PDA

View Full Version : Cutters Have New Momentum


anon
September 1st, 2009, 11:06
This new "anti-HIV" push to cut infants is a real disaster. If it hadn't popped up I think circ'ing rates would have continue to fall steadily.

But this new angle is very, very bad. It gives the cutters a 'great' rationale, adds confusion to the parents' decision and is just an all-around disaster.

I actually believe that cutting MAY indeed offer some protection against HIV, given the evidence. But how about this? Teach your kid to practice safe sex instead of permanently cutting off part of his sexual body?

And what all these assholes pushing for circ'ing don't understand is that when the kid becomes sexually active, being cut will actually MAKE him practice unsafe sex in order to experience some sensation during the act. For me, sex with a condom is beyond pointless. There is NO pleasure at all. None. Zero. So the temptation to go without is very strong.

This is quite bad news.

cobra
September 1st, 2009, 12:42
You're right. It is disasterous. I think, however, the rates will continue to drop... if not accellerate. The attitude of the CDC is pushing circumcision to center stage, which gives us all chance to address our grievances much more publicly.

From the studies I have perused prior to Operation Abraham's farcical research in Africa, data pointed to circ exaccerbating the problem of HIV transmission. This explains why AIDS would be so prevalent in the USA and other circumcising regions.

Though the media has taken this ball and run for the goal (being funded by the medical industry through advertising) judging by the overwhelming condemnation of the CDC in the comments sections of these e-publications, the majority of internet users are not fooled in the slightest.

Unregistered
September 1st, 2009, 12:47
Good points, cobra.

I just quickly read some of the literature and you're right - the evidence is sparse.

But here's one piece of research that backs up my point exactly:


"One model of the potential impact of MC did not take into account risk compensation [4], but noted that “increases in risk-taking behaviour among circumcised men could reduce the benefit of MC.” Based on the 18% difference in sexual contacts for circumcised and uncircumcised men in the ANRS 1265 trial and the assumption that “risk compensation might be higher in a nonresearch program scale-up,” Kahn et al. [5] adjusted the 60% effectiveness estimate obtained in this RCT downward to 50% to reflect a 25% increase in sexual risk behaviors among circumcised men."

And why is there such a huge increase in sexual risk behaviors among circumcised men? Because they can't fucking feel shit from sex, you assholes (assholes = cutters, I mean).

Dachstein
September 1st, 2009, 17:00
The HIV/STD/Cancer rationale is so ridiculous. Of course circumcised men have slightly less chance of getting those things, because they have slightly less penis! Why don't we remove the ENTIRE penis at birth - then they'll have 0% chance of HIV and STDs.

Americut
September 8th, 2009, 11:31
I dont think its only the fact that circumcised men cant get much or any pleasure with a condom on and therefore are likely to not use them, thats contributing to the spread of HIV. What about the surface of a circumcised penis? The dry and rough tissue is prone to cracking and tearing. Even if microscopically, its enough for much increased transmission. Also, with the dry and rough surface, along with total friction (and other characteristics of the circumcised man's sexual behavior, such as hard and fast thrusting for long periods of time) it is much more likely to cause tearing of the vaginal tissue in a woman during sex. Increasing the risks of transmission thus further.

Yunus
October 1st, 2009, 09:08
This new "anti-HIV" push to cut infants is a real disaster. If it hadn't popped up I think circ'ing rates would have continue to fall steadily.

But this new angle is very, very bad. It gives the cutters a 'great' rationale, adds confusion to the parents' decision and is just an all-around disaster.

I actually believe that cutting MAY indeed offer some protection against HIV, given the evidence. But how about this? Teach your kid to practice safe sex instead of permanently cutting off part of his sexual body?

And what all these assholes pushing for circ'ing don't understand is that when the kid becomes sexually active, being cut will actually MAKE him practice unsafe sex in order to experience some sensation during the act. For me, sex with a condom is beyond pointless. There is NO pleasure at all. None. Zero. So the temptation to go without is very strong.

This is quite bad news.

I ever heard from my friends who were circumcised about the techniques of circumcised masturbation.
What my friends said made me really disgusted because the techniques were really disgusting.

