Cut or Uncut

[dipsett]

circumcision is always sure to start a heated argument over any circumstance on here.......

 

[wilde]

by practicing other safe sex measures such as STI testing...

Oh fuck me, STI testing is a safe sex measure. God help us all...:doh:

 

[BORKO]

Oh fuck me, STI testing is a safe sex measure. God help us all...

I'd assume he means STI testing before the sex to make sure it's safe. But those STI clinics have tonnes of free condoms too which might also be included in that.

 

[bcneil]

Oh fuck me, STI testing is a safe sex measure. God help us all...:doh:

Of course, if you do it prior to each new girl. Not a big deal if you only see 3 girls a week for 60 years.
The staff at the clinic might develop some mean spirited nicknames for you.

 

[BORKO]

Of course, if you do it prior to each new girl. Not a big deal if you only see 3 girls a week for 60 years.
The staff at the clinic might develop some mean spirited nicknames for you.

I'm pretty sure the CDC staff send you home if you go too often, say weekly. I don't think stuff shows up that fast..

 

[lenny]

Where is your "calculation" for no condoms and uncut?

It's not here since the comparison was between the differences in lifetime risk for HIV between (1) a circumcised guy who doesn't use plastic baggies and (2) a religious condom user who lacks the benefits of circumcision.

How many men have unprotected sex with over 9000 prostitutes? You need to use these huge numbers, as thats the only way you can show a any significant difference in infection rates. In your example a 5% variation in risk, over the entire life of a man who sees over 9000 prostitutes. Absolutely ridiculous. Even reducing the number of prostitutes to 900 (using your figures) reduces that 5% variation to .5% or if a man is more modest and sees 90 prostitutes in his life, and 0.05% difference.
And of course a non-pooning male this is even less, statistically moot. As I said before, grasping at straws to defend religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter if in my example they are prostitutes, gang bang parties, civvie bar picks, girls from your college, or whatever, or a mix of the same. Sex three times a week for life (6 decades, or 9000 times) may be somewhat above average, but is not so much. Your reduced numbers of 90 & 900 work out to sex only 1.5 and 15 times a year. Poor guys. How sad.

Your rate differences for those numbers (90 or 900) just support my point, that the relative lifetime risks between the 2 groups (at the top of this post) is not much, under the conditions of the example. How many people out there would have guessed that, do you think, if they were surveyed or interviewed on the subject? I'm sure many would say those in group 1 have a death wish.

Of course, as i've previously explained, there is one catch, that the conditions of the example have both groups (1 & 2 above) being subject to the same risk (2.79%) in their target or partner group. In real life group 1 above is more likely to be at greater risk from their partners than group 2 (the religious condom user) would be at greater risk from his. So to maintain the same level of risk (2.79% in the example, or whatever) from his sex partners guy #1 is more likely to need to add something to make himself equally safe as guy #2. STI testing of his partners, for example, could be added to accomplish this, though that could be considered overkill & likely make him significantly safer than the uncircumcised condom user.

To boil down infection rates in africa based on circumcision is also nonsense. Unless you don't believe there are any other differences between americans and africans. Things like education, poverty, health care, personal hygiene, number of partners.
Its almost like saying white people go to jail less than black people, cause some white people have blue eyes.

Sorry but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here or how it relates to anything I've said.

Are you arguing against circumcision & saying it benefits are not worth the trouble of doing it? Clearly groups like the World Health Organization disagree, at least as far as the African epidemic is concerned.

On an individual basis I am thrilled to have been circumcised a few days after birth & would generally not hesitate to support the same for my children & others. BTW, it seems modern medical science supports that the 8th day after birth is the optimal time to do this procedure, which is also the day stipulated so long ago as recorded in the OT of the Bible & other ancient writings.

 

[bcneil]

It doesn't matter if in my example they are prostitutes, gang bang parties, civvie bar picks, girls from your college, or whatever, or a mix of the same. Sex three times a week for life (6 decades, or 9000 times) may be somewhat above average, but is not so much. Your reduced numbers of 90 & 900 work out to sex only 1.5 and 15 times a year. Poor guys. How sad.

