Get Fee Spermox to semen pills

Could someone help me locate the source of this picture? We wish to seek permission for the use of the photograph from the copyright holder.

Desperately looking for clues.

Thanks,

Rahul

Regarding the circumcision question: For a long time I was very skeptical of the pro-circumcision argument, assuming that it was a spurious correlation due to bias on the part of the entrenched oh-so-pro-circumcision American medical establishment. I assumed the obvious counter argument (in the African context) was differential sexual behavior patterns in Muslim (circumcised) vs. non-Muslim (predominantly uncircumcised) populations. However, I couldn’t believe that medical researchers would overlook such an obvious behavioral explanation.

I’ve since done a little reading, and it seems like part of the rationale is that the interior of the foreskin is actually a moist mucous membrane, and that there are indications that the cells of that part of the foreskin actually have higher concentrations (?) of the HIV virus. When you equate the foreskin to a mucous membrane, it’s much easier to see how it might contribute to infection. Of course, that still doesn’t mean I think widespread circumcision is a great idea (I’m opposed to it in general), and I’d want to see more scientific studies of the issue, but it’s definitely an interesting correlation.

really? what about polio vaccine? the discovery of OPV was funded largely by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes), which was started as a Presidential initiative. When Salk was asked who owned the patent for OPV, he famously said that “the people” owned the patent, since the research was funded by public money. Polio vaccine is one of the biggest success stories of modern medicine, and it didn’t come from private industry.

In regards to a ‘cure’ or vaccine for AIDS, I would encourage you to examine any of the many Public-Private Product Development Partnerships (PDPs) that are working to eradicate AIDS and disease of the developing world. They are hybrid organizations that work to tap industry expertise and incentivize private investment through innovative financing mechanisms, but also work to ensure low prices and global accessibility. All new health technology innovation doesn’t have to rely solely on industry.

hey shruti: you seem to be the person to ask this question to. i’ve noticed the emergence of this term “sex worker,” presumably b/c it is less offensive than “prostitute.” where did this term start. it strikes me as more offensive than prostitute. no prostitute i know use the term . seriously, i’m just curious, where did the term come from?

Yeah, the term is used mostly in the academic and activist circles, but I don’t think it’s one of those hipster buzz words that gets thrown around so much it means nothing. The term “sex worker” is like the term “queer” in that it’s a reappropriation/reclamation of identities with negative connotations (in this case, prostitute, slut, whore, gold-digger, etc) that’s intended to be inclusive of variation and nuances. I don’t think it’s offensive for a sex worker to call herself a prostitute, but prostitution isn’t the only kind of sex related work that people do that is subject to the same set of prejudices and consequences. It accommodates for “entertainment” work (i.e. escorts, strippers, Asian women forced into massage parlors, etc) that is of a sexual nature. And remember that the word “prostitution” has accumulated its own connotations – almost all bad. I use “sex worker” as a neutral term so that I don’t end up appropriating a moral value to what they’re doing because I don’t know enough about the situation (the only one who can really tell you is the sex worker her/him/hirself).

Before I go on, please understand that I’m not dismissing or trivializing the violence women suffer because of sex work (I’m more aware of it than my poor little heart can handle). I’m just dryly explaining the context of the term “sex work”.

There’s still a pretty heated debate among the activist-academics on the nature of sex work. The focus on nuances is, obviously, a postmodern-y thing. I’m trivializing a bit, but it’s basically a privileged liberal vs. Third Worldy leftist debate. (In case you’re wondering, I hate Western liberal feminism.) Liberal feminists can only see gender as an operative in sex work, considering it synonymous to “(sex) slavery”. As Sheila Jeffreys explains:

Since the late 1960s, radical feminist theorists have analysed prostitution uncompromisingly as the ultimate in the reduction of women to sexual objects which can be bought and sold, to a sexual slavery that lies at the root of marriage and prostitution and forms the foundation of women’s oppression (Millett, 1975, Barry, 1979, 1995, Dworkin, 1983). But in the last two decades the ideas of many feminists about prostitution have changed. [Link]

