I'm afraid its the headline "New Study Slams Male Circumcision...etc....etc"
New Study Slams Male Circumcision As HIV Preventation[/url]
This is bad news for Neo-Christians. Cause, in their world view it made perfect sense:
Circumcision was good against sinful thoughts, masturbation AND homo-disease AIDS
Also, they expected them sinful polygamy muslims to have more AIDS than monogame groups. Also not so.
The only pet peeve they're left with is .... Fight the Ho's!!
But ... there's a problem with that, cause the best way to fight them whores is not throw all in jail, but GASP! LEGALIZE THEM
ROTFL!!! Pounding on the floor, even!!!
That dos'nt make any sense to me.
Firstly and most importantly- It is known that circumcision in a man does help in preventing him from aquiring a sexually transmitted disease.
This factual knowledge which took many years to confirm, was due to one or two doctors who worked in those 'unmentionable sexual treatment clinics' that were sometimes attached to large city hospitals, noticed that circumcised men attending these clinics were far fewer in number, relative to uncircumcised men. It was originally dismissed as being due to an 'educational thing' where prehaps a '1st class citizen' would more likely go to a private doctor for treatment etc.
And so, thats where the matter rested, for a number of years. Of course the skew in sexual statistics was obviously due to those going private!!
There could'nt possibly be any other reason, and that was the end of the matter.
That is until about the 1950's there was a huge jump in Gonorrhoea and Syphilis, with a similar rise in those attending the sexual clinics of Europe and America.
Proper medical notes in these times were taken. Although names were withheld, Goverments demanded times, place, and their contacts, which were all followed up wherever possible and correlated.
Eventually the statistical figures that came out were unmistakable.
Circumcised men were less prone to catching a sexual disease,....but why?
I am not going to make big spiel of this, since I have been away and v busy for the last few weeks, but I do want to comment quickly upon this subject.
To cut a complicated story short, the percieved difference was found to be strictly mechanical.
Or in three words 'The Entrapment of Smegma'
As well as anything else, fluff from clothes and dust, a veritable breeding ground should germs lodge there.
Which of course they do, whenever a flaciid man pulls back...
during the sexual act his foreskin closes over and entraps germs in a very sensitive damp area.
This does not happen in circumcised men, for not only dos'nt he produce smegma, but he is not even sensitive in that area, having walked around for say 20 years, protectionless, without a foreskin, its no wonder. In fact the skin color under where his foreskin was, is not red and delicate, but it is exactly the same color as the rest of his body, with the skin being a good deal thicker.
Less sensitivity, makes for longer foreplay, as well as taking more time with the sexual act, Which makes him choose his woman with more care. The longer time taken, means the more lubricant trickles down his uretha channel, helping to block any incoming germs, before ejeculation.
It has been found that a circumcised man can walk away after the sexual act, totally free of germs. Whereas a non-circumcised mans foreskin closes around his penis and can deposit those germs exactly where they are not wanted, long after the sexual act has finished.
I'm not going to mention AID's because it can be aquired by a number of different routes. Aquisition down the birth canal, during birth, is one route.
The 50 years of inter tribal and country wars and attendant rapes and rampant prostituton has increased AIDs out of all preportions in Africa. That was not mentioned in the article
AIDS is endemic in Africa, even though some tribes are indeed circumcised, (using a primitive knife, I might add, at about the age of 12yrs, which takes some time to heal at that age.) But war and prolonged pillage would mask any statistics regarding circumcised africans. Which is why I decided to write this in the first place.
The 'Falashas of Ethiopia' supposedly the offspring of the Queen of Sheba and King David, having practised Judaism in Ethiopia for 3000 years in isolation, including circumcision etc, were flown out in their thousands by Israel some years ago and resettled there.
Although they are not Negroid I happen to know that non of them brought in any sexual disease.
Jews have their babys circumcised at 8 days old,! It takes 3 seconds with a special circular blade, and there is never any need for any dressing, as there is virtually no blood.
Sorry I have got to run, but I should be back at this computer by next Tuesday.