Here are these techniques :
1. Oral sex or anal sex (extreme) with partner (usually male partners),but this method is very rare.
2. Virtual vagina sex (they use their creativity to create "vagina-like environment",so they enjoyed their masturbation by inserting their circumcised dick into that "vagina-like environment" which most of all were really disgusting).Example,they lubricate the heat of the bottle (the size of the head of bottle must be same with the penis size),then they insert their penis to the head of bottle.

*sigh*

Bashar
October 1st, 2009, 11:41
anon, i believe that cutting actually encourages non safe sex but that anti HIV crap is just crap. if 4/5 of the world's men are intact and this were a real issue then HIV would be spreading in a lot more places than the ones it does right now.

also i'm so tired of males having to suffer the consequences of these HIV movements. as if females don't get the disease... c'mon, all the medical institutions, admit you like the sound of a billion and a quarter dollars in your net earnings at the end of the year.

Yunus
October 1st, 2009, 11:46
anon, i believe that cutting actually encourages non safe sex but that anti HIV crap is just crap. if 4/5 of the world's men are intact and this were a real issue then HIV would be spreading in a lot more places than the ones it does right now.

also i'm so tired of males having to suffer the consequences of these HIV movements. as if females don't get the disease... c'mon, all the medical institutions, admit you like the sound of a billion and a quarter dollars in your net earnings at the end of the year.

I'm tired too with the offers of circumcision on me. :D

Joseph
October 1st, 2009, 16:40
Don't ever believe the circ/HIV lie, anonymous.

Remember the myth existed before the "studies."

Back when AIDS started, one Dr. Fink had already made the connection, and now, 20 or so "studies" later (studies created by biased and interested people, mind you, and also, studies that are deliberately rigged), there is some "connection."

The chickens are coming home to roost. Studies are now showing in Africa that HIV is rising among circumcised populations, but it seems pro-circs are picking and choosing only the "studies" that are convenient.

http://circumstitions.com/news/news34.html#kenya-doubt

Maybe it's because the observations aren't being made by the likes of Bailey and Halperin?

Take the latest HIV "studies" with a grain of salt. You don't cut men, give them condoms, and then say that it was their circumcision that protected them.

And you don't say that circumcision is a "vaccine," when, even if these studies actually held any water, men would still be at 40% risk.

In other words, it don't prevent SHIT.

So please, stop giving any of these bullshit "studies" any credibility.

It doesn't prevent HIV in men, and it is irrelevant in newborns who do not have sex.

ih8vtec13
October 1st, 2009, 22:23
If there is any reduction in STD rates Would be from kids being more informed now then they were before. The internet makes it easy to find info on anything (proof is right here) so kids are making more informed decisions due to that.

Yunus
October 2nd, 2009, 01:14
I'm just curious.

Are there many doctors or trusted specialist experts who opposed circumcision?
Were intactvism websites created by the doctors or trusted specialist experts?

Who are doctors or trusted specialist experts in this foreskin restoration forum?
:confused::confused::confused:

Joseph
October 2nd, 2009, 01:35
There are doctors:

http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

and lawyers:

http://arclaw.org/

I'm not sure that any of them are on this forum, however.

Yunus
October 2nd, 2009, 01:37
There are doctors:

http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

and lawyers:

http://arclaw.org/

I'm not sure that any of them are on this forum, however.

It seems that doctorsopposingcircumcision website isn't updated again.
The last update of it is some months ago.

Arclaw website is still under construction.

Joseph
October 2nd, 2009, 02:04
If there's no update, perhaps there just isn't anything to say...

As for the ArcLaw page, give it some time. It's usually up.

Cheers!

:-)

Unregistered
November 14th, 2009, 17:18
Wow. They are really pushing this rationale.


Survey Results Are Part of Study That Showed Circumcision Reduces a Man's HIV Risk
By Charlene Laino
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
July 21, 2009 (Cape Town, South Africa) -- Women whose male sexual partners were circumcised report an improvement in their sex life, a survey shows.

Researchers studied 455 partners of men in Uganda who were recently circumcised. Nearly 40% said sex was more satisfying afterward. About 57% reported no change in sexual satisfaction, and only 3% said sex was less satisfying after their partner was circumcised.

Also, some women said their partner had less or no difficulty maintaining or getting an erection.

