 Guest
What these authors are suggesting here is insane. There is a very real risk that many people will miss the part that CONDOMS are STILL required. There are already stories leaking out about people overestimating the protective effects.
It is already happening, in this recent article in the trinidad express[1], we have this gem: "Aah," one subject said during trials, "I have a natural condom." Or from Rwanda, in a recent article[2] by David Gusongoirye, Nothing can fight HIV/AIDS better than discipline, speaking of the new campaign a man was quoted as saying: "Mister, these Aids people have spoken for long about fighting the disease, but they had never come up with a practical solution as good as this one. Don’t have sex, don’t do this, don’t do that. Eh, man, how can a young man such as I forfeit sex, eh? And the condoms – where is the sense in putting on a condom when you are having sex? Sex is about feeling, and so no young person likes them!" There are some circumcised man who will get HIV in part because now they believes they have a "natural condom".
In a study published on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV acquisition, heterosexual couples that included an HIV-infected partner used condoms consistently in a total of about 15,000 instances of intercourse. None of the uninfected partners became infected.[3] So if we just get down to the proverbial brass tacks the whole issue boils down to the following question: If you are circumcised can you have unprotected sex with a partner whose HIV status is positive or unknown and NOT worry about getting infected? Clearly the answer is no. The critical point is you have only two options:
A. You don't need a circumcision, but you need to always wear a condom and be choosy about your sex partners.
B. You can get a circumcision but you need to always wear a condom and be choosy about your sex partners.
|