Your rate differences for those numbers (90 or 900) just support my point, that the relative lifetime risks between the 2 groups (at the top of this post) is not much, under the conditions of the example. How many people out there would have guessed that, do you think, if they were surveyed or interviewed on the subject? I'm sure many would say those in group 1 have a death wish.

Of course, as i've previously explained, there is one catch, that the conditions of the example have both groups (1 & 2 above) being subject to the same risk (2.79%) in their target or partner group.

Yes in your example it matters if they are prostitutes or not, since you are claiming sps have a 2.79% infection rate which is what 5 times higher than the general female population, and yes that throws off your calculations wildly. Sure people will have sex 9000 times in their life, but people who do so.....you will find most of these people will likely have one or two partners (wives) that make up the majority of them. This is course makes your calculations invalid once again. If your wife has hiv and you sleep with here 8500 times with no condom you will very likely get hiv, if she is not a carrier, then you will not get hiv. So your calculation really only works for sex with women you don't really know, as most men married to the same women for 60 years would at some point know if she has hiv. Now if we continue with your data/calculations, if we don't use SPs with their 2.79% infection rate and use civilian woman with around 0.5-1.0% that would change the 9000 SPs to what 35,000-40,000 women?

So here it boils down. If you have sex with 9000 SPs in your life (sure some of them a handful of times) or 40,000 women.
If you use a condom each time your chances to get hiv would be around 1%
If you have bareback fs every single time and you are cut, your chances of getting hiv around 5%
If you have bareback fs every single time and you are not cut. your chances of getting hiv around 6-8%.

"Hey maa should we get little timmy cut.....i heard if he ends up having unprotected sex with 9000 prostitutes or 45000 women, this will reduce his chances of gettin the aids from 7% to 5%" Sure Lenny thats why they do it. I would even venture a guess that most religious people that do this to their child have no idea of any stats related to hiv risk whatsoever.






Sorry but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here or how it relates to anything I've said.

I am pointing out you don't understand how to interpret stats. You have taking too large populations America and Africa and have concluded the difference in hiv rates is due to circumcision rates, without taking into consideration a 1000 other differences in the 2 populations that contribute to the difference. My example shows this....... if 30% of white people have blue eyes......white people make up 90% of america and blacks the other 10% (these are just for calculations I know there are other groups) Then 27% of the general population would have blue eyes. If you go to a jail and the population is 50/50 white and black, then only 15% of the jail population have blue eyes. therefore its the reason blacks go to jail more often right....and if you have a white son, hoping his eyes are blue so he never goes to jail

At least you admit you follow the bible for your medical advice

 

[lenny]

Yes in your example it matters if they are prostitutes or not, since you are claiming sps have a 2.79% infection rate which is what 5 times higher than the general female population, and yes that throws off your calculations wildly.

I could have posted any one of 100's of examples. It just happens that one was handy. If i recall it is based on circumcision reducing the rate of HIV by 55 or 60% & a 2.79% HIV rate amongst Thai female sex workers (FSW). As such it is somewhat out of date as a more recent UNAIDS report (2011 or 2012) put it at 2.2% & 1.8% for those based in venues. So not much higher than the general population rate of Thailand (aged 15-49) with a 1.2% rate of HIV. Compare that to Indonesia with a general population (aged 15 to 49) HIV rate of 0.30% and FSW rates of 3 & 10+% (direct & indirect FSW). In Jakarta the rate for direct FSW is 5.2%, in Batam 6.9%. I've read of Brazil FSW having a HIV rate around 5%. I've read of areas in China and Eastern Europe with SP's having double digit HIV rates. In India a brothel was reported at 50%. Of course there are hundreds of millions of guys visiting or frequenting places like these all over the world, including even relatively sanitized Canada (e.g. DTES VCR BBFS with SPs having a 25% HIV rate) that has a fairly tiny population of only about 34 million (vs Indonesia 235 million, Brazil 193 million, Thailand 63 million, India 1.21 billion, etc). http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/

"In India HIV prevalence ranges from 4.6 percent among sex workers in Mumbai to 24 percent among street-based and 29 percent among brothel-based sex workers in Maharashtra.2" http://www.avert.org/sex-workers.htm

Sure people will have sex 9000 times in their life, but people who do so.....you will find most of these people will likely have one or two partners (wives) that make up the majority of them. This is course makes your calculations invalid once again.

