foreskin cutters.

I'm not making any absolute claims, just calling into question what is to me crystal clear in terms of evidence. It's that quote I've heard on here, I think from Greg or Tally, there is a difference between theory and practice. Medical theory says yeah, women can get it vaginally. Practice shows they are not.

[greg_b]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3318-2005Feb6.html

http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8885

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102238062.html

Regards

[1Taoist]

This Washington post article, Greg, underscores my understanding. You don't even realize it, though. This article doesn't present vaginas- it presents drug use and anal sex. Read between the lines, brother. Only YOU think this says vaginas. The men (the penis') who transmitted this are in and out of jail, known drug users, and active anal sexually. What they ain't tellin you is the guy probably does them in the butt, as he gets used to in prison. They probably get this virus anally. And the worst part is they probably concede to anal sex cuz it won't get them pregnant, since that's always a concern. How sad.

These women aren't just victims. They probably use drugs, too. In no way do these samples indicate HIV thru normal vaginal sex. These women are high-risk group people and can never qualify as indicators of hetero HIV infection. They are collateral damage.

And then there's the ethnic question, genetically.

Ugh.

[1Taoist]

Per Joseph's post:

I don't agree that foreskin has "nothing to do with it". The medical field may be off the mark sometimes, but they don't just stumble aimlessly. Somebody somewhere is trying to solve this. I'm just suggesting there's more to it than they are telling, mostly to avoid public backlash.

That's IF they know that foreskin assists in the transmission of the disease. What I've said is anal receivers don't give HIV into the penis penetrating them. Yes, the viral "load" is key, but not the whole thing. You can't claim medically that someone acquired HIV thru their foreskin if they don't have people getting it that way. I'm telling you, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for disease prevention is lying about behavior. It's really hard to establish pathology when people's true behavior is not known.

I think the evidence shows that foreskin CAN ONLY be a facilitator, if it's even involved at all. But it's being presented as a way of protecting from the acquisition of disease (HIV). I think there is ONLY evidence that it can facilitate BEcuz the penis is only known to deliver the virus (into the anus).

I personally don't think the human vagina, used properly, is involved in the acquisition and infection of such a virus like HIV. It's already established that the rectum loves it some HIV. But it also loves e. coli, too, and e.coli doesn't live in the vagina. At least the non-nasty-as-hell ones.

There is still no irrefutable evidence of vaginally acquired HIV. I mean seriously, like white women aren't havin sex with black men, too? Right. You'd maybe see a larger proportion of black women than white women, not next to zero.

[1Taoist]

The first article you cited Joseph, may be how I'm making my jump to foreskin cells vehiclizing HIV. If you note half-way down, it says HIV targets T cells, and to get there it has to "hijack" langerhans. It's all there in black and white. Read it.

What the point is, is in nature things are often a double-edged sword. What works in favor of something can also work in disfavor. If you are healthy, langerhans help protect. If you're infected, they help infect. It's so totally clear. Makes 100% sense to me. Foreskin makes sex better (for you AND your partner) if you're healthy, makes it a disease trap (for your partner) if you're not.

It also states that "if the langerhans are OVERWHELMED by HIV-1, then infection happens". Now...when would it be overwhelmed? When infected. The man's natural barrier becomes a boon for virus. It flips.

This is the only case in favor of circ for HIV prevention, because overwhelmed langerhans in an infected penis, placed inside a rectum...wreck's 'em.

Once again, and try to listen to this closely...how do you tell the public to cut off a part of their penis so they don't infect people? The answer is you can't. You CAN, on the other hand, tell people to cut this piece off that may GET THEM infected. People operate from fear. Nobody wants this. And if more people are circ'd, less chance of propagating disease.

It's altogether like circ in America. They don't think it's a big deal to do...but at the same time gotta be careful how they present it.

Jews did not want to propagate disease. That is the historical ref I was making.

[1Taoist]

Per women...the term is NIR (No Identifiable Risk), which leads to reclassification of "heterosexual transmission" or "IV drug use and/or sex for money for drugs".

You decide.

[Joseph]

Saw these in the news today, thought they might be relevant to the subject...

Cheers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902473.html

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/health/news/article_1458491.php/New_vaginal_gel_shows_promise_in_AIDS_fight_graphs __Roundup__

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/health/news/article_1458486.php/New_vaginal_gel_shows_promise_in_AIDS_fight_

*EDIT*

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=6836435

[1Taoist]

A pill to block infection of women! Yay! We need that, since the drugs they're already takin are gettin them infected.

And it works on monkeys! Neat. Since the virus is said to have originated from them. Somebody screwed a monkey to get this in the first place.

What a lucrative idea...make a pill to give to women, and cut off the foreskin of men. Women will take it cuz...they take drugs and get screwed. Guys will get their foreskins cut cuz...we tell them you get HIV thru your dick, not your ass.

Great.

[1Taoist]

The gel is another slick idea. Note that it says is "30% effective in reducing infection thru the vagina OR THE RECTUM". Hmm. Guess it's medically correct. But since most people don't have sex in the rectum, that half of the sentence just falls off.

Neat idea...a lube you can shoot up your ass before you get raped. They could pass this out in prison with the blanket and toothbrush.

[1Taoist]

The problem with this stuff is it isn't socially reliable. Since HIV in Africa is partly a sociological problem (behavior related), people aren't gonna use something responsibly. And since people are usually high as a kite when they have ass-sex (for money or just more drugs), I doubt they're gonna stop to get out their anti-HIV lube. They don't even stop to change needles.

