When Bush 43 was still — eww — in office, news broke that circumcised men had a lower chance of contracting HIV infection than their uncut counterparts when having unprotected sex. The “news” was treated as a major breakthrough and, as I recall, a lot of counseling was done of uncircumcised men, suggesting they have their foreskins removed instead of using condoms.
That’s right, folks. It was deemed more worthy to advise men to permanently surgically alter themselves than roll on a bit of nitrile. And not just men, either. Peep it, homeys:
Writing in the Lancet, the team led by Dr Maria Wawer said … “Circumcising infants and young boys before their sexual debut would mitigate the challenge of male circumcision in HIV-infected men.
“However, this strategy would require careful consideration of issues relating to parental consent and the minor’s consent.”
This leads one immediately to the question, what the hell is wrong with people? Just because some religious nutjobs began ritual genital mutilation millennia ago, we are still trying to justify it to ourselves today — and the justifications, as it turns out, are (surprise!) nonsense.
Circumcising men who already have HIV does not protect their female partners from the virus, a study in Uganda has found.
Gee, that’s just completely shocking. One would almost assume that penis mangling was somehow totally ineffective as a magical shield.
The fact is, and has always been so, that the most effective way of halting HIV infection — barring the unreasonable “option” of abstinence — is with a physically impermeable barrier. Specifically, a condom. What kind of obtuse society lets it be more sensible to cut than wrap?
But hey, if that’s how you’re going to roll, why stop with the foreskin? If a man is known to be HIV positive, why not just lop his entire penis off? That would damn sure slow down his ability to infect others. It’s only a matter of degrees, folks.
Experts say HIV-positive men should still be offered circumcision, but also warned to use condoms.
Some experts are not worthy of the term. “Hey, man, let me at you with these here snippers…” is absolutely not an alternative to practicing safe sex. Advising men to lacerate themselves rather than, oh I don’t know, being intelligent and responsible for their own actions, was a stupid tactic doomed to fail at the outset. I can’t believe the amount of professional irresponsibility that went into the decision to suggest surgery before safety.
[T]he research, from the Lancet, showed no benefit in those who already had the virus and was stopped early because of the continued risk to women.
Well. At least the rectal-cranial inversion wasn’t total, but it’s a near thing.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.