Cut or Uncut
- Thread starter moomoo12
- Start date
Why should lenny restrict the info "Lenny is interested in sharing" to your narrow choir boy "40 Year Old Virgin" group in Canada? Why ignore the other 99.9+% of the world, e.g. where teens in Bangkok are having BBFS with SP's 50 times a year, or famous PERB names have often banged Vancouver lowtrack (20-25% HIV positive) SPs? However, as it relates to Canada, the following info re our neighbour may be of interest:Lenny knows that for almost all men. Guys that wear condoms with SPs or women they just met, and sometimes bb with women they are dating or in a relationship with.Average Joes. That their lifetime risk for hiv is extremely low. With the difference in risk of a cut vs uncut man, being a small fraction of a percent, over a lifetime. But of course this is not the information Lenny is interested in sharing. This is simply twisting stats at its finest.
"A 2010 study estimated that newborn circumcision reduces a U.S. male’s lifetime risk of HIV acquisition through heterosexual contact by 15.7% overall, by 20.9% for black males, 12.3% for Hispanic males, and 7.9% for white males. In this model, the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one case of HIV was 298 for all males and ranged from 65 for black males to 1,231 for white males. Based on these estimates, the study concluded that newborn male circumcision was a cost-saving HIV prevention intervention.64"
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/
"Newborn circumcision was a cost-saving HIV prevention intervention for all, black and Hispanic males. The net cost of newborn circumcision per QALY saved was $87,792 for white males.
"...Newborn circumcision resulted in lower expected HIV-related treatment costs and a slight increase in QALYs. It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%. The effect varied substantially by race and ethnicity."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807456/
In what way is he insecure? I fail to see that. He is stating his opinion. He isn't forcing you, nor I, to do things HIS way. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. I don't necessarily agree with it either, but he's an adult free of his own will.Simply because of your arrogance.
I don't always agree with you nor your math, but I actually read most of what you post.
The problem I have, and I assume others may as well, is that your are a condescending arrogant little prick (when disagreeing with people).
This is of course my "Opinion".
Perhaps relaying your information in a more neutral tone would prevent people from thinking that you are either talking down to them or trying to convert them to “your side” of the BBFS argument. At times you seem to be on a crusade to encourage BBFS. Perhaps this is where the idea that you are a bug chaser came from? I wouldn’t really know as I don’t think of you as a bug chaser. I think of you as being insecure enough to seek validation for a risky lifestyle.
That is why I had originally asked you the question weeks ago that you did not answer.
Do you know the difference between Reason and Rationalization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)
It would seem to me that your Reasoning or Logic is mostly just Rationalizing what you want.
Condoms companies do the same damn thing. So does any statistician. Condom manufacturers are only going to promote the lives they claim to save and the things they prevent. They aren't going to advertise their failure rates of breaks/slips, the pregnancies that have occured as a direct result, or the allergic reactions their users have faced. Both sides have agendas, don't you see? To a degree, they're worse. There's market-share and stockholders at stake.
What we all say is irrelevant. You're going to do whatever you're going to do, as will I, as will Lenny. What I take from Lenny's information is that if you chose riskier activities, these are the associated risks given certain criteria, and what you do with it is entirely up to you. The difference here is I don't think Lenny gives a shit if you wrap your willy or not, but you care if he doesn't, and chastize him for it, as if you have a choice in HIS private matters.
So again, I'm not agreeing with him. I'm not agreeing with you. We're all adults that hopefully are able to think and act for themselves and know the risks we have control over, and the ones we don't, with or without condoms. You aren't going to change his mind, and he's not going to change yours. It's pretty pointless.
What you need to consider is how Lenny uses dishonest methods to try to push his agenda.
When Lenny promotes bbfs. He will use calculation based on a single sexual episode.
He has done so in several threads.
Where risk of hiv is extremely low.
We have done the calculations many times on this site.
Its based on 2 simple things transmission rates for a particular activity and the chances the person you are with is infected or not.
