Circumcision

jive

concur4u? wrote: »

i wasnt on about needles oral sex perhaps?

I think the condom covers that basis as well. Any other incidences of HIV transmission are very rare.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

For men? That's pretty gender-centric wouldn't you agree?

If a man ejaculates into a woman with carrying the AIDS virus then she's pretty much ****ed (excuse the unintended pun).

This thread is about the circumcision of males? Or at least that's the impression I got from the OP.

concur4u?

jive wrote: »

I think the condom covers that basis as well. Any other incidences of HIV transmission are very rare.



This thread is about the circumcision of males? Or at least that's the impression I got from the OP.

so youve never broken 1 while hammer and tong and i dont see what a condom has to do with muff diving or hickeys or broken skin and saliva etc etc dont be so naive for your own good and her good

Chuck Stone

jive wrote: »

This thread is about the circumcision of males? Or at least that's the impression I got from the OP.

Circumcision/genital mutilation. Does it matter if it's male or female?

It's normally babies who have no choice in the matter.

I think we should try not to speak the language of those who hurt others so I feel genital mutilation has it covered..

jive

concur4u? wrote: »

so youve never broken 1 while hammer and tong and i dont see what a condom has to do with muff diving or hickeys or broken skin and saliva etc etc dont be so naive for your own good and her good

Nope I actually haven't. I reckon bursting condoms are caused more so by people putting them on wrong rather than the condoms themselves. Saliva doesn't carry HIV. Like I said all other scenarios are very rare so you're grasping at straws.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Circumcision/genital mutilation. Does it matter if it's male or female?

It's normally babies who have no choice in the matter.

I think we should try not to speak the language of those who hurt others so I feel genital mutilation has it covered..

Well there is an obvious benefit to male circumcision. Female circumcision is much rarer too. I would agree that female circumcision is merely mutilation as it provides no known benefits as far as I'm aware. Male circumcision does though. Religious people will be religious, ain't nothin' ya can do about it!

Amirani

jive wrote: »

Well there is an obvious benefit to male circumcision. Female circumcision is much rarer too. I would agree that female circumcision is merely mutilation as it provides no known benefits as far as I'm aware. Male circumcision does though. Religious people will be religious, ain't nothin' ya can do about it!

Invoke human rights? Every human has a right to not be mutilated at birth despite what any religion may claim.

Any limited benefit of male circumcision is outweighed by the dangers and consequences involved in the process.

latenia

jive wrote: »

There are medical reasons for it. There was a study a few years ago that showed circumcision may reduce the risk of contracting HIV (--->AIDS) by more than 50% in heterosexual males. While we don't have that problem here it is obviously a big advantage for large parts of the world, particularly Africa.

There was a lot of publicity and articles in the media when that study was released, unfortunately its subsequent debunking a few months later only gathered footnotes. The preventative argument is ridiculous anyway-we could eradicate breast cancer overnight by having compulsory mastectomies on all 18 year old women but I don't hear any calls for that.

Chuck Stone

jive wrote: »

Well there is an obvious benefit to male circumcision. it!

No. No there isn't.

Ghandee

The Most Quickest Circumsizer in Russia EVER was, Ivan Nackofnickinthemoff!

Loved his job!

Wibbs

Greentopia wrote: »

Perhaps you're not aiming this at me as I don't believe I have done so?
In any case I can criticise harmful beliefs and practices without the intent to cause personal insult. Some things shouldn't be given a free pass just because they're an intrinsic part of one's culture or religion.

+1. I know this can get the more extreme liberal moral relativists knickers in a bunch(and not just them), but not all cultures are equal or as advanced. Certainly not all aspects of any given culture are equal or as advanced when compared to others.

While the damage done in female genital mutilation is of course more severe, the comparisons between the two practices and the excuses given are very similar. It's culture, it's religious, it looks better, it's cleaner, they'll fit in, his/her father/mother had it done, the opposite sex prefer it. All equally bollocks.

Why is it much more acceptable in the west? Cultural history and indeed outdated 19th century medical practice and beliefs. The latter stayed current much longer in the US and since they drove a lot of 20th century culture and media this echo remains to this day. Porn being the obvious media example. As well as impossibly bosomed women, circumcised willies are the "norm". Again a lot of cobblers.

