Mortality Blog

A large study in Uganda involving 5,534 men found that those who underwent circumcision as adults were 25 percent less likely to become infected with herpes and more than 30 percent less likely to catch human papillomavirus (HPV) than their uncircumcised peers…. Previous research has shown that circumcision reduces a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by as much as 60 percent.

Male Circumcision Cuts Risk of HIV, Herpes, and HP Transmission [blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats]

MALE CIRCUMCISION FENDS OFF THE MOST COMMON STDS [sciencenews.org]

This is an interesting fact to learn - but I won’t be surprised when pro-circumcision groups cite this study as strengthening their argument against foreskin retention. It’s unfortunate, because even if circumcision protected males 100% against HIV, I’d still be very basically against the practice, since it would still fall squarely under preventative surgery. People who have their appendix or tonsils removed at birth have a 0% chance of developing appendicitis or tonsillitis - so why isn’t it common medical practice to have those organs removed at birth, along with the foreskin? You can live without them - but why would you want to, if it’s not necessary? In the case of a man’s foreskin, attention paid to sexual partners and use of contraception can provide 99.99% protection against all kinds of STDs, fluid-transmitted especially. Which is better - to snip off some of the most sensitive skin on a boy’s body at birth, or make sure they’ve got easy access to condoms when they’re teenagers?

I’ve got to admit that a little bit of my incredulity over the implication of the results of this study is the countries that it targets - it wasn’t conducted in the United States, and there are a lot of socio-economic factors that additionally influence infection rates. But even if that weren’t the case, I would feel the same way: that despite the latest revelations about the benefits of this practice, it’s still completely unnecessary, and arguable more harmful then helpful.

Would you get upset if you witnessed an act of racism? A new study published Thursday in the journal Science suggests many people unconsciously harbor racist attitudes, even though they see themselves as tolerant and egalitarian.

 - You may be more racist than you think, study says [cnn.com]

In short, a group of people were chosen to watch a white person interact with a black person. First the interaction was neutral, second it was racist, and finally the racism was more strongly expressed (whitey dropped the ‘nigger bomb’.) Immediately afterwards, the observers were asked to choose either the white peson or the black person for an ‘anagram test’ (whatever that is), and most chose the white person, “regardless of the severity of the comment that person made earlier.”

It goes on to point out that a second group who only experienced the interaction and partner-picking as a hypothetical situation was more likely to choose the white person if they acted racially neutral, but less likely if they were openly racist.

“Some people might think that they’re very egalitarian and they don’t have to deal with their prejudices, and that’s not related to them at all, when in actual fact they may hold these hidden biases,” Kawakami said.

The study is consistent with decades of psychology [cnn's link] research pointing to the same thing: People are really bad at predicting their own actions in socially sensitive situations.

This seems like total jumping-to-conclusions bullshit. Are the confusing racial preference for racial bigotry? In a situation where you’re supposed to choose between a white person and a black person, all other things being equal, then I guess the chances could be fifty-fifty, but I can’t see how all other things would ever be equal. Maybe the observer’s didn’t take the white person’s racial comment seriously - I know I wouldn’t. I can’t really imagine someone saying, “clumsy nigger” and meaning it. If they seemed like they were serious, I’d definitly be less likely to pick them as a partner, I suppose.

But I would say that in general I’m more attracted to white people. That doesn’t make me racist. It would be racist if I believed that people with lighter skin were more beutiful universally -but I don’t, I know that it’s just my own opinion. There’s plenty of good looking black guys, and girls, but by ‘default’ the white people are more attractive. Could something like that factor into the choice the test participants made? If I had thought that the one guy was racist, I probably would’ve said something, in a joking tone, to see if they really were serious. “Black people typically bump in to you?” “Did you really just say ‘clumsy nigger?’” If they were serious, I’d argue with them about it, if they weren’t, I’d let it go.

Yeah. This test is just poorly thought out. Making comments that could be construed as racist and then guessing at the impact those comments have on a decision process involving the commentor and an observer it way too abstract - an overtly racist act, on the other hand, such as lying to a black person but not to a white person, would most likely produce markedly different reactions.