If we base it on the average Canadian. This works out to anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1 up to 5,000,000 to 1 if you have a single episode
of bbfs with a random Canadian female.
Of course with a condom this reduces risk by about 30 fold.
All Canadian females includes many who are not sexually active or available. So if we want to know the real risk in having sex in Canada, it's not too bright to be looking at stats that include every Canadian female. That is like including all Canadian female farm animals too. The risk level for a guy having sex in Canada with a random Canadian female is going to be significantly lower than his actual risk level with a sexually active Canadian female. So who is using "dishonest methods" here?
Male PERB members are not having sex with a low risk "random Canadian female" like those in monogamous relationships, virgin school girls, 80 year old great grandmas, etc. Many have done it with high risk streetwalkers, SP's in Asia, BBFS at Vancouver AMPs & with bar & nightclub pickups, etc. So this suggests your 1 million to 1 odds are not realistic & way off for them. Therefore you might want to recalculate that & post something realistic.
Moreover where does this "30 fold" figure come from? You provided no source. Typically condom use only reduces HIV risk relative to BBFS by about 85%. Further, i've previously posted 2 studies with quotes & online links to the references, one indicating the reduced risk with a condom is 4-5 fold & the other 20 fold. So if your figures above are based on 30 fold, this is a second reason why they may be overestimated & should be recalculated.
As implied above I question the usefulness & accuracy of your figures in the millions. Though even if accurate who wouldn't want to lessen their odds on getting HIV? It's a no brainer. And if circumcision is otherwise a wash as regards its pros & cons, any HIV protection it provides tips the decision on whether or not to get the procedure done in its favour.But Lenny wants to show circumcision in the next best thing to condoms.
Even if he uses dubious data that it is 60% less risky than uncircumsized.
So even saying something like cut guys have a 1 in 5,000,000 chance to get hiv and uncut guys 1 in 2,000,000.
Is not going to carry much weight.
Re what is the "next best thing to condoms", I'd say a recent negative HIV test result would give a guy even better increased protection against HIV than the 60% with circumcision or the 85% with condoms. Then there's the anti HIV pill that has been reported to have a potential effectiveness vs HIV at over 90% in men. Looking at it that way, there may be a couple things more effective than both condoms and circumcision.
I've never said i "no longer want to use the single sexual encounter risk". But here we're looking at a procedure (male circumcision) that is going to have an effect for years, decades, a lifetime, not a solitary sex session. So, obviously, considering the lifetime effect is something we might want to know. I would think that would be far more relevant to the topic than the "single sexual encounter risk".Therefore he dishonestly changes the way he will show data.
So he no longer wants to use the single sexual encounter risk, because it makes his position look moot.
So what does he do.....he plays what if.
You are referring to the original example i posted which i'd note was based on condoms reducing HIV risk at a rate of 95%, which is close to perfect condom use at 98%, whereas typical condom use is more like 85%. You have been omitting that fact in your calculations.What if a man has bb sex with 9000 prostitutes, and those prostitutes have 5 times the hiv rate of the overall female population,
oh and all 9000 times you have sex with prostitutes...all bbfs.
Now Lenny is cooking with oil.....and even with his dubious data, finds a 7% reduction in hiv risk. He no longer wants to use the
infection rate of the average Canadian women, like he does in his single encounter calculation...why.....because then you need to
have bb sex with 40,000 women to get this 7% reduction in hiv risk.
You say "prostitutes having 5 times the hiv rate of the overall female population" is "dubious data". Are you serious? Seriously? I'd suggest you look at prostitute HIV rates in various areas of countries around the world. You could start with Vancouver street walkers.
The first example i gave was 9000 sessions which is sex 3 times a week for life. Not so extreme. But feel free to use any example you like, like nuns in the NWT.He then points out wilt chamberlain slept with 20,000 so 40,000 is realistic. Or if you go to china have bbfs with 2 prostitutes a day, 9000 is a simple feat.
Because his calculations will only work for EXTREME sample sizes.
