To chop or not to chop?

**drone** · 03-29-2007, 22:42

I figured I'd resurrect this beauty instead of starting a new one. Why deprive newer Backroom members of the sheer genius in this thread?

The Third World is about to get a little shorter...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm

Originally Posted by BBC

Kevin De Cock, director of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization said: "The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention."

It's nice to see De Cock is still running the show...

**Lemur** · 03-29-2007, 23:38

Yup, in Africa they've shown that circumcision lowers HIV infection rates. Then again, anything is helpful in areas where dry sex is popular.

P.S.: Nice thread spelunking, drone.

**drone** · 03-29-2007, 23:45

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yup, in Africa they've shown that circumcision lowers HIV infection rates. Then again, anything is helpful in areas where dry sex is popular.

The phrase "Who put sand in my Astro-glide?" comes to mind.

**Blodrast** · 03-29-2007, 23:49

Speechless. That is so ... counter-intuitive, to put it as mildly as I can. Boggles the mind.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-30-2007, 21:03

I fail to see how this could really help, unless of course they're all really dirty and never wash, in which case.....

**drone** · 03-30-2007, 22:14

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I fail to see how this could really help, unless of course they're all really dirty and never wash, in which case.....

Are you referring to circumcisions to prevent AIDS, or circumcisions to help with the dry-sex?

I don't know the science behind the preventing AIDS part. My guess would be that infected bodily fluid from the female gets under the foreskin, which would protect the virus from air and light for a longer time, enhancing the chance of infection.

**Lemur** · 03-30-2007, 22:32

Originally Posted by drone

My guess would be that infected bodily fluid from the female gets under the foreskin, which would protect the virus from air and light for a longer time, enhancing the chance of infection.

I had to read up on this subject when I was deciding what to do with my baby lemur's johnson. Here's the deal, as I understand it: The foreskin protects the head of the penis, which means it remains both more tender and more sensitive. A cut johnson has no such protection, so it toughens up at the tip. Thus an uncut johnson is more prone to suffer micro-cuts during vigorous sex. I can only imagine the damage done by dry sex to an uncircumcised johnson.

I didn't bring up the freaky-deaky practice of dry sex just for the shock value; all of the studies that showed circumcision lowers HIV transmission were conducted in areas where the dry sex is common. I would be very interested to see if the same results hold true in places where men don't jump for joy at subjecting their tenderest appendage to a sandpaper treatment.