The religious angle is interesting. There's good evidence the Jews practiced a less severe form of the procedure in the past. To the degree that Jewish men could "pass" for Greeks in the classical Greek games(where the athletes were naked). The Greeks and the Romans thought the practice barbaric and the mark of the barbarian hence Christians alone among the Abrahamic faiths don't require it. Indeed it was cause for some back and forth debate in the early Christian church. The more Jewish sects were all for it. Naturally as it's in essence a Jewish faith, but the Roman and Greek followers were not. The latter won out. As they did with the more restrictive Jewish food practices.

Is it mutilation as a routine practice on newborn boys? Of course it is. It covers all the bases in the definition of mutilation. Would the same people who don't think it is accept labia removal on newborn girls for cultural/religious reasons? I highly doubt it. So the only reason they do accpet the male version is either because they're in the culture looking out, they're ignorant of the issues surrounding it or they're afraid to call out other cultures for being backward.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I didn't see this covered in the thread, so what exactly is the Jewish and Islamic religious justification for the practice?

Wibbs

Basically a minor blood sacrifice to their god dressed up in more flowery language and tradition. Blood sacrifices are common enough in religions the world over. From human to animal sacrifice down to this practice. Islam unlike Christianity copied the Jewish practice and reasoning.

jive

latenia wrote: »

There was a lot of publicity and articles in the media when that study was released, unfortunately its subsequent debunking a few months later only gathered footnotes. The preventative argument is ridiculous anyway-we could eradicate breast cancer overnight by having compulsory mastectomies on all 18 year old women but I don't hear any calls for that.

That's because the breasts serve a necessary and obvious purpose. The foreskin doesn't. It's more like removing the appendix at birth, not something to get all uppity about.

Provide links for debunking of the study, genuinely interested

niallsparky wrote: »

Invoke human rights? Every human has a right to not be mutilated at birth despite what any religion may claim.

Any limited benefit of male circumcision is outweighed by the dangers and consequences involved in the process.

I agree. I'm not for circumcision. It's inherent in certain societies and it's not going to change. Complications are rare and it's part of people's religion/tradition.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. No there isn't.

Strong statement but, unfortunately for you, you're wrong.

Off of the top of my head it reduces the risk of penile cancer and prevents phimosis. There's probably other benefits that a bit of googling would find.

greenmachine88

Where would you go in this country to be circumcised!?

nicowa

kylith wrote: »

Speaking as a woman there's really no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised except in the 'manual handling' portion of foreplay. I'd prefer a partner with a foreskin as there are several tricks that can be done with it, and I'm less worried about causing discomfort.

My partner is circumcised and I think I prefer it (apart from the "needing to be more careful in the manual handling portion", but that just need practice ).

I've spoken to him about it a few times, mostly cos I was wondering as to what would happen when we had kids. He basically said he'd never noticed a lack of sensation, or a lessening and that he simply would not have thought about not circumcising.

It's something I'm really reconsidering, espicially since reading online (not just here, and I've forgotten links). I'm pregnant at the moment so we're going to have to talk about it again and make a decision.

greenmachine88 wrote: »

Where would you go in this country to be circumcised!?

The only place I would think of would be hospital (see the thread from the guys who've had it done for medical reasons). But I wouldn't know if they do it for babies. Himself said (ages ago) that if we decided for it, he'd insist on either doing it in London by a mohel who done loads of them before cos Irish surgeons just wouldn't have the necessary experience.

Wibbs

jive wrote: »

That's because the breasts serve a necessary and obvious purpose. The foreskin doesn't. It's more like removing the appendix at birth, not something to get all uppity about.

You do realise both the appendix and foreskin do have purposes? The foreskin is there to protect the sensitive head of the penis and to keep it a quasi internal structure. There's also some evidence that it helps in intercourse and reduces the amount of friction. That's before you consider the amount of enervated tissue lost when it's removed. You may think it's not necessary, but that's as much to do with the mantra that it's not necessary, rather than any scientific fact. Every mammal has one. Evolution selected for it and retained it over tens or millions of years. What does that tell you? If it was unnecessary and vestigial it would be long gone or severely reduced by now.

Provide links for debunking of the study, genuinely interested

From what I recall other researchers found some dubious cooking of the numbers and didn't allow for other factors as rigorously as they should and were out to prove the point from the get go. Kinda long the line of Devout Muslims have far lower incidence of STD's compared to I dunno, the Dutch, therefore it's cos they've snipped willies. Rather than the fact that a devout muslim is hardly likely to slipping his willy into a large number of sex partners.

