Out of curiosity, have you, Jos, assuming that you are male, ever gone bareback? Be honest, now.

Firstly, personal questions are irrelevant here. Secondly, no I haven't. Thirdly, what makes this whole tangent even more pointless for you to have brought up is you'll probably assume I'm lying anyway.

I hope you're not saying that only a preventative measure that is 100% effective should be allowed.

You're the one who responded to the condoms alternative by bringing up the West's nonzero STD incidence. I'm the one who replied by saying neither method is perfect but you ought to look at the actual numbers. I literally can't construe a way you could be stupid enough to think I was the one committing the all-or-nothing fallacy here.

As a circumcised male

Here comes the anecdotes-trumps-data nonsense. It's a well-established fact circumcision is deeply detrimental to sexual sensitivity.

the idea that men should have the option of deciding as an adult on whether to be circumcised is the same as saying that nobody, almost, will get circumcised. No man in his right mind would undergo that procedure which is much more painful and dangerous than it is in infancy. I know that that's what you'd prefer, but it's pretty silly. In the West, either circumcize during infancy or not at all.

And you're the one who's for circumcision? If no-one would take it, it's a bad thing. (And it does sometimes happen, usually because it's either briefly in fashion or a guy's marrying into Judaism.)

You never answered my question as to whether you object to infant circumcision in Africa, sir.

I made it quite clear I was against circumcision being performed at an age when it has no medical relevance yet, or with dangerous methods, or without the patient being old enough to consent, or without a decent medical case for it (which simply doesn't exist to the satisfaction of most of the world's experts). How much clearer does my answer have to be?

You still haven't answered, oh, pretty much anyone else's points.