Letters to the Editor
-
Fascinating article, thank you.
This is very interesting and leads me to want to find Epstein's books.
I am concerned that with recommendations of "zero grazing" and "circumcision not condoms" that Epstein may just be some sort of closet conservative anti-feminist.
Those are not the messages that I like to hear. I think that our culture should be one where women of all ages can sleep with whomever and whenever they want. A provincial attitude of zero-grazing reminds me too much of "just say no!"
And of course, male genital mutilation is an abomination that must be stopped.
So while I do want to find out more about Epstein, I don't think she is the scientist/journalist that is meant for Salon's pages.
-
To: Anonymous
Yes, and that seems to be exactly the attitude that Epstein has found to be the problem. We want the world to be just like
America, therefore the solution must be the American solution! (Or the Western solution, if you like.)
Africa is not North America. The cultures there are different from ours, the people are acculturated differently, and the things that makes sense to us in our context may not make sense to other people in their own contexts. The answer of "every woman should be able to have sex whenever, wherever" may work well for us (maybe), but that's no guarantee that it'll even make a dent elsewhere.
The whole point of the book is that we can't just walk in and say, "This is how things should be!" We should be listening to what Africans think will work (like zero grazing - like it or not, it worked), and not placing our worldview above the importance of getting the job done.
-
My point though is that she is almost certainly an anti-feminist, so ...
So it is natural for her to find the data to support her conclusions.
If she is going to be biased against feminism and attempt to destroy it, is there any reason for us progressive liberals to listen to her?
-
It's an article about AIDS/HIV not an anti-feminist screed.....
"If she is going to be biased against feminism and attempt to destroy it, is there any reason for us progressive liberals to listen to her?"
Well only if you want to learn what one researcher has found that has worked against AIDs/HIV in Africa.....
I suppose if you judge speaking truth to be anti-feminist then you will just have to deal with it. Personally I can't see the bias at all.
-
if epstein is correct and both AIDS and eating chimps were endemic to africa
it's no surprise that circumcision originated there. i remember practically *begging* a friend of mine (from S.F.) to have her son circumcised. she was jewish and i said, "maybe it means nothing to you, but it might mean something to your son. don't cut him off from his people". but to no avail. it was interesting her reason. her husband had a cousin who wasn't circumcised and when he was four a tight foreskin made it necessary - and it *hurt*! and THAT was the reason she didn't have it done. why not have it done when it *doesn't* hurt? (my sons were circumcised by a moil, a practiced orthodox rabbi who had done thousands. it din't hurt a bit. one son didn't even give a peep, the other one, one little squall. why? it's cut not squeezed off, using the old shields not the new compressive machine). here you have someone who is in the *heart* of an AIDS nexus (it's practically endemic in S.F.) and not only does the anonymouth say that circumcision is an abomination but being monogamous is a violation of her slut rights.
-
a joke?
is that 'anti-feminist' post from anonymous a joke? How does she even read feminist issues into this? Or by the same token, shouldn't men also have the right to sleep with everyone at all times, as she feels women do?
To Anonymous: it might be your 'right' to have promiscious sex, but it also means you're at increased risk of disease. That isn't politics, it's biological fact.
-
The invisible AIDS cure
I think anonymous did not read the same article I did. She's attempting to apply her mores to another continent where they simply do not apply. As Epstein notes, when left to their own devices, Africans seem to be able to figure out a way to lessen the infection rate by circumcision and changing some sexual practices.
Anonymous seems to be afflicted with "fat AIDS", as are many people and organizations that Epstein addressed.
-
What is it with Americans and circumcision?
I'm tired of people trying to justify cutting parts off children's genitals.
Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms work against AIDS. Circumcision does not. Has no-one read the studies showing that circumcised virgins are twice as likely to be HIV+, that circumcised HIV+ men are twice as likely to pass on HIV to their wives, or that female circumcision appears to protect against HIV? We're trying to stamp that out, so how will encouraging male circumcision help that?
What about the 1993 study that found that "partner circumcision" was "strongly associated with HIV-1 infection [in women] even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates."
Why does the USA have a higher rate of HIV than any European country, whilst also having a higher circumcision rate?
And how can people like David Sugarman think it doesn't hurt at whatever age? Making no noise is generally a sign of going into shock. The baby that died in London following a bris in February this year may have made no noise, but he had a heart attack 15 minutes later.
Having it done straight after birth is the worst possible time. Here's why:
a) you have to separate the foreskin from the glans (think of removing your thumbnails only more painful). This also results in adhesions, skin tags and skin bridges. If you wait a few years, then the foreskin separates naturally.
b) it's smaller so more chance of a seriously botched job (google "David Reimer" and read about his/her story if you don't know what I'm talking about)
c) you can't use general anaesthetic on a newborn, so it hurts more. Watch a video of an operation if you don't know how much it hurts. Just because babies don't remember, it doesn't mean it hasn't affected them. They have more problems breastfeeding, and also show more reaction to injections years later.
d) newborns don't have much of an immune system, so they can die of things that are harmless to adults or older children. A baby died after circumcision in New York recently of the coldsore virus for instance, and another got brain damage.
e) a newborn can't tell you if he actually wants to have the most sensitive part of his penis removed or not. It's HIS body after all.
Needing a circumcision because of a tight foreskin at the age of four is simply unheard of in Europe btw. It's generally still attached at that age anyway. It just sounds like some doctor didn't understand what intact male genitals are like at that age, or just wanted to make a quick buck.