Crono141 said:
|
Wow very great point NOT...
Are you or is anyone here one of the people with aids in africa? No. As long as you are no poor waterless african person with hygiene problem and lack of knowledge how to properly wash yourself circumcision has no positive effect for you .
Its nonsense that a person without foreskin has less of a chance to spread it thats just bullshit. Aids can be spread with sperm. No matter if there is foreskin or not. The only way I can imagine how this could be true is if a lion bite off your balls and you cant produce sperm anymore. Who knows how their average day looks like (jk)
And about the being infected thing...
Your link says "the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed, reducing the risk of infection." When was the last time anybody you knew had a bleeding penis?
Thats not a first world problem at all because we know how to "maintain" a clean penis. And just because the odds to get aids might go from 1.5:1 go to 2:1 doesnt make it a useful method at all. Its especially useless for the first world countries because educated people here use a condom when they have sex with strangers etc.
Btw the "study" has a fatal error which is: A circumcised penis is less sensitive thats correct BUT it is more exposed to external stuff. It is dramatically more exposed to external bacteria, insects, dirt, heat etc. This damages the penis and creates small injuries that can nullify the theoretical advantage of a circumcised penis. The only real positive effect circumcision has is:
Its easier to wash the damn thing. Even a 1 handed person can do it.
This is the origin of "smaller chance of being infected". Because africans with lack of water have hygiene problems. This is the only reason why they suggest circumcision in Africa. Alot of them also simply dont know that you should pull back the foreskin to wash it.
And BTW. Its abvious that noone here was talking about the poorest people in a third world country that lack knowledge and water. But for our society in the developed world... my before mentioned arguments still are valid.
Seriously your reply is hilarious.
P.S. foreskin makes sex smoother and more gentle for females. No foreskin increases the chance of a sore vagina which also increases the chance for females to be infected with aids. Especially when the females suffer water defiency which is highly likely in poorer countries with lack of water. So even IF no foreskin would help males become less infected it would make females become easier infected.
Not worth it.
Did the study show any change in infection rates for females? I dont think so.
