Zulu king's circumcision decree

[mandoman]

Which is more effective? Wearing a condom regularly, or having a circumcision?
Do you like to hear the sound of your own voice?

 

[JTalbain]

Considering the number of heterosexual parents with infected children (because mother was infected) in Africa, I think any allegation that homosexualitry may be a factor in Africa is ludicrous. In Africa, HIV isn't just men, it is both men and women.

WHO and others are promoting circumcision only in Africa because of the dire state of health and epidemic proportion of HIV. They are not promoting or funding its spread outside of Africa.

If American doctors wish to use this to promote circumcision in USA, so be it, but it is a separate issue from the case in Africa. Circumcision has little impact in non promiscous societies where HIV has not spread to heterosexual population. And there have been studies showing this as well, in particular on in Australia where they compared HIV in gay cut and gay uncut men and did not find it made a difference (mostly because circumcision of penis does nothing to prevent anus from allowing HIV to enter body.)

Another aspect is that western gay society has heeded calls to wear condoms to a much greater extent than Africa, so condoms have been an effective means to curb growth of infected population.

Which is more effective? Wearing a condom regularly, or having a circumcision?
Do you like to hear the sound of your own voice?

I think I'm just about ready to call SirConcis racist on the matter. Why not recommend hygiene and condom use, the two methods that have been shown to be far and away better than the most optimistic of circumcision numbers? Are you afraid the black people in savage Africa are too stupid to figure it out?

 

[SirConcis]

Condoms are more efficient WHEN WORN.

Condoms are not condoned by certain religion or various aid groups funded by certain countries.
Condoms are not condoned by some african head of states.

Hygiene does not prevent HIV infection. When a male penetrates the vagina of an infected woman, HIV will surround the penis and look for a way in. No amout of cleaning will prevent that.

Circumcision may be less effective than condoms, but if it can reach males who would otherwise never wear a condom, then it does help in the big picture.

Circumcision is not advocated as THE solution. It is one of many solutions. And any solution which helps reduce the spread will make a significant difference to help the epedimec from becoming pandemic.

And since this is targetting young adults just as they become promiscuoius, it also provides the perfect opportunity to provide them with good education on HIV and destroy some of the anti-condom arguments made by certain churches.

I really do not understand why you would be so much against adults choosing to get circumcised in Africa. All of the current circumcision programmes target young adults who are not HIV+. (no point in circumcising someone who already has it).

 

[gymfresh]

I really do not understand why you would be so much against adults choosing to get circumcised in Africa. All of the current circumcision programmes target young adults who are not HIV+. (no point in circumcising someone who already has it).

Absolutely, unequivocally false. All of the people who ran the studies and who run the WHO/UNAIDS programs advocating circumcision also include plans for circumcising all the HIV+ men. I know this; I was at the microphone in Cape Town 3 years ago arguing with the people on stage who had just gotten through giving a slide presentation on how they were going to first circumcise as many HIV- men as they could, then do all the HIV+. To their way of thinking, if they were anywhere as successful with the circumcision campaign as planned, and started with HIV- men, then eventually having a foreskin would be a stigma that meant you were either HIV+ or too cowardly to protect yourself. No one would have sex with them. So, better to cut everyone. There are no circumcision programs in Eastern and Southern Africa that do not contemplate circumcising the HIV+ men along with the HIV- men. And that could be disastrous, given that the only RCT to look at male-to-female transmission of HIV found that circumcised males were 50% more likely than intact men to pass the virus to uninfected females.

 

[SirConcis]

I have never seen any sugggestion that HIV+ men should be circumcised. In fact, in all the documents I have read, it was stipulated that since circumcision is a preventative measure, there was no point in circumcising those who already have HIV+

Once someone is infected, circumcision has no advantage. It does not prevent the infected person from spreading it via his sperm, and there is no point trying to prevent the person from getting infected since the person is aleady infected.


Secondly, circumcision projects target only those who are at high risk, namely young adults at the height of their promiscuous sex life. It does not target older people who are more likely married and monogamous (and thus at much lesser risk).

Mandoman, you often try to discredit others. But for you to claim that you have seen evidence that they want to circumise infected men is really ludicrous.

And circumcision has absolutely no effect on whether the infected male will transmit the virus or not. Sperm ad other bodily fluids are not impacted by cicumcision and still get sent to the female to infect her.

Circumcision programmes in Africa have limited resources. Circumcising an HIV+ person yields no advantage and will deprive somone who is HIV- from getting circumcised and getting the protection to reduce the odds of getting it.

ALL of te programmes check HIV status prior to circumcision and only HIV- males are accepted as part of the circumcision programmes.

 

[gymfresh]

And that could be disastrous, given that the only RCT to look at male-to-female transmission of HIV found that circumcised males were 50% more likely than intact men to pass the virus to uninfected females.

And circumcision has absolutely no effect on whether the infected male will transmit the virus or not.