I agree. I'm not for circumcision. It's inherent in certain societies and it's not going to change. Complications are rare and it's part of people's religion/tradition.

So? Just because a group hold some daft primitive views on a subject doesn't mean it's not daft and primitive because of that.

Strong statement but, unfortunately for you, you're wrong.

Off of the top of my head it reduces the risk of penile cancer and prevents phimosis. There's probably other benefits that a bit of googling would find.

Depends where you look. In any case penile cancer is a very rare disease in the west. Even so Americans have a higher incidence of it that the Swedes, yet the latter rarely circumcise. Hows that work then? Phimosis? Of course it prevents phimosis as it removes the entire foreskin. However phimosis may be prevented or cured by less invasive methods. Sure, in extreme cases or where there are underlying medical conditions like diabetes and excess scar tissue has formed circumcision is the correct method, but it's usually lop it off as a start point. Thats bad enough practice in adults, but wholesale lopping off in newborns? That's utterly daft.

All these so called "advantages" were looked for after mostly US medical types had already decided it as a good thing and that's purely cultural(the reasons why was real victorian quackery). It's considered culturally acceptable here because it doesn't happen in a field with "pimitives" like FGM. It happens in hospitals with medical backing. Which beyond actual safety actually and objectively means jack.

I'm sure you could even tweak stats on female mutilation to support the practice if one looked hard enough. I'd be very sure such women suffer far fewer STD's than intact western women. Why? Because they're going to be coming from devout religious and cultural backgrounds. Not just Muslim BTW. Female mutilation is NOT a requirement of Islam. It's a local cultural practice and Christian and other women in such cultures also practice this daftness. Does this mean FGM is a good way to lower STD rates? Hardly.

holystungun9

tbh, I think the main reason for getting circumcised is to stop it looking like Kenny from South Park.

On a side note, as a young teen, I tried to cut the little thread of skin on the underside of the ol' helmut as it wasn't allowing the foreskin to go back. Rather than ask the embarrassing question about my member, I figured that it was the problem and I got a scissors to see if I could put a little nick in it. Scissors pinched it and the pain told me it was a bad idea.

Years of self abuse has loosened up the whole system but I can't believe I tried to do that. (Oh yeah, watching American porn where the guy is circumcised can confuse a irish lad about what it is all meant to look like down there!)

Wibbs

nicowa wrote: »

He basically said he'd never noticed a lack of sensation, or a lessening and that he simply would not have thought about not circumcising.

If he was snipped at birth how would he know what he's lost? Men snipped as adults usually get it done because of an underlying function problem, so many if not most didn't have a fully functioning penis to compare. Those who have report various results. The body will adapt and memory being what it is they can over emphasise what they've lost or indeed gained. Some men do it as part of some odd body modification fetish. Hey whatever floats your boat. That said it seems to me that he's pushing it for all the reasons outlined before and it's down to culture. Up to you, but performing an unnecessary medical procedure where losses or gains are up in the air on ones newborn strikes me as something needing more careful thought.

Himself said (ages ago) that if we decided for it, he'd insist on either doing it in London by a mohel who done loads of them before cos Irish surgeons just wouldn't have the necessary experience.

Right, so some religious bloke "operating" in a non sterile environment as part of some primitive blood rite is a better bet than a surgeon who has trained for years with full medical backup and anesthetic and follow up care? Seriously? If it was my kid and it was going to be done(though it would be after crawling over my dead body) I'd take the medical training, antiseptic and anesthetic route. Roman doctors were very good and highly practiced at resetting bones and other injuries, but if I fall out of a tree I'll call a bloke or blokess with the letters Dr before their names thanks.

jive

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise both the appendix and foreskin do have purposes? The foreskin is there to protect the sensitive head of the penis and to keep it a quasi internal structure. There's also some evidence that it helps in intercourse and reduces the amount of friction. That's before you consider the amount of enervated tissue lost when it's removed. You may think it's not necessary, but that's as much to do with the mantra that it's not necessary, rather than any scientific fact. Every mammal has one. Evolution selected for it and retained it over tens or millions of years. What does that tell you? If it was unnecessary and vestigial it would be long gone or severely reduced by now.
The appendix doesn't have any known function post neonatal in humans. It has a few possible functions. Also notice how I said necessary purpose. It's not necessary. You are in no way hindered by removing it.

