Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« The Word from the 43rd | Stop Flaunting Your Love on Re... »

Wednesday, August 9, 2006

Chew On This

Posted by on August 9 at 9:15 AM

A little bad news for the anti-circumcision crowd: Male circumcision lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%.

It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world’s largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

CommentsRSS icon

Why didn't you just tile this post "Troll Bait"?


Actually the study shows that ADULT male circumcision helps prevent AIDS. More specifically, it shows that if you hack off an adult male's foreskin, he is less likely to contract AIDS for the next two years. I'll leave it as an exercise to think up your own hidden correlations.

I agree. And when the Rabbi sucks the blood off the infant's penis, it is a way of cleansing and healing the wound. I'd bet a scientific study would prove that sucking the blood off the infant's penis with your mouth is better than modern medical techniques.

Many people who have no problem with medical circumcision are against the common Orthodox practice of having a Rabbi suck blood off the infant's cock.

How can you say doing circumsision in a hospital with no blood sucking is allowed and not allow the ancient practice of placing the Rabbi's mouth on the infant's genitles? It is anti-semitic to be against the mouth on penis method.

Recently in New Jersey, a Rabbi who had done 12,000 of the mouth on penis ceremonies was nearly prosecuted. This is anti-semitism at it's most blatent. All forms of circumsision must be allowed, anyone against mouth on penis circumcision is anti-semitic.

For any non-Jews who want to know more, Winkipedia explains it better than I ever could.

Maybe one can hope that because Leiberman has lost the primary the troll "Dan Fan" might find some restraint about annoying everyone with his stomach-churning posts?

Oops, too late! And I neglected to consider all of the other f*ckwits.

Dan, thanks for defending the ancient Jewish practice of Metzitzah, the Rabbi sucking the blood off the infant's cock with his mouth. I have no doubt this practice prevents many diseases. It is anti-semitic to be against Metizitah.

I've been hearing about such lowered infection rates for quite a while now. I didn't think it was news anymore.

What's that sound? It's the MGM bill being ripped to pieces across the US Congress.
It was about time these anti-circumcision wackos got a bash like this.

We're just never good enough out-of-the-box. We just gotta pierce something or cut something off. We certainly shouldn't be talking about the risks involved in having unprotected sex -- despite whether one is cut or not.

It is not anti-semitic to be against Metizitah. If you do not agree with it it does not mean you have something against Jewish people. I do not agree with many religious practices but it does not mean I do not like, Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist. I just do not agree. My closest friend is very religious but some of the things he says drive me crazy, we debate things and sometimes just let it go but we are still friends and have been for 30 years. I do not "Hate" him for it and he does not chastise me for disagreeing.
Another thing about circumcision, I am wondering how much the medical community is behind the HIV/circumcision connection based upon the price the foreskin is worth to them. If there is a trend to end circumcision then money is lost by hospitals so there is a need for an iron clad reason to circumcise.
The paranoia created when saying uncircumcised will cause HIV could cause many parents to educate their kids with a false sense of security and make some believe they are less likely to contract HIV because they had the operation. Yes people are that stupid when it comes to sex (just read Dan's column and questions asked to him) and some people will say to a sex partner "it is ok because I am circumcised" just to get laid.
It is a false sense of security that could create a bigger problem than just leaving the skin alone. The UK men and European men mostly are uncircumcised but their HIV and AIDS problem is equal to the US where circumcision is more common. It has been 20 years so the significance should be blatantly obvious but it isn't.
After all there used to be a time when people thought AIDS was a gay disease and caused by many odd and silly things that some decided were only gay related, making it not their problem. I remember that time very well.

thanks Brian. To say that against circumcision=anti-semite is just plain stupid. The fact is, if you practice hygine and safe sex, the foreskin is fine. Stop with this silly myth already.

From The New York Public Health Department Website:

How metzitzah b'peh spreads herpes

In metzitzah b'peh, the mohel places his mouth on the freshly circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut. If the mohel is infected with oral herpes (as most adults are), metzitzah b'peh can expose the infant to the herpes virus. While severe illness associated with this practice may be rare , there is a definite risk of infection.

Oral herpes spreads easily through saliva, especially when saliva touches a cut or break in the skin, such as during metzitzah b'peh.Most people with oral herpes don't know they are infected and don't have symptoms. Even without symptoms, however, people can spread the infection.

