At this moment, this is the most shared story on BBC’s website:
A survey of more than 1,000 men in India has concluded that condoms made according to international sizes are too large for a majority of Indian men.
The study found that more than half of the men measured had penises that were shorter than international standards for condoms.
It has led to a call for condoms of mixed sizes to be made more widely available in India.
Why are people all over the world sharing this story so much? It seems innocuous (or innocent) enough.
The way more amazing story concerns the undying popularity of the “invisible condom” in certain parts of black Africa:
Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
I’m certain Indian men would have no size problems if they used the invisible condom.
That story is over 3 years old.
indeed, but why is it the most popular story on the site now?
There’s no such thing as a condom that’s “too large”. Put some lube in it.
Ugh. This notion that circumcision is protective is just infuriating and the missionaries propagating it for their own bullshit religious self-satisfaction are guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
It reduces the rate of transmission of some STDs, sure… by 20-30% at most. That is FAR from anything any reasonable person would consider “protected” if they were aware of the odds, and implying that that’s protection encourages – as in this invisible condom madness – neglect of real protection.
In short, fuck circumcision and fuck its criminally dishonest pushers.
It’s funny that Indian guys have small penises??
Charles, the item that you link to at AllAfrica is not an actual article, but a comment to an article. The statistics listed in this comment are dubious and not supported by links to any impartial scientific data. In fact, the commenter, ML (or Mark Lyndon) posts this exact same comment to almost all articles on the web about voluntary adult male circumcision as one component of HIV prevention in Africa. Just do a Google search for any phrase in that comment and you’ll see it come up over and over, and yet I can’t find any data that supports his claims. The numbers he uses also contradict two major studies conducted in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa that showed huge reductions in HIV acquisition after voluntary adult circumcision (these countries have lower rates than other African nations, particularly with large Muslim populations).
@2
It’s because everybody’s always interested in penis size. It’s a universal phenomenon. So when there’s news that an entire country is reported to have small ones, well, that’s just interesting. Italian men are reported to have the largest schlongs by the way. I can’t help but look at Italian and Indian guys in a new light.
@7 – actually, they’re kind of big, on average. At least that’s what I recall from growing up in a mostly Italian town.
Good thing I’m not small or I might have had a complex.
@6, here is another story: http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?Repo…
but why would ML try to distort an issue that he seems to be on the right side of? it doesn’t sound like he is trying to do harm by pointing out that circumcision is not an alternative to condom use.
It’s not a good alternative, but it does cut infection rates about half, Charles.
One question would be is it the circumcision itself or the cultural groups that get circumcised or dietary/etc impacts that are causing the lower infection rate. Jury is still out on that, but it is a scientific fact that circumcised men transmit HIV/AIDS less than uncircumcised men (in Africa).
You spent a lot of time in your “Italian town” looking at dicks, Will? Erect ones? Standing at the urinal doesn’t count. There’s no relationship between flaccid and erect size.
The list of things you are expert on continues to, ahem, expand.
No doubt, sex without condoms is a lot better, yet dangerous.
@11
I guess you’re a grower not a shower. Interesting.
@8 Good thing you aren’t small? That is the saddest thing I’ve ever heard.
PLEASE keep references to your junk out of it.
Ugh.
Ick.
Really.
i’ve seen a couple large South Asian wangs on Manhunt so I’m guessing that all our delicious hormone injected food might be improving American born South Asian schlong size.
the ultimate treat would be Shower/Growers…big when soft and huge when hard…
I’m so confused. Why are they promoting circumcision as an “alternative to condoms/the invisible condom” if UNCIRCUMCISED men have a lower rate of HIV? This doesn’t make sense to me…
If anything (even though either way is incorrect) shouldn’t the foreskin be seen as the “alternative to condoms”?
Am I missing something?
Ness@17:
In the late 90s, studies were showing that AIDS was spreading slower amongst circumcised people groups in Africa. Although correlation =/= causation, many mainstream reporters wrote articles about circumcision providing protection from HIV. Now, uncircumcised African men are more likely to wear condoms than circumcised men, so the HIV levels are swapping between the two groups.
This is a completely incorrect and irresponsible statistic, sourced from nowhere. Charles is tired of attacking Amanda Knox and has decided he’d rather spread misinformation instead. Good work!
Is there a cure for Africa?