Invalid? So your point is that "these people" are extremely safe, therefore have no need for circumcision or condoms, so should do BBFS all the time with everyone or at least their SO & have no worries? What about the people who engage in relatively high risk sex, like many PERB members & hundreds of millions of other hobbyists around the world, in Asia, Africa, Europe, etc, a significant percentage of whom practice BBFS? You don't believe they should mitigate their risk with safe sex practices like condoms, circumcision, STI testing, etc?

If your wife has hiv and you sleep with here 8500 times with no condom you will very likely get hiv, if she is not a carrier, then you will not get hiv.

I read a recent study where 7000 acts of BBFS between couples, one being infected & on ARV HIV meds, did not result in their clean partner getting HIV. I'd suggest that with someone who is HIV infected & having no detectable viral load, there is virtually no chance of getting HIV from them with many acts of BBFS. Therefore, if i ever contract HIV...

So your calculation really only works for sex with women you don't really know, as most men married to the same women for 60 years would at some point know if she has hiv.

Most "men married to the same woman for 60 years would at some point know if she has hiv." When would that be? When she starts to get deathly ill, becomes a bone rack, goes for STI testing, & then he finds out he has it too? Of course married people never cheat, even though it is a very common practice in places like BBFS-Japan & PERBville.

Now if we continue with your data/calculations, if we don't use SPs with their 2.79% infection rate and use civilian woman with around 0.5-1.0% that would change the 9000 SPs to what 35,000-40,000 women?

So here it boils down. If you have sex with 9000 SPs in your life (sure some of them a handful of times) or 40,000 women.
If you use a condom each time your chances to get hiv would be around 1%
If you have bareback fs every single time and you are cut, your chances of getting hiv around 5%
If you have bareback fs every single time and you are not cut. your chances of getting hiv around 6-8%.

"Hey maa should we get little timmy cut.....i heard if he ends up having unprotected sex with 9000 prostitutes or 45000 women, this will reduce his chances of gettin the aids from 7% to 5%" Sure Lenny thats why they do it. I would even venture a guess that most religious people that do this to their child have no idea of any stats related to hiv risk whatsoever.

Evidently it doesn't take large percentage point differences to get the millions spared from HIV infection in African nations via male circumcision. I've also seen some recommendations for mass circumcision in the USA to a similar effect. It seems pushing condoms isn't working, the epidemics continue in spite of it, and an effective more trustworthy solution (i.e. circumcision) in terms of permanence is suggested.

Now re justifying circumcision on the individual front, as distinct from the national & continental scene, there are many places on earth where HIV rates for various groups are far higher than 2.79%, some of which i've listed above (like in Brazil, Indonesia, India, etc).

A retired 50 year old guy in Asia, for example, doing 2 SP sessions a day for 20 years (which is easily doable & could be with only a handful of regular SP's he likes/yr, not 100's) would be 14,600 sessions, quite a bit more than your mere 9000. There are many thousands if not millions of guys in a similar situation globally. Some of them probably read sites like PERB and ISG. How's a parent to know if his preborn kid might end up being one of them or living a lifestyle of similar risks? Not having them circumcised seems to be negligence on their part, like not wearing a seatbelt, if we assume all the other pros & cons re circumcision are a wash. With circumcision cutting the HIV risk by 60%, whether they'd use a condom or not, and regardless of what their lifestyle turned out to be, why would you not get the new born male child cut. It would seem to be the responsible thing to do.

Re your rates for getting HIV, my calculations were less than 1% for condom use & uncircumcised, 5.5% for circumcised w/o a plastic baggy, & 12% for those with neither safeguard (i.e. not circumcised & no condom). If you had a 100 capacity bullet gun to your chest, would you rather it had 5 or 12 bullets in it? Or would it make no difference to you? What would you prefer for your kids? To me the choice is a no brainer. As is the choice between plastic baggie sex for life & real sex. But if you love condoms, have fun. Circumcision can help to do without them & safely enjoy a much higher quality sex life, for life.

"He was a lifelong bachelor, and became notorious for his claim to have had sex with over 20,000 women.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

I am pointing out you don't understand how to interpret stats. You have taking too large populations America and Africa and have concluded the difference in hiv rates is due to circumcision rates, without taking into consideration a 1000 other differences in the 2 populations that contribute to the difference. My example shows this....... if 30% of white people have blue eyes......white people make up 90% of america and blacks the other 10% (these are just for calculations I know there are other groups) Then 27% of the general population would have blue eyes. If you go to a jail and the population is 50/50 white and black, then only 15% of the jail population have blue eyes. therefore its the reason blacks go to jail more often right....and if you have a white son, hoping his eyes are blue so he never goes to jail

I don't know where you are getting this. I wonder if you read something MM said earlier in this thread & are attributing it to me. Your comment here sounds vaguely like some point i was making to her. So you might want to reread those posts. Or read the W.H.O.s papers on why they recommended mass circumcisions in Africa & how they figured it would spare millions from getting HIV.

At least you admit you follow the bible for your medical advice

I admit i follow accredited sources like the CDC & renowned research sites.

Incidentally you don't see me disageeing with much if anything from the PERB Health Nurse.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

perhaps lenny can find out for us how those august folks at w.h.o. plan to implement this grand scheme to circumcise all the uncircumcised males in africa...

 

[bcneil]

perhaps lenny can find out for us how those august folks at w.h.o. plan to implement this grand scheme to circumcise all the uncircumcised males in africa...

Simple convert them to christianity, tell them they go to hell otherwise. Simple!

I am done with Lenny, I feel like I am explaining to my grandma why the super 7 is a waste of money, with her telling me someone has to win.
This is obviously another lame advocacy for having bbfs with prostitutes.

His circumcision cure is pure nonsense for anyone other than Wilt Chamberlain (If he never used condoms)
For the other 99.99999% of males the risk reduction of cut vs uncut is astronomically small, statistically insignificant completely.
I horrible excuse to chop a childs penis...
But as I said many times already, NO PARENTS CHOOSE TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR SON BECAUSE OF A INSIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN HIV RISK.
They do so for religious reason. Lenny himself was not cut, cause his parents were concerned about HIV.


I was watching a documentary about female circumcision, and one this that shocked me almost as much as the act itself.
Was when they interviewed teenage girls that had this done. How most of them talk of how happy they are, that there mom uses a rock or fingernails to remove her clit.

 

[lenny]

perhaps lenny can find out for us how those august folks at w.h.o. plan to implement this grand scheme to circumcise all the uncircumcised males in africa...

Actually most of the males there are circumcised already.

BTW...

Algeria...over 80% circ, low HIV rate, 0.1%

South Africa...only 35% circ, over 15% adult HIV rate

 

[VanessaofBC]

Originally Posted by bcneil
I was watching a documentary about female circumcision, and one this that shocked me almost as much as the act itself.
Was when they interviewed teenage girls that had this done. How most of them talk of how happy they are, that there mom uses a rock or fingernails to remove her clit.

i think i just threw up in my mouth a little bit there. i have heard of this, but never in those words.

 

[lenny]

I am done with Lenny, I feel like I am explaining to my grandma why the super 7 is a waste of money, with her telling me someone has to win.

Why exaggerate? More useful would be some stats relevant to this topic.

Do i need to explain why circumcision saving millions from STIs & HIV is a good idea? The world, SP's & their SO's are safer when SP's customers are circumcised.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. As is often the case here I learn a lot from such, especially in that they motivate me to dig.

This is obviously another lame advocacy for having bbfs with prostitutes.

