http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/archives/4658
This sounds oddly like Zuma's awesome claim that taking a shower after sex, or sexing up a virgin, cures AIDS.
http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/archives/4658
This sounds oddly like Zuma's awesome claim that taking a shower after sex, or sexing up a virgin, cures AIDS.
Catwalk's crusade for legalized cheating was a stunning success, with ghettos and low-tiered teams everywhere losing their wells of knowledge to better kingdoms in the process.
Step one: replace everything that works.
Step two: blame the predictable epic fail on outside forces.
Step three: keep the community informed that no progress has been made since the last update.
Step four: thank you for your patience.
lol
But still, it can't beat this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5923927.ece
Discord: Hex | IRC: Hextor / Avenger
AID is propagated by the exchange of some bodily fluids which I won't mention here.Originally Posted by VT2
If you circumcise, you reduce the likelihood that the male will get cuts and tears in a place I won't mention here while 2 participants are doing something I won't mention either.
Thus, I wouldn't dismiss circumcision outright as a way to reduce AID propagation in males (and thus indirectly in females) without a scientific study on the matter.
However, I think that it isn't addressing the root of the problem (about 'active' people being informed and responsible about their activities) and viewing circumcision as THE solution (in the even that it does help reduce male propagation of AID) certainly is silly.
Note: Sorry about all the censure, but I'm honestly not sure how much you are allowed to post on the details of the matter.
Without the foreskin, you lose a layer that's as far away from a mucus membrane as physically possible.
Not having this layer means your glans gets desensitized, and more of what's essentially a mucus membrane exposed to direct contact with things that could lead to infection, because there's no seriously thick layer of skin available to prevent absorption, and what you have instead is rather on the thin side of things, so if there's anything you should worry about getting cuts, it's uncircumcised mens' private parts.'
That's what people say about this.
I say: are you insane? Cuts and tears, on a dick? How can cutting off a part of skin that's NEVER a part of the act that spreads AIDS somehow prevent it from happening? Have any of you seen an erect manhood in your entire lives, and noticed what happens to the foreskin when it's in such a state? Clearly not.
Just another stupid plot by Africa, so they can avoid issuing condoms for a bit longer.
Catwalk's crusade for legalized cheating was a stunning success, with ghettos and low-tiered teams everywhere losing their wells of knowledge to better kingdoms in the process.
Step one: replace everything that works.
Step two: blame the predictable epic fail on outside forces.
Step three: keep the community informed that no progress has been made since the last update.
Step four: thank you for your patience.
They don't want to distribute clean drinking water nevermind condom's. As bad as a problem as AID's is, don't more people die of thirst, starvation and malnourishment?
Thing is, the 'protective' layer of skin goes on and off during the act and the part that ties it to mainland at the extremity is prone to get pulled too much in which case a tear will develop in that area (and the tear will become greater and greater with each act until the tie is completely broken and the protective skin can flap on and off more freely).
I'm speaking from rather painful experience on the matter.
Of course, the presence of a tear in the concerned area increases the risk of contagion.
Definitely. The lack of food and decent water is a far bigger problem on a local scope.They don't want to distribute clean drinking water nevermind condom's. As bad as a problem as AID's is, don't more people die of thirst, starvation and malnourishment?
However, the dying of third, starvation and malnourishment has a limited effect on the rest of the world.
The fact that it remains a stronghold for a contagious disease has a more far-reaching impact as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
I guess you can say its a more 'global' issue rather than a local one.
Last edited by Magn; 11-09-2009 at 03:15.
Ouch, sounds painful. But seriously, what were you ****ing? I never had any issues like that.
Well, I won't go into too much details in here.
Suffice it to say that my better half likes for things to get rough from time to time.
I'm honestly not sure how common the phenomenon is (my guess is that the particular physiology of a guy has a lot to do with it as well as I'm sure some men are more prone to it than others), but when it occurs, its definitely a hot spot for contagion if its unprotected and not monogamous.
Last edited by Magn; 11-09-2009 at 18:06.
Gotta love it when they want it rough :P
lol at this thread
lol @ ur face ^
Lol this is such a funny thread and especially in politics section :)
about the circumcision thing i would like to say that it wont save you from AIDS neither decrease the chance of catching that killer.
I am living in a country where circumcision is a religious obligation. But regardless people tend to get infected the fist time they get sexual intercourse with somebody carying the virus without being protected.
There is a big confusion in those african claims that "countries where people regualarly get circumcised are less likely to get AIDS becouse of circumcision"
it is not about the operation but actually about religious beliefs and social wievs - oppression in those countries (and yes what pope said in that manner is somewhat right :D , less sexual independence lesser chance to catch AIDS) that people generally dont prefer to have some kind of sexual relationship without getting married.
Evidence to these can easily be found on such countries, you see taking my country as an example; in more developed and Western mind setted parts (where people tend to care less about religious beliefs and social wievs) of the country AIDS cases are higher,while on the less developed (and thus more conservative) parts of the country such cases are rarer.
A very good observation aposai.
I have to say, that article on the Vatican position really irritated me.
His argument is "contraception between consensual loving couples is bad" and then followed it up with "but if a woman is unable to reject the sexual advances of her HIV positive husband, then it is permitted" so the only time condoms are permitted to Catholics is when sexual abuse and/or domestic violence/pressurised sex is in the equasion? So consensual use of condoms is BAD, but your forceful husband "giving you a good un" is ENCOURAGED?
No wonder nobody listens to the Catholic church much anymore, perverts in their ranks, they promoted domestic sexual abuse, and they have a thing against consensual sex but seem to go "its all part of God's plan" to the more serious affront of liberty from forced sex... idiots!
tbh the only way to stop hiv/aids is to let everyone who has hiv/aids die - its pointless to develop drugs which will keep them alive as they will die anyhow and are more likely to give the disease other people. That couped with a safe sex campaign, and airports/ports/any place of entry into a country doing aids tests/TB tests, and the military guarding each countries border to stop illigal immigration is possibily the only way to do it however.
I agree with your common sense approach, but many see this as unethical.
I do know that cats with FIV - the feline version of HIV are able to cure themselves of it in some cases with natural antibodies, I hope that human research into stem cells could make this possible, since treating HIV positive people as lepers isn't seen as ethical in today's world, even if it gets the job done.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote