Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Top tips

Champagne corks are popping among the genital mutilation community, for the US National Institutes (sic) of Health has publicly recommended circumcision as a prophylactic against HIV infection.

No matter that the test was conducted in environments where cultural factors (ie, a tendency on the part of local males to knob anything that moves regardless of age, gender, consent or species) skews both the prevalence of the virus and the virulence with which it transmits itself. Apparently the best way to marginally cut infection rates in one of several transmission vectors for a rare disease that very few Americans will ever even be exposed to is to have all male children undergo a painful, unnecessary and desensitising surgery.

Sewing your eyelids shut is also an excellent prophylactic against snow blindness, but I don’t see the US National Institutes of Health handing out the surgical staples. Could this perhaps have something to do with the bizarre American fetish for circumcision? You betcha.

The voice of reason is nowhere to be found, but the WHO accidentally manages an approximation to it in its rather defensive response:

Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization told the BBC the results were a "significant scientific advance" but were not a magic bullet and would never replace existing prevention strategies.

Which is true so far as it goes, but is really just code for “Cut off as many of your dicks as you like – just keep our salaries coming”. By the way, if ever a name was destiny for its bearer, Dr De Cock’s is it…

One wonders where it will all end. Today your foreskin, tomorrow this? We’re on a slippery slope, my friends…


Whip 'em out, lads. One hundred and fifty million Americans can’t be wrong.

32 comments:

Desargues said...

I had to idea castration without malice is a felony anywhere in the world. If malice aforethought is absent, where's the crime? Surely those who feel they have nothing particularly useful to contribute to the Darwinian pool should be allowed to remove themselves from it. Right?

But what really mystifies me is: hopw the hell did the conduct studies on circumcision and the incidence of AIDS in Africa or wherever HIV's a problem, anyway? I mean, it's hard to convince those benighted Third-Worlders to wear a condom, for god's sake -- how would you convince them to part with their prepuces? If Dr De Cock's acolytes found a persuasive trick that works, can't they adapt it to propagate the use of condoms? Or is that to expect too much from a dickhead?

Desargues said...

Also, as I foresee it'll be real hard to get 300 million Africans to go foreskinless, maybe we can get them to smoke weed? That'll keep many of them off sex, surely; and it would give a sizeable boost to American exports, seeing as marijuana is this country's greatest cash crop? Reduce AIDS and the trade deficit, all in one go. Problem solved. Make joints, not love.

Anonymous said...

Des, it has more to do with practicing medicine. BTW, in my neck of the hinterland, there is no crime of "assault without malice." By definition, "malice" is an element of the crime.

I agree with you regarding the rest. It would take a master of Socratic logic for me to allow anything sharp in my boxers, thank you.

Cheers.

incessant_din said...

I wonder if men should get this cosmetic surgery at any stage in life. Is it a recommendation just for the defenseless children, or is it a new rite of passage? I imagine that if the men in the study had recently undergone the procedure, there might be another explanation for their reduced rate of infection in the abbreviated study...

Chris.T said...

New York city has the highest incidence of AIDs of any modern, developed city; it also happens to have the highest rate of male circumcision of any modern, developed city. Go figure.

Desargues said...

That statistical correlation doesn't hold for NYC; the Big Apple's our age's Gomorrha, didn't you know, Chris? Or Sodom. Whatever. Anyway, the idea being that God's righteous wrath hangs above New York like an ominous mushroom cloud. Too many damn cosmopolitan slickers in that place; can't be good for the life of virtue, I reckon.

Desargues said...

For those of you who know German, this is pretty funny.

"Adolf, you old Nazi sow, surrender already!"

PI said...

Merry Christmas Ivan and a happy healthy 2007 to you and yours. Peace and good will to all.

Chris.T said...

I bet those stupid Swiss, Japanese, French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Austrians, Australians, Chinese, Indians, British, Finns, Russians, Koreans, Irish, Spanish, Greeks, Canadians, Norwegians and New Zealanders are feeling pretty stupid now, having overlooked the obvious benefits of mass genital surgery. God, how thick can people be?
Let's make this century as Jewish as the last one was, you guys! Let's roll!

Tony said...

And this:

These (African) countries should now prepare how to introduce circumcision on a large scale," UNAIDS chief Dr. Peter Piot told Reuters. "The science is clear."

Baby boys should be targeted first but then attention should switch to adolescent boys and adult men, said Piot, who is in New Delhi to meet Indian officials on how they plan to tackle the world's largest HIV/AIDS caseload.


Precious resources to fight the disease, sexually-active adults who could choose for themselves... yeah, start with the defenseless children, instead. I love America, but if there is one thing we should not be exporting, it's our stupid willingness to slice useful pieces off our little boys.

Desargues said...

I can't wait for some benighted ulema to come out and claim that Iranian scientists have established that circumcising little girls also greatly reduces the risk of AIDS. Mark my words, it's gonna happen.

Chris.T said...