Actually i advocate safe sex practices with everyone including SP's. This can include things like using condoms, being circumcised, STI testing of yourself & your partners, choice of low risk partners, choice of safer services recieved, use & choice of lubes, perfect practice of coitus interruptus (never cumming inside SPs), autoeroticism with long periods of abstinence from sex with others, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex

My personal preferences for services are DATO, DFK, SBBFS, BLS, full body tongue massages, 1 hour BBBJs, but if yours include high risk anal sex with or w/o plastic baggies & other boring plastic baggy activities, knock yourself out. Good luck with them not failing because of you, your partner (of unknown STI status) or their own defects.

His circumcision cure is pure nonsense for anyone other than Wilt Chamberlain (If he never used condoms)
For the other 99.99999% of males the risk reduction of cut vs uncut is astronomically small, statistically insignificant completely.

These are silly exaggerations. Let's see some real & serious number crunching. Not stuff like the 90 & 900 times of having sex in a lifetime, like you posted before. Those numbers reminded me of the movie "The 40 Year Old Virgin".

I horrible excuse to chop a childs penis...

Personally i don't have any bad memories of being cut at 8 days after birth. In fact i have no memories of it at all & never did that i can recall.

"Minimizing pain is an important consideration for male circumcision. Appropriate use of analgesia is considered standard of care for the procedure at all ages and can substantially control pain. One study found that 93.5% of neonates circumcised in the first week of life using analgesia gave no indication of pain on an objective, standardized neonatal pain rating system.47"
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/risks.html

At about age 30 I once had a bb bullet sized liquid filled piece of flesh very close to my penis head cut open & drained. A needle was stuck in by there to inject a local pain killer & then my flesh was cut open with a scalpel. The contents inside the bb were forced out. I screamed out loud for like 3 seconds with the cut, wondering if the doctor had given me sufficient anesthetic. Thereafter i was more or less pain free. Certainly was well worth the procedure, even though i couldn't have sex for a while & it provided me none of the benefits that circumcision does.

But as I said many times already, NO PARENTS CHOOSE TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR SON BECAUSE OF A INSIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN HIV RISK.
They do so for religious reason.

Actually I'd wager that many do consider the HIV risk reduction via circumcision an important aspect of their decision to circumcize. It's mentioned often online in this internet age. Anyone doing a bit of homework on the subject while considering the pros & cons of the procedure will likely come across the HIV aspect. It's a compelling reason in favor of it.

Why are more men being circumcised now?

• There is new evidence that circumcision offers health benefits.
• The foreskin can trap human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as well as other bacteria
and viruses that can cause sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and other infections.
• Along with having safer sex, circumcision may help keep men from getting HIV and
other STDs.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/std/std-circumcision.pdf

BTW you seem obsessed with the religious aspects of circumcision. Do you think that's what the OP was asking for? Maybe you could start a new thread on that topic & therein have a wonderful long chat with yourself about it. You might include an estimate on how many millions of STIs, cancers, UTIs, etc, have been prevented in men & women & how many millions of lives since history began have been saved by male circumcision from horrible painful diseases & slow agonizing deaths.

Lenny himself was not cut, cause his parents were concerned about HIV.

Well obviously...HIV was unheard of in the 50's. So what?

Both circumcision & HIV knowledge & reasearch have advanced in the last 6 decades, don't you think?

 

[nickcan]

My personal preferences for services are DATO, DFK, SBBFS, BLS, full body tongue massages, 1 hour BBBJs, but if yours include high risk anal sex with or w/o plastic baggies & other boring plastic baggy activities, knock yourself out.

Wow, in that order Lenny?
I am guessing DATO on you, what are you trying to accomplish, tasting your own feces thru DFK afterwards?
Not healthy and pretty gross especially with high mileage SW's.

 

[barny-stinson]

Lenny - You are fighting a lost cause. Until North America accepts the fact condoms aren't the be-all and end-all to safe sex, I'm afraid you are fighting an uphill battle. You can research as many statistics as you want, it won't change their opinions. The people you argue with here are probably having tons of bareback sex then coming here with their self rightiousness telling others how bad and risky it is.

I'm an adult that chose circumcision, and I love it. It wasn't a religious or HIV decision, contrary to bcneils firm beliefs. If he wants to play with his anteater, I say let him.

