post #1 of 48
3/28/07 at 10:33am
|The (flawed) studies in Africa presumed that the reason circumcision seemed to reduce HIV risk was...
A.) Langerhans Cells are highly susceptible to HIV invasion and are the primary entry point for infection.
B.) Calloused, keratinized genitals are less thin, sensitive, delicate, mucousal and that thick skin is a barrier against HIV.
The UN sadly missed the latest research regarding Langerhans Cells---which the foreskin and labia are full of---destroying HIV like pacman.
And where in the world is the money to come from to provide cheap/free sanitary circumcisions when there isn't even enough funding to provide everyone with enough condoms?
ETA- meaning in Africa.
From the article where it says: "Still, men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method need to continue using other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, abstinence, delaying the start of sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners, she said."
So basically, the article is admitting that all of the EXACT same precautions need to be taken to avoid contracting HIV. So what is the point of circing then?! :
So, it's not like being circ'd gives men any sort of advantage. Not only can they *still* not indulge in high risk behaviors, they will be missing part of their penis too. How many people will take this information and blow it out of proportion? I think this article is dangerous because it may imply that if you are circ'd, you can toss your pack of Trojans into the trash. Ugh.
At least you can point out the the UN agrees circ would have little effect in the US.