Re: OT: CDC recommends male circumcision as very effective to fight HIV (AIDS)

["David Lodge" <dave () cirt net>]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:32:14 +0100, Alex Eckelberry  
<AlexE () sunbelt-software com> wrote:
> Well, it's not insignificant.  I have two boys, and the position of the
> Doctors was always "it doesn't matter if you circumcise or not".  This
> new statement is pretty significant -- that you can actually protect
> against AIDs.

Other than removing a natural protective sheaf? Or you could educate them  
to always use a blob[1] and know their partner's sexual history? After  
all, a 99.9% effective form of protection is a wee better than a 4-5%  
effective form of protection.

Seems a lot easier than removing a part of the body which isn't causing a  
problem - after all you don't get toes cut off at birth, because they  
could develop in-grown toenails. Especially as the foreskin may have a  
purpose (apparently, after a quick bit of research[2] - the foreskin may  
enhance the sexual experience and may facilitate the growth of  
anti-bacterial compounds).

I'm still amazed that circumcision is even an option in the 21st century.

dave

[1] Attractive north-east English term for a condom.
[2] *Don't* do this at work - it always amazes me how many people want to  
upload pictures of their todgers' to wikipedia. Something I could've done  
without seeing, really.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.