From what I recall other researchers found some dubious cooking of the numbers and didn't allow for other factors as rigorously as they should and were out to prove the point from the get go. Kinda long the line of Devout Muslims have far lower incidence of STD's compared to I dunno, the Dutch, therefore it's cos they've snipped willies. Rather than the fact that a devout muslim is hardly likely to slipping his willy into a large number of sex partners.
I asked for links for the 'debunking'. I've read the original study and it's not totally conclusive (kind of impossible to prove it as fact without undergoing a completely unethical and probably illegal route) but the evidence was there to be seen.

So? Just because a group hold some daft primitive views on a subject doesn't mean it's not daft and primitive because of that.
It's not daft though because it has proven benefits.

Depends where you look. In any case penile cancer is a very rare disease in the west. Even so Americans have a higher incidence of it that the Swedes, yet the latter rarely circumcise. Hows that work then? Phimosis? Of course it prevents phimosis as it removes the entire foreskin. However phimosis may be prevented or cured by less invasive methods. Sure, in extreme cases or where there are underlying medical conditions like diabetes and excess scar tissue has formed circumcision is the correct method, but it's usually lop it off as a start point. Thats bad enough practice in adults, but wholesale lopping off in newborns? That's utterly daft.
Comparing the incidence of penile cancer in two completely different parts of the world and trying to pin it down to circumcision is utterly ridiculous so I can't even be bothered discussing it

All these so called "advantages" were looked for after mostly US medical types had already decided it as a good thing and that's purely cultural(the reasons why was real victorian quackery). It's considered culturally acceptable here because it doesn't happen in a field with "pimitives" like FGM. It happens in hospitals with medical backing. Which beyond actual safety actually and objectively means jack.

I'm sure you could even tweak stats on female mutilation to support the practice if one looked hard enough. I'd be very sure such women suffer far fewer STD's than intact western women. Why? Because they're going to be coming from devout religious and cultural backgrounds. Not just Muslim BTW. Female mutilation is NOT a requirement of Islam. It's a local cultural practice and Christian and other women in such cultures also practice this daftness. Does this mean FGM is a good way to lower STD rates? Hardly. Not sure why female circumcision is relevant. Obviously you could tweak the stats just like you could with anything. It was said that there are no benefits to male circumcision even though there are proven benefits. Do they outweigh the risks? Probably not. The fact of the matter is though is that there are beneficial aspects to it.

.

Micky Dolenz

We all have cultural things that are distasteful to others. I'm sure our culturally accpetance to drinking until you pass out/piss yourself is disgusting and barbaric to some.

I suppose I don't feel overly strongly on circumcision, however a non practising Muslim friend of mine married an Irish girl, they had kids and didn't assign a religion to them. However he wanted to circumcise his son, I chatted with them numerous times on it, poor little kid. But they got it done.

I certainly wouldn't call them primitive or disgusting.

Wibbs

jive wrote: »

The appendix doesn't have any known function post neonatal in humans. It has a few possible functions. Also notice how I said necessary purpose. It's not necessary. You are in no way hindered by removing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Other_functions untrue and surely in the absence of infection or other pathology its best to keep it? Just like a functioning foreskin which has more clearly definable functions than the appendix.

I asked for links for the 'debunking'. I've read the original study and it's not totally conclusive (kind of impossible to prove it as fact without undergoing a completely unethical and probably illegal route) but the evidence was there to be seen.

So it's not conclusive yet the evidence is to be seen? It's usually one or the other.

It's not daft though because it has proven benefits.

No, it may have some benefits, but even with those benefits other far less invasive methods have the same or better benefits than lopping off newborns foreskins.

Comparing the incidence of penile cancer in two completely different parts of the world and trying to pin it down to circumcision is utterly ridiculous so I can't even be bothered discussing it

You

---

country mile

---

point. The point is that the incidence of penile cancer in modern western societies is not due to the uptake of childhood circumcision. IE the link between the two is a lot less of an advantage than you claim. IE feck all.

Not sure why female circumcision is relevant.

Well one form of genital modification is considered utterly barbaric in our culture, but you might be able to tweak some stats to show it had some benefits. It's still barbaric and so is routine male genital modification.