But gay men in America might use this. They could market it as "Cockblock" instead of sunblock.

Can you just laugh at the fact that they call this "new vaginal gel helpful in fight against aids!"? How exactly would it sound if the article proclaimed "New anal gel effective in the fight against aids!"? Anal lube? No, it's anal GEL. Yeah, that's what I said. No, you said lube. What's the difference? Lube is for pleasure and gel is for pain. Oh.

Hey. Are you listening to me? This is a new anal gel. It can help block...

nevermind.

Hey, we have a new VAGinal gel for the fight against aids. Yeah, you use it just like your tampons or douche or whatever. Yeah, it's shown to reduce infection. How many women get HIV thru vaginal sex? Nobody knows. Really. Usually drugs are involved. You don't do drugs? You sure, comon you've done a line or two in your day. Okay, okay, how bout this little pill? Comon, your boyfriend was in prison, right?

[1Taoist]

I would like to seque onto something I found on the page with the ABC article...

Christine Maggiore's death. For those who don't know, she's what is called an Aids Denier. People who think HIV doesn't cause Aids. Unfortunately, ironically, tragically, no matter how you look at it- she's dead of aids and so is her 3yr old child. Not only did she deny HIV causes Aids, but that not her daughter nor herself died of it. Denial is a powerful weapon.

Something about this strikes me. Denial is a powerful weapon. My dad had it when my mom was dying of lung cancer. For some, it seems, when confronted with a life-threatening problem...denial is the weapon they choose. Who knows why.

Not only is she one of the NIR's (diagnosed in '92, after spending some time in...Effreeka. Hmm), she stood for something interesting, but it wasn't what she, and others, thought.

Since '92 she and her husband continued to have unprotected VAGINAL sex. Chiefly cause she believed it was harmelss. To this day he is HIV-.

Hmm.

Unfortunately, her 3yr old daughter died from "aids-like" problems, but never got tested. She breast-fed her and refused to take AZT to protect her child. She has another child, a boy, who has tested, subsequently, neg.

Google this woman's story. It's interesting. And sad. Mostly for it's overwhelming tragic outcomes, due probably to misguided efforts to deal with her diagnosis. Life is not an experiment. Her inability to yield swallowed her, her daughter, and her husband I'm sure, if only in heart.

There is scarcely any details on exactly how she got it, other than there was supposedly a "boyfriend" who tested poz in Europe. She also got tested, on a fluke, somewhere in Europe. I wonder when I think about this. It's such an isolated incident.

Is it possible that somehow she got stuck by the doctor with a shared needle? That's a stretch. Am I being too creative? Maybe it was just simply thru the normal push-push semen deposit by said boyfriend. I don't know. Just doesn't seem to be the way. Especially when it sounds like...her husband should have it after 15 years.

Is it possible that, denial being her primary weapon, she is in denial of having had anal sex or drug use? Sounds plausible to me. One quote I found was her statement "I ruined my life. And I did it myself". That echoed to me. Perhaps she knew her husband was never gonna get this cause there was no way for her to fuck him in the ass.

I feel bad for anyone who just gets it on...a fluke. But flukes are not germain to knowlege and application. They are the exception. They are chaos. They are destablizing.

Chaos, overwheming a system, may find denial- an off-spring of chaos -punching back.

[Tally]

The gel is another slick idea. Note that it says is "30% effective in reducing infection thru the vagina OR THE RECTUM".
Let's put this in perspective. The gel is 30% effective for not getting AIDS when you have sex. That is about 1 out of 3 times you will not get AIDS.

If you play Russian roulette with one bullet in a six-shooter, you have an 83% chance of living. That is a 5 out of 6 chance of not blowing your brains out. Granted, sex is a lot more fun than pulling a trigger. But, I would rather play Russian roulette than rely on something with only 30% chance.

[1Taoist]

The roulette analogy is good. The penis is the 6-shooter, and they wanna cut off the tip of the barrel so men don't get shot in the gun by a pussy with no bullets. Meanwhile, they're gettin shot in the ass by the guy behind them with one bullet.

[Joseph]

Wait, if a gel protects a woman 30% and circumcision protects a man 60%, then that's 90% percent protection right there.

It's how it works, right?

;)

*EDIT*

No wait, but if you add the 40% of non-protection of circumcision, plus the 70% of non-protection of the gel, then that means its... 110% ineffective.

That's not good...

[DPX1]

The roulette analogy is good. The penis is the 6-shooter, and they wanna cut off the tip of the barrel so men don't get shot in the gun by a pussy with no bullets. Meanwhile, they're gettin shot in the ass by the guy behind them with one bullet.

This analogy gave me many lulz. I don't know why.

[unhappilycut]

Another question worth asking: How many complications, both immediately obvious (infection) and not immediately obvious (early impotence) are caused for each case of HIV circ allegedly prevents? Are you doing more harm than good from that prespective?

[greg_b]

Another question worth asking: How many complications, both immediately obvious (infection) and not immediately obvious (early impotence) are caused for each case of HIV circ allegedly prevents? Are you doing more harm than good from that prespective?

Exactly. The debate should focus on the tradeoffs, benefits vs costs. Just because there is some benefit should not be an argument for. You must trade that benefit off the costs, some of which you suggest.

Regards