Among the 3% of women who reported reduced sexual satisfaction, the top two reasons were lower levels of desire on the part of either partner.

Top reasons cited by women for their better sex life: improved hygiene, longer time for their partner to achieve orgasm, and their partner wanting more frequent sex, says Godfrey Kigozi, MD, of the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Kalisizo, Uganda.

Kigozi tells WebMD he undertook the survey because some activists have objected to male circumcision as a means of combating HIV because of a lack of data on female sexual satisfactions.

The findings were presented at the Fifth International AIDS Society Conference on Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention of HIV.

The women in the study all participated in the landmark Rakai circumcision trial, one of three studies that showed that the procedure reduces a heterosexual man's risk of acquiring HIV by more than 50%.

"We included only women who said they were sexually satisfied before [their partner was circumcised]," Kigozi says. "Then we asked them to compare their sexual satisfaction before and afterward."

Men feel much the same way, he adds. In a previous survey, 97% of men said their level of sexual satisfaction was either unchanged or better after they were circumcised.

Naomi Block, MD, of the CDC's HIV Prevention Branch, who chaired the session at which the study was presented, says that other surveys have shown that women don't expect their sex lives to change if their partners are circumcised.

But those were "what if?" surveys, she tells WebMD, while the new study involves women whose partners were actually circumcised.

The findings are "good news" as they show that the use of circumcision to fight HIV is acceptable to women, Block says.

Restoreme
November 14th, 2009, 19:52
That study could backfire in practice in Uganda and other African countries. Uganda has been ahead of other African countries dealing with the HIV/AIDS through education, the encouragement of the use of condoms and abstinence. If a man thinks that he's been circ'd in order to reduce HIV transmission, he may go back to previous practices. That's scary.

admin
November 14th, 2009, 22:25
Please just note that EVERY SINGLE MAN circumcised in this study WANTED to be circumcised for cultural reasons, possibly including his wife nagging him. So that fact that any sex lives got worse is a real tragedy.

If they did they same survey of partners who HAD TO BE circumcised for other reasons, the result might be different, but regadless, a partner's preference for mutilated genitals is not sufficient justification for cutting babies of either gender.

cobra
November 15th, 2009, 00:45
Human beings tend to put on a good front regardless of what they actually think. It's kind of like saying "She has a great personality" or "it's not the size of the boat..." Do you think they would actually say anything bad about their mate in this situation? What would you say in a similar situation... if it was your wife who was mutilated for "health reasons"?

New momentum? Hardly. It sounds like just the same ole song and dance to me.

Americut
November 15th, 2009, 20:24
Kigozi tells WebMD he undertook the survey because some activists have objected to male circumcision as a means of combating HIV because of a lack of data on female sexual satisfactions.

Bullshit. There are plenty of reports from women, already. He probably discovered O'Hara's website and saw it as a real threat to the happily mutilated couple. So he created some half-assed, biased study to combat the information that is already out there about how many women are indeed NOT satisfied with circumcised sex. Typical, really.

It must always be kept in mind that newly circumcised men do not yet suffer all the losses that men who have been exposed for a decade or two do. How they dont immediately notice the lack or nerve stimulation, I do not know. But lets remember that sexual pleasure is highly connected to the brain and mind. If a man thinks he has been improved upon through circumcision, it is likely that he is going to gain some new self empowerment and feel invigorated by his new modification. Just wait a few years 'til the sensitivity is lost. When he realizes that it was a mistake. Perhaps when he discovers the loss of functions. Then let us hope he discovers FR. I'd much rather see a new humble member on this board, than imagine there being more f****** circ(fetish)list freaks.

Unregistered
November 15th, 2009, 23:21
Let's also remember that men cut as adults are not perfect cases to tell us how sex is "with or without a foreskin."

men cut as adults had a lifetime to develop and use neural pathways associated with their foreskins. Neural pathways that were completely unused and undeveloped in those who were cut at birth.

So men cut as adults may still get more pleasure from what they have left through this mechanism.

That's why I don't think we're talking "apples to apples" here.

But the larger point is that the HIV-pro-circ crowd is going all out on every front now. I've heard rumors the CDC is going to endorse cutting here in America. I'm no conspiracy theorist so this may be just that - a rumor.