It was said that there are no benefits to male circumcision even though there are proven benefits. Do they outweigh the risks? Probably not. The fact of the matter is though is that there are beneficial aspects to it.

Again no. You can keep saying this but it doesn't make it so or nearly to the degree you believe.

Micky Dolenz wrote:

We all have cultural things that are distasteful to others. I'm sure our culturally accpetance to drinking until you pass out/piss yourself is disgusting and barbaric to some.

Here we go again, moral relativism. It's a lazy argument. Just because I think some daft blood rite is primitive and barbaric, doesn't mean I then agree with drowning in your own pool of alcohol fuelled vomit is a good thing. You can't compare the two. Every culture has stupid practices, some more than others. Society keeps evolving to reduce these practices by law, knowledge and experience.

I suppose I don't feel overly strongly on circumcision, however a non practising Muslim friend of mine married an Irish girl, they had kids and didn't assign a religion to them. However he wanted to circumcise his son, I chatted with them numerous times on it, poor little kid. But they got it done.

I certainly wouldn't call them primitive or disgusting.

You're confusing the people with one aspect of their cultural decisions. I'm sure there are really sound people out there in cultures that practice FGM and lop of young girls vulvas with dirty penknives. It doesn't make then primitives or disgusting. It does make the practice itself primitive and disgusting.

Micky Dolenz

Wibbs wrote: »

Here we go again, moral relativism. It's a lazy argument. Just because I think some daft blood rite is primitive and barbaric, doesn't mean I then agree with drowning in your own pool of alcohol fuelled vomit is a good thing. You can't compare the two. Every culture has stupid practices, some more than others. Society keeps evolving to reduce these practices by law, knowledge and experience.
You're confusing the people with one aspect of their cultural decisions. I'm sure there are really sound people out there in cultures that practice FGM and lop of young girls vulvas with dirty penknives. It doesn't make then primitives or disgusting. It does make the practice itself primitive and disgusting.

You say you can't compare the two cultural differences but then you do so, by comparing male to female circumcision . They are completely different things in my book and only muddy the water.

What millions of people decide as a culture to do with their penis's is of little concern to me, it just won't be happening to me or mine. I'll save my outrage for a more worthy cause.

jive

Wibbs wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Other_functions untrue and surely in the absence of infection or other pathology its best to keep it? Just like a functioning foreskin which has more clearly definable functions than the appendix.

Proposed functions.

So it's not conclusive yet the evidence is to be seen? It's usually one or the other.

Yes it's pretty simple. The evidence strongly suggests that it does reduce the risk of contracting HIV in heterosexual males. Due to the impossibility of incorporating stringent controls it is not conclusive. Understand?

No, it may have some benefits, but even with those benefits other far less invasive methods have the same or better benefits than lopping off newborns foreskins.

Thanks for proving my argument.

You

---

country mile

---

point. The point is that the incidence of penile cancer in modern western societies is not due to the uptake of childhood circumcision. IE the link between the two is a lot less of an advantage than you claim. IE feck all.

Impossible to say though due to lack of controls. Studies have shown that it might reduce the risk. I'm skeptical myself but with this kind of thing it's hard to prove. Reducing the risk of HIV in heterosexual males, however, was very evident in the study I already mentioned (which you said has since been debunked yet failed to provide any links to the information).

"I'll save my outrage for a more worthy cause." - Micky Dolenz
QFT
I'm out

Wibbs

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

You say you can't compare the two cultural differences but then you do so, by comparing male to female circumcision . They are completely different things in my book and only muddy the water.

Eh no. Of course I compare the two. Of course you have decided that they're completely different things. You've been told in the background that it's fine and its so different to the primitives "out there". It's actually a viewpoint that's more culturally insensitive but from a different direction. But ask yourself why you think they're completely different things and conflating them muddies the waters?

Outside of degree of damage(and the least invasive form of FGM is not that much different) they're coming from exactly the same place. FGM Female genital mutilation. What occurs during this practice? The genitals of the person are changed by a procedure that removes tissue because of cultural tradition, cultural aesthetics and religious roots. Now join the dots if you will and explain to me how circumcision of newborn boys in the west is fundamentally different? Just because it happens in hospitals doesn't make the underlying reasons any more valid. Would you be ok if one of your friends who was really sound etc decided that they wanted their newborn daughters clitoral hood removed in a hospital? I seriously doubt it. Of course if you do see the comparisons it's a lot harder to justify and it makes the idea of this being carried out by non primitives closer to home a little uncomfortable to think on.

