Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
To combine adult circumcision with condom usuage. When getting out their message they could just say the most effective ways to prevent infection and stop the spread of HIV is adult male circumcision in conjunction with condom usage, along with telling women to insist on condoms for their own protection.
Plus I am amazed at the study, really, circumcision reduces transmission? Perhaps it's because if a man isn't circumcized the woman's excretions can remain between the foreskin and the urethra giving time for it to enter his body, while without the foreskin once he ejaculates and washes off there isn't any residual woman juice hanging around?
I think if an adult male chooses to circumsize himself there is nothing wrong with that, only the practice of forcing it on babies is really wrong, but I also have a problem with piercing baby girls ears. But then if this study is true, that the chance of becoming infected can be reduced by half just because of removing the foreskin, might it be ethical to do it at birth to hopefully save his life and maybe the lives of his future sex partners on a continent that can't improve itself partly because so many are so sick and so many children are orphaned?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