(Oy! Pet peeve: I have a big fuckin’ problem with all of second wave feminism being called “radical”.) Anyway, one such Western liberal vs. Third Worldy leftist clash was when Dorchen Leidhold, co-executive of CATW to the UN in 1995, called Radhika Coomarswamy (Sri Lankan) of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women a “madame” for emphasizing, as she does here in a later address, the various other social constructs that shape and dictate the global sex trade industry, including race, caste, economics and non-Western cultural values. Given the notion that sex and gendered work (gendered, for example, in that domestic work is done by women imported from the Third World) is driven by various motives, it’s only logical to conclude that the results of sex and gendered work will also vary. Sometimes, as dabba mentioned in #62, sex work is what ultimately liberates sex workers (at least economically, which is still a huge accomplishment).

So going back to the issue of legalizing prostitution: Legalizing sex work doesn’t have to mean legalizing violence towards women or making them responsible for getting and spreading AIDS and STDs, even though it will end up like that if governments continue to make women’s health and safety a “low politics” issue. What legalization should mean is that women who choose sex work are protected. And criminalizing sex work really only criminalizes the sex workers themselves; it disenfranchises them and makes them illegal bodies, while the traffickers get away scot free because they have the agency to do so. OTOH, automatically victimizing sex workers also disenfranchises them because it uses a particular ideology (usually Western liberal feminism) to make incorrect assumptions and impose inappropriate identities and “solutions” for the “problem”, thereby denying any possibility of agency on the sex worker’s part. At the very least, especially given how enormous the global sex trade is, we should use the term “sex work” to recognize that, for better or for worse, these women and children (and sometimes men and intersexed people) are real human beings who must perform a real task/work.

For more, you can check out Ratna Kapur’s The Tragedy of Victimization Rhetoric or Kamala Kempadoo, among others.

In addition to what was already cited, there’s some discussion about whether (physiologically) there is less semen hanging around on circumcised men than on uncircumcised men. Who knows, though?

e.g., the luo in kenya are uncut, and have the highest HIV infection rates of kenyan groups.

No offense, but having lived with the Kenyan Luo I really don’t believe that circumcision is a key factor in why they have a higher HIV incidence than their neighbors, say the Luhya or Teso.

The burden of proof is upon you to make others understand why a non-air borne disease like AIDS is more debilitating to the economy than airborne/waterborne diseases like SARS, Plague, malaria, Dengue fever, Elephentiasis, lung Cancer(via second-hand smoke)

This is a total non-sequitor. The question at hand is not whether HIV/AIDS is worse or more debilitating to the economy, it is that it has a profound effect, as do malaria or dengue or TB or epilepsy or what have you. Again, if you are interested in looking at how disease – particularly acute diseases – effect the macroeconomy, then start looking at papers focused on DALYs, etc. Or you could continue to ignore everything that has been cited and written previously in this thread on that same issue.

Couldn’t it be because of different sexual mores in those countries compared to India?

This seems much more probable to me than the circumcised/uncircumcised idea, particularly because you see this [lower incidence rates] especially in Africa between countries with high Muslim populations and those without. This is really interesting once you introduce the idea of polygamy, though, which is often targeted by health NGOs as a major contributing factor to the spread of the disease and is much more sanctioned in Muslim countries than non-Muslim countries.

Also, sometimes I wonder if UNAIDS’s problematic methdology also under/overestimates incidence rates depending on the country. It could be that the crappy numbers make it even harder to adequately gauge the key routes of transmission in a particular economy.

And lastly, on the socioeconomics of HIV/AIDS, in many developing countries it is higher income individuals – especially men – who have higher incidence rates. Some argue that this is because there is an urban bias in HIV/AIDS and that poorer communities also tend to live in more rural areas where they are “sheltered” from rapid transmission, which is often facilitated by population density.

Let’s just go and give up. Besides this dude who totally owns this awesome idea is like right ALL the time. Never wrong. The dude’s so fucking awesomely contrarian and yet so abso-fcken-lutely right, he makes me wish I had his renaissance-man-like qualities and his spirit of scientific inquiry.