Maybe because with FGM they're attempting to reduce the sexual drive by the FGM operation and that's the issue? Read up on why routine snippage of boys was originally carried out for "medical reasons". It was pushed as an anti **** procedure. I kid thee not. That was in American medical textbooks as a positive side effect of the procedure well into the 1950's. Then again American doctors were happily doing lobotomies and all and sundry up to the 40's. Europeans and others were generally less quackish earlier.

What millions of people decide as a culture to do with their vulvas is of little concern to me, it just won't be happening to me or mine. I'll save my outrage for a more worthy cause.

FYP. Now I doubt you'd agree with that edit, so why do you agree with the original? Perhaps because your culture says it's ok so therefore it must be ok and nice people you know supported it? How is that anything approaching a cogent and objective argument for the practice? It fascinates me how usually the most confirmed moral relativist has at their core an ism more along the lines of I'm alright jack, they're alright and sure it's none of my beeswax as it's their culture you knowism. Its a tad lazy a logic and this particular subject is a beaut of an example of it.

Wibbs

jive wrote: »

Yes it's pretty simple. The evidence strongly suggests that it does reduce the risk of contracting HIV in heterosexual males. Due to the impossibility of incorporating stringent controls it is not conclusive. Understand?

So not conclusive then? Cut Africans and Americans still have a higher HIV infection rate than uncut European populations. If the evidence strongly suggests it reduces the risk there must be a helluva lot more co factors.

Thanks for proving my argument.

By not addressing the rest of the sentence thanks for proving you can't make one.

jive

Wibbs wrote: »

So not conclusive then? Cut Africans and Americans still have a higher HIV infection rate than uncut European populations. If the evidence strongly suggests it reduces the risk there must be a helluva lot more co factors.

By not addressing the rest of the sentence thanks for proving you can't make one.

Didn't address the rest of the sentence because it was too vague.

How can you have conclusive evidence? You argue that evolution kept the foreskin. The theory of evolution. Just like you can't prove evolution you can't prove the above. Use your head.

Not debating anymore because it's going nowhere and it's not worth debating in the first place because it's not a big deal.

Wibbs

jive wrote: »

Just like you can't prove evolution you can't prove the above. Use your head.

you can't prove evolution? That's your argument? oh god... Now I'm out.

jive

Wibbs wrote: »

you can't prove evolution? That's your argument? oh god... Now I'm out.

How can you prove circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV? It's a theory and a strong one based on the evidence. I like how you try to make my comparison look absurd when it's obviously not. Also provide me with the links to the debunking or don't reply to me further, thaaaaaaaaaanks!

opinion guy

jive wrote: »

There are medical reasons for it. There was a study a few years ago that showed circumcision may reduce the risk of contracting HIV (--->AIDS) by more than 50% in heterosexual males. While we don't have that problem here it is obviously a big advantage for large parts of the world, particularly Africa.

This argument annoys me.
If they did a trial for a vaccine and said - wow!!! we found that our vaccine reduces transmission in 50% of people!!! Well not people - only men. Well not all men - only straight men. Would you want the vaccine ? No. Would it justify spending money vaccination everyone ? No. Would it provide 'herd immunity' or anything like it ? No.

Why then should it be supposed justification for a surgical procedure with its associated side effects and mortality rate?
It doesn't justify this.

Then there is the danger that for some people this provides a false sense of safety in people who will think - oh well I'm circumcised I don't need a condom.

yawha

nicowa wrote: »

He basically said he'd never noticed a lack of sensation, or a lessening

Compared to what?

jive

opinion guy wrote: »

This argument annoys me.
If they did a trial for a vaccine and said - wow!!! we found that our vaccine reduces transmission in 50% of people!!! Well not people - only men. Well not all men - only straight men. Would you want the vaccine ? No. Would it justify spending money vaccination everyone ? No. Would it provide 'herd immunity' or anything like it ? No.

If I was a straight man at risk of getting it then yes I would...
You would obviously buy enough vaccine to provide immunity to the straight males. Why wouldn't you? Ever heard of the HPV vaccine no?