Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths: study

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Circumcising men routinely across Africa could prevent millions of deaths from AIDS, World Health Organization researchers and colleagues reported on Monday.

They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.

Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.

So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060711/hl_nm/aids_circumcision_dc

[LeftyMom]

1. How many would be infected by non-sterile operations?

How is it easier to get doctors and surgical equipment to remote areas rather than a crate of rubbers and somebody to train a local sex educator or three?

Circumcision is still a cure in need of a disease. This one won't pan out either. They never do.

[pitohui]

3. but it HAS panned out, hasn't it?

what american man will wear a rubber w. his own wife, at least 50% of american husbands cheat on their wives -- and yet, we are not seeing any epidemic of hiv/aids among american wives, yes, it can happen occasionally but it is NOTHING like the horror seen in africa

in kenya 25 percent of people bet. age 15 and age 45 have hiv/aids!

do you expect african women to be able to force their husbands to wear rubbers any time soon, when we can't do it here where we supposedly have more rights?

there is something we are doing differently that has kept hiv/aids from spreading like wildfire in heterosexual society and it sure isn't men keeping their dicks in their pants

i think circumcision IS worth looking into because it is an obvious difference between our societies and the link is worth investigating

[LeftyMom]

5. We don't have a problem with men raping young girls as a "cure"

We also have adequate testing, and a culture that encourages non-monagamous individuals to use protection. Most importantly, we have education, which is still rather lacking in Africa on this issue.

Most of Europe has very low HIV infection rates and non-religious circumcision is largely unheard of.

[pitohui]

49. sorry i don't believe 1/4 kenyan men are rapists

it may occasionally happen that some terrified and superstitious man attacks a young girl in hopes that witchcraft will cure him but i don't think this can possibly account for the high rate of hiv/aids

these people may be poor but they have eyes in their head, they can see perfectly well that rape of virgins is not curing hiv/aids or any other illness

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. It's a hygiene issue, nothing to do with the circumcision

Every man in the US that cheats on his wife, the first thing he does is take a shower.

In a country where they don't even have enough water to drink, bathing becomes secondary.

[Jean Louise Finch]

23. Hygiene?

What on earth does this have to do with HIV transmission? Bathing after or before sex doesn't prevent anything. Yikes. Maybe I misunderstood you post?

[Sgent]

87. It probably does

Even in ancient italy, men knew that urinating immediately after visiting a prostitute would lower their chances of getting syphilis. I imagine bathing would offer similar benefits.

[heliarc]

107. Bathing in Urine?

What the hell are you talking about? Certainly cleanliness helps to prevent transmission of communicable diseases, but I don't know that bathing helps you after you've been performing coitus for any logical period of time. There're a few things about putting your unprotected penis inside another person's body (male or female) for an extended period of time that ivory soap doesn't fix.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

127. no need to be snippy, it's true

just like women with frequent bladder infections are told by doctors to urinate immediately after sex. It flushes germs out of the urethra.

[Sgent]

165. Who said anything

about Bathing in urine. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Fact: (applies to males) Urinating immediately after sex replaces secretions with urine (which is usually sterile in males) thus helping to prevent the transmission of syphilis. This has been known since ancient Rome.

Fact: Bathing after sex, or showering, has much the same effect.

The end result (lowering transmission of disease) is similar.

[LostinVA]

167. He didn't say to bath in URINE

He said that urinating immediately after sex helps stave off certain STD's... as well as BATHING right after sex. And, it does.

[heliarc]

182. Wow Democrats need to lighten up

Bathing in Urine was my extrapolation on the suggestion of others to either bath or pee after sex to cure STDs. It was meant as a joke. I know full well that these practices independent of each other do some good to prevent contracting various STDs... emphasis on "Some good" ... BUT

The danger pedagogically of suggesting that its ok for someone to wait till after sex to wash up one's dilly dally, or pee through it is what the point is here. Might I suggest, if you don't get my humour that we all stick to fighting for Condom distribution and REAL FREAKING COUNTER STD MEASURES??? PLEASE!?!? Because after all, peeing after sex doesn't help anyone else but yourself. Unless of course your partner is into Golden Showers and the like.