See above. Any reduction in HIV risk is better than nothing.Lenny knows that for almost all men. Guys that wear condoms with SPs or women they just met, and sometimes bb with women they are dating or in a relationship with.
Average Joes. That their lifetime risk for hiv is extremely low. With the difference in risk of a cut vs uncut man, being a small fraction of a percent, over a
lifetime. But of course this is not the information Lenny is interested in sharing. This is simply twisting stats at its finest.
I wonder how many Canadian male PERB members are "Average Joes". Or how about hobbyists in the other 99.9% of the world where SP HIV rates are often much higher & BBFS way more common than in Canada? Circumcision might help, ya think?
"Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level. Although links among circumcision, culture, religion, and risk behavior may account for some of the differences in HIV infection prevalence, the countries in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male circumcision of less than 20% have HIV infection prevalences several times higher than those in countries in these regions where more than 80% of men are circumcised.15"
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/
"In a 2006 report, UNAIDS figures showed that HIV prevalence in adults in 29 developing countries (not including Sub-Saharan Africa) with primarily heterosexual transmission was 0.76% for 11 with low (<20%) rates of circumcision and 0.09% for 17 with high rates of circumcision (>80%) [Drain et al., 2006], i.e., was 8 fold higher in those with low circumcision rate. The difference was highly significant (P <0.001). Similar analyses by others have confirmed the inverse correlation between HIV prevalence in different countries and their rate of circumcision [Addanki et al., 2008].
"...The relatively moderate HIV infection rate in the USA is likely contributed by the high prevalence of circumcision in this country [Addanki et al., 2008].
"...in the USA condoms were never used during heterosexual sex with a nonprimary partner in the case of 16% of men and 24% of women [Sanchez et al., 2006].
"...Canada: Approx. 33% of new HIV infections diagnosed in Canada in 2006 were from heterosexual contact [UNAIDS, 2008].
"...UNAIDS data for 2004 show the prevalence of HIV in 38 Sub-Saharan African countries was 16% for the 8 countries with low (<20%) circumcision rates and 3% for the 22 with high (>80%) circumcision rates [Drain et al., 2006]. This was independent of Muslim and Christian religion.
"...Willingness to get circumcised is high [de Bruyn et al., 2009; Eaton & Kalichman, 2009]. The work in Tanzania [Nnko et al., 2001], as well as in all other studies such as in Kenya [Bailey et al., 2002], Botswana [Kebaabetswe et al., 2003] and South Africa [Lagarde et al., 2003; Rain-Taljaard et al., 2003], show the majority of population groups are willing to accept circumcision to reduce HIV.
"...Overall, rough estimates published in 1999 suggested that circumcision had prevented more than 10 million HIV infections by the end of that decade in Africa and Asia [Fischbacher, 1999]. Worldwide this figure would have obviously be greater.
"...Irrespective, women will see indirect benefits of male circumcision because a decrease in the pool of infected men will, in the long-term, reduce HIV transmission to women [Chersich & Rees, 2008]. UNAIDS has estimated that, in Africa, for every 5% increase in male circumcision, HIV would decrease by 2% in women [Kagumire, 2008].
http://www.circinfo.net/hiv_the_aids_virus.html
"... Models showing the benefits of circumcision in Africa indicate benefit to female partners over time as HIV prevalence among men declines [10]–[13]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807456/
"...In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime" [Schoen, 1993]."
http://www.circinfo.net/position_statements_by_national_pediatric_bodies.html
"If all 2 million boys born in the USA annually were circumcised, the following would be prevented during their lifetimes:
> 7,000 cases of HIV
> 10,000 cases of syphillus
> 20,000 episodes of pyelonephritis:
2,000 with concurrent bacteremia
1,500 cases hypertension
150 cases end stage renal disease
2,000 cases penile cancer
200,000 cases of phimosis
250,000 - 500,000 cases of blanoposthitis
http://www.circinfo.net/summary.html
"Circumcision represents a surgical 'vaccine' in the face of the dismal failure of two decades of research to develop a conventional vaccine"
http://www.circinfo.net/hiv_the_aids_virus.html
