Forums | MacLife

I think it would be a much better idea to just not have unprotected sex with anyone who has AIDs.

"Hey, I'm circumcised, now I can smurf whoever I want!"

Did that article have something more substantial than "the population % of AIDS in countries that practice circumcision is lower"?  Because I could also claim that fair skin keeps you from getting AIDS; after all, the infection rate is much lower in the US and Europe than in Africa.

It makes sense to me that men practicing heterosexual intercourse may gain some protection by being circumcised. The mucosa on the glans is replaced by skin when you are circumcised, and skin serves as a protective barrier against HIV. It's pretty well established that you don't contract HIV by having infected body fluids splashed on your skin, but if it gets into your eyes, mouth, a cut, etc., you're at risk.

I would think this would offer no protection in homosexual intercourse, because the thinking there is that the virus usually invades through the rectal mucosa.  Similarly, a circumcised male would be just as likely to pass HIV to a female partner as an uncircumcised male.

Yeah, I agree with swiss.  This is bad news because it's going to make some people think they might be able to "beat" getting aids.  It's a very serious and scary thing, and I hope people don't take it lightly.

Mitch: Dude, do you know anyone with AIDS?

Him: No

Mitch: Good, because you know me.

That man is hilarious!

"I don't have a girlfriend.  I do know a girl who would be very angry if she heard I said that."

Male genital mutilation is extremely dangerous, given that it's a cosmetic procedure. Infants are damaged by botched circumcisions every year, and some have even been given sex changes.

Circumcision is ritual genital mutilation. It is designed to reduce sexual appetite. Think I'm wrong? Graham Crackers were invented to curb sexual appetite. Pretzels were, too. One tenant of Judeo-Christian belief is the idea that the human body's needs/urges are "base" and that in order to be more spiritually pure, one must reject them. That's why Jews have ritual fasting, circumcision, and things like the Mosaic Code. That's why Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate. While circumcision doesn't reduce sexual appetite, it does reduce sexual pleasure. The foreskin protected the glans - the most sensitive part of the penis, from abrasion - abrasion that causes the skin to toughen and lose sensitivity.

The medical community makes a lot of money from the procedure.

Lesbians have the lowest HIV infection rate. If people want to prevent HIV infection, male babies will have to be given sex changes. I'm sure the percentage figure would be very compelling. 

Well, I'm quite puzzled. If it were true, it really would provide a cheap and easy way to slow down propagation, but as Swiss pointed out, it could also lead to a false sense of security. As to whether or not circumcision really reduces the risk, I have serious doubts, but I'm no doctor or biologist, so I guess I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge. Although it does sound like some old propagandas the Church used to make: "Masturbating will make you go deaf... But it still could be possible i guess

I thought it was blind.  Which would make sence if you look at all the people with glasses these days.  j/k

Graham crackers
Pretzels
It appears he's 1-for-2 there.

No, he's not.  It stated on the Straight Dope that, "A forebear of the hairy-palms-and-blindness school of moral instruction, Graham said excessive carnal exercise would cause indigestion, headache, feebleness of circulation, pulmonary consumption, spinal diseases, epilepsy, insanity, and early death of offspring, among other things. He thought men should remain virgins until age 30 and then should make love only once a month--not at all if they were sickly." and that "...he was a little goofy on the question of sex." Graham clearly needed to get laid.

Graham crackers may have been invented by a cracker-factory escapee to curb sexual appetite, but they are obviously not effective. XYZ clearly implies that those foods are as effective as circumcision (if said procedure does indeed "reduce sexual appetite", a theory I can neither affirm nor deny but sounds ludicrous to me.)

So he is WRONG. Based on the argument presented by Graham, those of us who eat whole wheat bread should also have diminished sexual appetite. I eat whole wheat breads, and I'm hornier than a bull.

These tests could not go on here since they involved paying males to have sex with known hiv positive females.

I'm so glad that I'm not so bad off that I have to resort to this.

Your life has to be the absolute most smurf life in the world to have sex with an HIV+ person on purpose with no protection for money.

I'm guessing that the reason for this is because it is not as likely for fluid to enter a man's penis during sex as it is for fluid to enter a woman's vagina.  And without the foreskin there is nothing for the virus to "attach" to?