On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:32:14 +0100, Alex Eckelberry <[email protected]> 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.