"Baby boys should be targeted first but then attention should switch to adolescent boys and adult men,"

I think this quote alone tells us all we need to understand about the good mr piot, (I refuse him a capitalized surname for suggesting harm to babies) and only wish we could get a look at his penis, which, ladies and gentlemen, we may safely assume to have a missing part.

Ivan the Terrible said...

Misery loves company, Chris.

Desargues said...

Or, to paraphrase an apocryphal Malraux, "Le XXIe si├Ęcle sera juif ou ne sera pas."

Gorilla Bananas said...

So what are you going to do about it, Ivan? I suggest producing a cartoon starring 'Peter Penis', who is trying to escape from mad 'Dr Crazy Horse' who wants to scalp him. The US Cavalry may have a role here.

Anonymous said...

Can I ask one of you American gentlemen (purely out of interest),
why male circumcision is so high in the US - reportedly 77%

Chris.T said...

Anonymous raises a good question. Why is the US, specifically, from all the modern, developed 'Western' nations, alone in having such a high rate of male circumcision?
Could it be true what the conspiracy theorists believe? Is it possible that radical Islamists have carried out covert social engineering on a gullible American public? Could the Muslim domination of the American Medical and Media spheres have something to do it. After all, if Doctor Hussein tells you it's better to circumcise, you're likely to believe him. And when you see American sitcoms, it's often apparent, when the topic is treated, that the denuded penis is favoured by smart, New York Muslims. Could this be because it is usually a Muslim who wrote the sitcom, directed it and produced it?
When will we finally face up to the fact that Islam has gradually hi-jacked our America, instilling its values, practices and attitudes to the extent that we now share a barbaric ritual of mutilation with such luminaries of enlightenment as Australia's Aboriginals, various warrior type tribes in black Africa, the wholesome, progressive Islamic World, and the poor, benighted Jews. What company we're in! The rest of the World looks on in wonder and incredulity at the depth of America's stupidity.

Chris.T said...

The good natured but innocent Gorilla Bananas suggests, by way of defending the World's foreskins...

"producing a cartoon starring 'Peter Penis', who is trying to escape from mad 'Dr Crazy Horse' who wants to scalp him".

Only problem is, GB, you'd never find anyone willing to produce such a film commercially, let alone distribute it. Like I said, the circumcised Muslim infiltrators have a complete stranglehold over what Americans can and can't see on their TV screens.

Solwatch said...

Give it a rest, Sol. Uncircumcised American men aren't second class citizens. The idea that Jewish doctors are obsessed with snipping non-Jewish babies is plain silly.

Chris.T said...

Oh, that's explained that, then, Solwatch. By the way, I'd bet a pound to a pinch of shit you're mutilated yourself.

Dana Mcfrugal said...

Solwatch,Chris never suggested anyone was "obsessed" with circumcising male infants; he just intimated that some people might be more predisposed to do so than others. Is that really such a "silly" hypothesis, Solwatch, or do you have another agenda here?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Here's the address of a site that has made an entertaining study of the portrayal of circumcision in the U.S media:
www.circumstitions.com/TVSitcoms.html

Solwatch said...

"By the way, I'd bet a pound to a pinch of shit you're mutilated yourself."

You've already used that line on Desargues, Sol. I think he spoke for most of us uncut males in opining that those not so fortunate are probably not victims of a Jewish plot.

Anonymous said...

Thanks guys, but I was really after a sensible answer. I would really like to know WHY.??
When did it start? I've heard that now a lot of parents do it so that their kids are not different from their friends but it can't have just crossed over from one ethnic community to another - can it??

Chris.T said...

Again, Solwatch, nobody's talking about a 'plot', just a quite natural predisposition toward circumcision among members of the Medical and Media industries who happen to be circumcised themselves.

Is that too much of a 'tin-foil hat' point of view for you Solwatch?

Dana Mcfrugal said...

Can I take it you're against circumcision, then, Solwatch?
Let's have no more shillyshallying on this issue. A straight yes or no, please.

Solwatch said...

Why should I care, Sol? I don't see many circumcised men complaining about it. No skin off my nose, as the saying goes.

Anonymous said...

IVAN are you there Ivan.
Do you have any answer?

Chris.T said...

Anonymous, to put you out of your misery: circumcision took off in a big way in the States following WW11 when it was believed that servicemen posted to exotic, tropical locations would be protected against all manner of diseases through this genital surgery. At war end, theses men came home and the process of 'I want him to look like me' began, and has festered like a misunderstanding ever since.
Of course, you could have found this out through Googling for the history of circumcision:)

Dana Mcfrugal said...

OK, Solwatch, so you're all right, Jack, is it?
You don't have children, I guess or you'd be more alarmed by this maniac.

Desargues said...

Jeez, you guys need to give it a break. Like, just chillax, yo. Who gives a shit how much skin you've got on your cock. All that matters is if yo' girl gets a blast out of it, dawg. You gotta step up yo' game, niggas. You gotta focus on what's important, yo.

Sheesh.

Desargues said...

And, like, what's the deal with these shifting pseudonyms, mo'fuckas? Wha' kinda bitch shows up in these ever-changing rags, vanilla faces? Stick with your shit, a'ight?