 

[myselftheother]

Wow...this thread has gone beyond the ridiculous. Circumcision is barbaric, though I was when I was a baby and had no choice in the matter...and it doesn't stop you from getting diseases when you're fucking being stupid. How irresponsible and ignorant, then you're going around spreading it around. Remember whatshisname who played in the CFL with Saskatchewan? Infected women with HIV he was barebacking. I don't know the state of his foreskin whether it was intact or not...but the matter was he got infected and was spreading it around. You say you're not carrying any diseases...but we here don't really know that, nor do the girls you're seeing in Cambodia or wherever you've gone off to.

Nor do you know whether or not that piece of paper that sex they're hiv neg is really legitimately saying so. The 'Dr' you take them to....etc. Lenny...sorry man but on this subjext I have to call bullshit. Really. It's complete bullshit. Sorry to have to be so blunt. But it is, and it's insane to keep beating that dead horse.:deadhorse:

 

[richrad]

Baby oil should suffice.

 

[lenny]

circuncision is barbaric

I guess you also find these "barbaric":

1) breast removal to safeguard against the effects of cancer
2) a qualified dentist removing problematic teeth
3) mommy clipping her kids` finger & toe nail ends off
4) how about cosmetic surgery, nose & fat reductions, silicone breast implants
5) or getting jabbed with a needle for disease innoculations & STI blood tests

I`ve read of guys in the Army who are sqeamish about needles, which reminds me of someone`s recent comment from another thread:

"LOL, that`s what we get for letting schools raise our kids to be forever suckling on someone`s teat.
Maybe we need more John Wayne re-runs and less Oprah and Dr. Phil?"
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?185151-Monogamy-Unnatural-Hey-Tant!-This-one-s-for-you!#top

But you probably have no problem ripping the healthy child to pieces via abortion.
That couldn`t be "barbaric", could it? Nah.
How about the ancients who just left the newborn on a hillside to die?

Remember whatshisname who played in the CFL with Saskatchewan? Infected women with HIV he was barebacking. I don`t know the state of his foreskin whether it was intact or not...but the matter was he got infected and was spreading it around.

According to the following news items neither of his two accusors became HIV infected:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/01/31/smith-wednesday.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/127651/
http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=441
http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=a16dafb4-37ca-4cf1-bfd9-56b11658ec2b

Your CFL boy had HIV, knew it & allegedly still had sex with his GFs without informing them of his status. Does that have anything to do with this thread? Was he circumcised? Did he practice coitus interruptus perfectly like i do? Is rain dry.

Of course condoms never fail & people never fail condoms, which then is often the same as BBFS, & I`m sure every guy here uses condoms for DATY, BBBJs, DATO, etc, & knows their recent STI & HIV test status as well as that of all their partners, whether CFS with SP`s or BBFS with bar sluts & GFs, doing ladies in the ass with a plastic baggy (which is as risky re HIV as vaginal BBFS), etc.

You`d know it if one of your partners would test positive for HIV wouldn`t you? Or would you.

You say you`re not carrying any diseases...but we here don`t really know that, nor do
the girls you`re seeing in Cambodia or wherever you`ve gone off to.

And the same could be said about you. Are you castrated? Do you only have sex with yourself (have fun with that)? Do you know the recent HIV test status of yourself & your SP, bar pickup, or other sex partners? Never cum inside them? Circumcised? Didn`t think so.

 

[bcneil]

I'm not saying I agree with everything lenny believes, but he is entitled to express his opinions and his own life experience here just like everyone else.

We don't post here to be RIGHT all the time, and you don't have to prove someone else WRONG all the time.

Canada has 3 main distinct political parties who are all convinced their way is the only way and everyone else's way is wrong, but all 3 parties accept the right of the other parties to exist and express vastly differing beliefs!

Why can't we be respectful and tolerant of differing POV's?

bcneil and lenny have conducted themselves really well in this thread. It's called having an adult debate.

lol - party's or parties??

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[wilde]

I'm not saying I agree with everything lenny believes, but he is entitled to express his opinions and his own life experience here just like everyone else.

And we are entitled to call him out on his ridiculous use of statistics.