Wow, you really do live in some sort of fantasy bubble. The directors of the Orange Farm study in South Africa stipulated that they intended to circumcise as many HIV positive men as they could in the communities where circumcision programs would operate. This was to cause them to "blend in". This model has been endorsed by all the circumcision programs in Eastern and Southern Africa. I don't know of a single one that does not also target HIV positive men.

I've sat through their presentations at the AIDS conferences in South Africa, Austria and Italy. I've heard the plans first-hand and discussed them afterward with the presenters. Have you?

The fact that they're so eager to share the goodness of circumcision with men who already have HIV suggests that it's not really just about AIDS prevention.

 

[mandoman]

I have never seen any sugggestion that HIV+ men should be circumcised. In fact, in all the documents I have read, it was stipulated that since circumcision is a preventative measure, there was no point in circumcising those who already have HIV+

Once someone is infected, circumcision has no advantage. It does not prevent the infected person from spreading it via his sperm, and there is no point trying to prevent the person from getting infected since the person is aleady infected.


Secondly, circumcision projects target only those who are at high risk, namely young adults at the height of their promiscuous sex life. It does not target older people who are more likely married and monogamous (and thus at much lesser risk).

Mandoman, you often try to discredit others. But for you to claim that you have seen evidence that they want to circumise infected men is really ludicrous.

And circumcision has absolutely no effect on whether the infected male will transmit the virus or not. Sperm ad other bodily fluids are not impacted by cicumcision and still get sent to the female to infect her.

Circumcision programmes in Africa have limited resources. Circumcising an HIV+ person yields no advantage and will deprive somone who is HIV- from getting circumcised and getting the protection to reduce the odds of getting it.

ALL of te programmes check HIV status prior to circumcision and only HIV- males are accepted as part of the circumcision programmes.

Just in case you thought you might have a tenous grip on reality,
it was not me who said that claimed to have seen evidence that doctors want to circumcise HIV positive men. You have a reading comprehension problem...and you are calling claims I never made ludicrous, because of your misunderstanding.

 

[B_henry miller]

people are so stupid. do people really think getting "cut" will reduce HIV and AIDS? Then why have millions died from it in the US? It was worst (in the 1980s) with a generation that was almost 90% cut.

 

[B_henry miller]

Oh, and the article itself doesn't say that at all. It says that circumcisions should happen in the hospital, not done by the tribe. I agree.

 

[deleted15807]

people are so stupid. do people really think getting "cut" will reduce HIV and AIDS? Then why have millions died from it in the US? It was worst (in the 1980s) with a generation that was almost 90% cut.

That's like saying do you really think washing your hands will eliminate colds?

 

[SirConcis]

mandoman, why would they want HIV+ men to "blend in" ? If at all, they should be marked as "damaged goods" to ensure females refuse to have sex with them to prevent further spread.

Circumcising an HIV+ male yields no advantage in term of reducing the spread. There is no economic or epidemic management advantage to giving preventative treatment to someone who has already gotten the disease.

If some funky doctor advocates they still be cut so they "blend in", then this is not part of an epidemic management programme, it would be part of some social programme as it has nothing to do with preventing spread of the disease.

It is also possible that the statement you heard was made in the context of a tribe who has traditionally circumcised its boys and where circumcision is more of a societal ritual required for the boys to fit in. The "do not circumcise HIV+" in those cases was done much more to prevent complications from the operations (same with diabetics, hemophiliacs). That doctor may have simplt stated that proper medical circs should be offered to those tribe members who are not able to get ritual circumcisions due to health concerns.

This is quite different from programmes destined to circumcise men from tribes that do not circumcise. In such cases, there is absolutely no benefit to circumcise a male who has already caught HIV.

 

[mandoman]

Hello, SirConcis.
Once again, I never said that.
Once again, you have a reading comprehension problem.
Please stop attributing things I never said to me, and then refuting them at me, as if I said them.

 

[185248]

Hey, I'm not gonna argue with a Zulu king on open ground hand to hand

 

[lone_jackman]

If you have want to reduce HIV they should be bombing the area with condoms, instead of whipping out the knife. Not being cut isn't the problem, its being educated on hygiene and using protection. Until that gets addressed nothing will change. IMHO.

 

[mandoman]

Exactly!

 

[ManchesterTom]

If you have want to reduce HIV they should be bombing the area with condoms, instead of whipping out the knife. Not being cut isn't the problem, its being educated on hygiene and using protection. Until that gets addressed nothing will change. IMHO.

Presactly, I agree.

What do we do about our South African president having 5 wives (and counting)?

Does President Zuma's message not go out to the general public, "IN ORDER TO BE A POWERFUL MAN, ONE HAS TO GO AND SHAG AND MAYBE MARRY AS MANY WOMEN AS POSSIBLE."

The one worker who worked for my company had 32 children that he knew about, and was proud of this fact. He also had a string of women lining up at the factory gate demanding child care.

 

[ManchesterTom]

South African president's cock. ANC government in an uproar.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zcp8s921ab99hdp/Zuma.jpg