[LostinVA]

183. I am "lightened" up

The way you wrote it didn't sound like a joke. I just reread it to make sure, and I was correct -- it doesn't. Also evidenced by other posters' reactions. Might I suggest if you want people to get your humor you write it as such, or attach one of the many humorous comment smilies available?

Just curious.... what do you mean by your subject header?

[heliarc]

204. I find that as a group we take things very literally...

and have trouble improvising or enjoying banter. Bathing in Urine was meant for what it is... A conflation of the two things you argued were beneficial... I took it a step further and suggested we bathe in urine.

[Phillycat]

185. "Democrats need to lighten up"?

And what are you, if not a Democrat?

[heliarc]

205. I'm a registered democrat.

But I come from a long and proud line of lefties who were exiled from Chile in 1973. A place where "democratic party" is synonymous with "complicity with torture." That's a long way from the US and our democratic party, but look at Joe Lieberman and you start to wonder. You want to draw battle lines on the suggestion that I don't belong in this forum? Well, we probably both need to lighten up.

[joshcryer]

125. The foreskin is very sensitive...

It requires great care, otherwise it will get sores, and be generally prone to infections. Regular cleaning will prevent sores from forming.

[heliarc]

206. I love this post.

Don't take it the wrong way, because I am sympathetic to the penis being a man and all, but it almost sounds like the post should be the beginning of a song sung by Cartman of South Park. An Elegaic hymn in praise of the foreskin. Come on men. Let's all sing it together... "The foreskin is very sensitive." Sorry, thought I'd try to be funny again. I'm batting 0 today in the funny department.

[HuckleB]

103. I have a feeling you're right.

I suspect this policy will be shown to be disastrous down the road, as a false sense of security is developed.

[joshcryer]

124. Not "nothing" to do with circumcision...

Hygine plays the primary role here, but obviously one is more practical to care for than the other. Especially in a country without, you know, clean running water.

Circumcision would be a stop gap, not an end all. It would be the cheapest way to get it done. Really, let's just bring back ritualistic circumcision, win win.

[Common Sense Party]

20. WTF? Link, please?

"at least 50% of american husbands cheat on their wives"

Really?

[wicket]

31. The rate of divorce is 50%

But not all divorces are caused by infidelity. I'd like to see the stats on that too.

[Common Sense Party]

41. I don't even believe the rate of divorce is 50%. Seems way too high.

50% of second marriages end in divorce? That I'd believe.

50% of marriages of people younger than 25 end in divorce? Yeah, I'd buy that.

But HALF of ALL marriages end in divorce? Not the marriages I know.

[pitohui]

48. so you believe personal anecdote rather than statistics?

almost 1 in 2 american marriages end in divorce, and this has been the case for over 2 decades, it is simply not in dispute

yes, you may personally know a few couples who have only married once, hell, i have married once and never divorced, but i had one great aunt who married 8 times -- 6 times the marriages were ended by divorce and only twice by the man's death, while that is as rare or more rare than the person who marries only once and never divorces, many many many many people have married twice and have a starter marriage in their background, it all averages out

we can't put "not the marriages i know" as higher proof than statistics collected regularly for two or three decades by census dept, irs, etc. -- trust me, the gov't makes it their business to know who is married, that's why all the paperwork

[teknomanzer]

57. All of you need to do a little research apparently...

Just by googling I discovered that the divorce rate has never reach 1 out of 2. that number was reached by statistical error. In addition the divorce rate is declining.

But I believe we were talking about AIDS and circumcision. What happened to that topic?

[spooky3]

91. according to this site, the answer is not that clear

http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html

[pnwmom]

158. The statistic actually is in dispute.

Because it compares apples and oranges -- the number of divorces (involving marriages that occurred over any number of years) vs. marriages in any given year. But that doesn't have a predictive value for the future of a marriage made today.

[happyslug]

79. One of two marriages fail....Which means one out of two last for life

First the statistics used is MARRIAGES. If I have 10 people, 9 marry once and one marries 11 times what is the divorce rate? One out of two marriages or 50%, Total marriages 20, divided by total people 10. Thus the divorce statistics is skewed by people who marry and divorce several times.