So Dan, what about metzitzah b'peh? Should adult males be sucking blood of baby cocks in the name of religion?

No one is agaist the secular hospital procedure. The question is a dangerous religious based procedure that must disgust anyone living in the 21st century.

Dan, these retards can't understand that you believe in metzitzah b'peh. Anyone who is against this Jewish ritual is anti-semitic.

"Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution."

Not agreeing with "metzitzah b'peh" or anyone that agrees with it is not anti-semitic. I certainly do not have a "hatred" or feel and "hostility" towards Jewish people and I am not prejudging anyone. I am considering the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion that I consider to be viable part of this debate and I will not be quilted into submission even when called a "retard", Josh.
Talk about insulting a group of people, or maybe even hating. Who Knows?

Guilted and Quilted, spelled in lower case look similar.
guilted and quilted.

I will not be Quilted into submission either.

Upon reading this, Catholic priests are converting to judaism in droves to become rabbis...

Are Josh and shoshana the same mindless troll, or is some local synagogue churning out clone zionist zombies?

Who fucking cares?

I have to admit I'm a trifle skeptical about this study just based on one thing: who were the study subjects? I believe this study's results are very true - for those living with primitive hygiene and cleanliness standards. I do not believe you would get the same results studying those with access to modern hygienic methods.

In other words, keep the damn thing clean and the infection rate (not to mention the SMELL) is negligible. Let it get caked with smegma, and the results are pretty predictable. And nauseating.

I'm wondering if these statistics for HIV transmission are strictly for men who are inserting their penises into things, and maybe not so much for men who get penises inserted into their things.

It seems to me that getting circumcised wouldn't alter your chances of getting HIV through receptive anal sex, for instance – or am I missing something important?

This seems to be great news for Africa - where the biggest HIV problem is in the heterosexual community, but maybe not so great news for Western gay culture, which is still sustaining the highest - by far - rates of HIV infection.

Did the study talk about what kind of sex acts this circumcision data is linked to?

Didn't mean to say that Western gay men are sustaining higher rates of HIV infection than Africans. Meant that within Western countries, gay men sustain highest rates of infection.

Not an asshole.

I'm with Geni on this one. Take a look at the abstract Their method seems questionable, at best.

Sorry about the lack of link. My computer savant is busy. Can I get a little help with the link from someone more knowledgeable than me?

You gotta love people who consider one side of an argument just because they are circumsion fascists.

This is old. Folks have been saying this, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THEIR OWN BIAS for years.

Yawn, Dan.

Remember when you had something to say? Remember when you were less apt to be specious?


Me, too.

Dan, thanks for going a round against the retards can't understand metzitzah b'peh. Anyone who is against this Jewish ritual is anti-semitic. The Rabbi must use his mouth, and it is healthy.

I would not believe this New York Public Health statement-

Good gravy. My best friend is Orthodox Jewish and HE'S appalled by metzizah b'peh. So, clearly, by Josh's arguments, my kosher friend is an antisemite. Can you please get a grip?

I agree with Brian that any claims about circumcision reducing the liklihood of HIV infection may cause a backlash of further irresponsiblity. The only ways to keep oneself safe from HIV (and other STDs - circumcision doesn't reduce your chances of other infections) is either abstinence (not much fun) or condoms.

Let's not confuse another generation with mixed messages. Sixty percent reduction in risk is NOT the same as 100 percent.

Personally, I think the supposed 'benefits' of circumcision are outweighed by the negatives. I've slept with a lot of guys, both cut and uncut. The uncut guys have a lot more fun - they're more vocal and make the cutest expressions in bed.

Someday, if I have a son, I'm NOT going to have him cut. Quite apart from the horror stories of circumcisions gone bad, I don't want to deprive my son of the intense pleasure of a fully-sensitized penis.

Modern hygiene is all it takes to keep an uncut penis nice.

Adults should not have their mouths on the genitals of children for ANY reason - even if it's not sexual, we carry too many germs that babies can't fight off. That's not antisemitic, it's just common sense.

So, Josh, what's more important to YOU: a ritual that even the vast majority of Jews don't practice, or the health and lives of little infant Jewish boys?

Kate, Dan Savage has stated metzitzah b'peh is something every Jewish parent should want for their sons. A Rabbi must suck off the blood with his mouth. It's a sacred, religious ritual.

Anyone against this ritual is anti-semitic. Even the New York Public Health Department is anti-semitic on their website below.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).