The rates I have read is 50% of FIRST marriages do NOT end in Divorce, and something like 75% of Second Marriages do NOT end in Divorce (The spouses get it right the second time). The remaining 10-15% (Remember the 75% is 75% of the 50% of already divorced people NOT 75% of ALL marriages) the population marries more than twice (and often much more than twice, 5-10 times are NOT unheard of). These people account for most of the divorces and do to their multiple divorces gets the total divorce rate of ALL marriages to the 50% rate.

Basically 50% is a statistical stat that should be ignored not debated.

[Common Sense Party]

146. Very interesting, and what I suspected. Thanks for info. nt

[Common Sense Party]

77. I think the rate of divorce is closer to 40%, much less for some

demographics.

FWIW:

Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think
By DAN HURLEY
The New York Times
April 19, 2005

How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
campaign speeches.

The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is
to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.
Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers
say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that
the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch
downward.

"At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect
any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M.
Kreider, a demographer in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the
Census Bureau.

Two years ago, based on a 1996 survey, she and another demographer at the
bureau predicted that if trends then in place held steady, the divorce rate
for some age groups might eventually hit the 50 percent mark. But in
February, the bureau issued a new report, based on 2001 data and written by
Dr. Kreider.

According to the report, for people born in 1955 or later, "the proportion
ever divorced had actually declined," compared with those among people born
earlier. And, compared with women married before 1975, those married since
1975 had slightly better odds of reaching their 10th and 15th wedding
anniversaries with their marriages still intact.

The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 survey was 41 percent for men who
were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same
age group.

Researchers say that the small drop in the overall divorce rate is caused by
a steep decline in the rate among college graduates. As a result, a "divorce
divide" has opened up between those with and without college degrees, said
Dr. Steven P. Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University
of Maryland.

"Families with highly educated mothers and families with less educated
mothers are clearly moving in opposite directions," Dr. Martin wrote in a
paper that has not yet been published but has been presented and widely
discussed at scientific meetings.

As the overall divorce rates shot up from the early 1960's through the late
1970's, Dr. Martin found, the divorce rate for women with college degrees
and those without moved in lockstep, with graduates consistently having
about one-third to one-fourth the divorce rate of nongraduates.

But since 1980, the two groups have taken diverging paths. Women without
undergraduate degrees have remained at about the same rate, their risk of
divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage hovering at
around 35 percent. But for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first
10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married
between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and
1979.

About 60 percent of all marriages that eventually end in divorce do so
within the first 10 years, researchers say. If that continues to hold true,
the divorce rate for college graduates who married between 1990 and 1994
would end up at only about 25 percent, compared to well over 50 percent for
those without a four-year college degree.

"It's a big wow sort of story," Dr. Martin said. "I've been looking for two
years at other data sets to see if it's wrong, but it really looks like it's
happening."

Still, some researchers remain skeptical about the significance of the small
drop in overall divorce rates.

"The crude divorce rate has been going down," said Dr. Andrew J. Cherlin,
professor of public policy in the sociology department at Johns Hopkins.
"But whether the rates will ultimately reach 45 percent or 50 percent over
the next few decades are just projections. None of them are ironclad."

Dr. Larry Bumpass, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of
Wisconsin's Center for Demography and Ecology, has long held that divorce
rates will eventually reach or exceed 50 percent. In an interview, he said
that it was "probably right" that the official divorce statistics might fall
below 50 percent, but that the rate would still be close.

"About half is still a very sensible statement," he said.

What all experts do agree on is that, after more than a century of rising
divorce rates in the United States, the rates abruptly stopped going up
around 1980.

Part of the uncertainty about the most recent trends derives from the fact
that no detailed annual figures have been available since 1996, when the
National Center for Health Statistics stopped collecting detailed data from
states on the age, income, education and race of people who divorced.

As a result, estimates from surveys have had to fill in the gaps.

"The government has dropped the ball on data collection," said Dr. David
Popenoe, professor of sociology and co-director of the National Marriage
Project at Rutgers University.

Joshua R. Goldstein, associate professor of sociology and public affairs at
Princeton's Office of Population Research, said the loss of detailed
government data, coming at a time when divorce rates were at their highest,
might have distorted not only public perception, but people's behavior.

"Expectations of high divorce are in some ways self-fulfilling," he said.
"That's a partial explanation for why rates went up in the 1970's."

As word gets out that rates have tempered or actually begun to fall, Dr.
Goldstein added, "It could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in the other
direction."

[pitohui]

47. you never heard of the hite report?

there used to be an active study of sexology and sexual politics in the 1970s, no one ever disputed that at least 50 percent of married american men cheat, i've never seen a study lower altho it's true it doesn't seem a popular area of study these days

but let's be honest w. ourselves, that's the 50 percent that admits to it, the rest conveniently forgets the occasional "slips"

the infidelity rate among american women is also quite high

don't even pretend you don't know what i'm talking abt, no one is kidding anyone, we all know what the world is

this is not the church social, we don't have to pretend that grown men and women never fool around

[Common Sense Party]

61. Sounds like bullshit to me.

[Common Sense Party]

78. I would say it's much, much lower than 50%.

Let's be clear. I never saidf this was a "church social." That's ridiculous. I know some people cheat. But half of all married men? Bullshit.

ABC Primetime did their own poll a while back. They came back with a much lower number:

>>All told, 16 percent of adults say they've strayed from a committed relationship, including 14 percent who've had sex outside of that relationship, and two percent who've had sexual activity but not intercourse. Twenty-one percent of men say they've cheated, as have 11 percent of women.


>>As noted, people who are not satisfied with their sex lives are most likely to have strayed, as are single men over 30 (that includes divorced, separated and widowed men, as well as never-marrieds). People 50 and older in general are more likely than younger adults to have cheated.





Now, I'd say that poll came in pretty low, but 50% is way too high.

[Phillycat]

173. Bullshit. All men cheat. I'm guessing 50% is way too low. nt

[heliarc]

177. Bullshit to you too

Do I detect some bitterness? I've never cheated on any of my partners EVER in my entire life. I'm a man... Speak for yourself. Also, there happen to be a decent size chunk of the population that have threesomes and group sex too, so don't include those people in your bitter understanding of the human condition either. This in no way is meant to defend the weaker sex (by this old canard I mean the male sex)... They've got plenty of problems for sure, but you can't just say all men cheat. Don't be stupid.

[Phillycat]

184. I am neither stupid nor bitter.

I am, however, familiar with the DU rules, which prohibit namecalling. Please adhere to them.

I am a realist. If you haven't cheated, it's because the right opportunity hasn't come along.

[Umbram]

197. I'm familiar with the DU rules as well

When discussing...gender...please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their...gender....

[heliarc]

203. You began this with cursing... so don't harp on the rules.

I continued on your level of discourse. I certainly didn't call you a name. I merely described your highly scientific statistical approach -sarcasm- which frankly is best described as stupid. Someone can be stupid without staying that way. The act of being stupid isn't permanent I hope. Don't prove me wrong.

So let me get your current logic. I haven't cheated because the right opportunity hasn't come along??? When is it the right opportunity to be dishonest with someone you've committed to? I'm a realist too. I don't commit to someone I don't have the willpower to be completely honest with. That rule is pretty much the rule I live by, and it's a good rule when applied to all of the relationships I have with people sexual or not. It even goes for saying I'll go to a party. If I can't I call ahead and tell my friend why. In the past if I wasn't right there in the relationship enough to continue, or I had the opportunity you suggest is there from time to time, I had the integrity and decency to break things off with my partner before moving on. I find it hard to believe that this sort of integrity is limited only to me. I'm certain there must be others like me who simply can't live with the double standard you suggest is unavoidable. Male or Female, these people exist.

And I'm pretty sure that at any one time there are probably a comparable number of women cheating as well. That may be a generalization too, but I'm not speaking in superlatives like you were. In the end whether or not the study is sullied by bad data, poor questioning, or lack of anonymity, this is an awfully hard thing to research and create statistics for, don't muddy the process by arguing yourself into a hole with claims you can't support.

[maxsolomon]

190. define 'cheat'

looking ain't cheating. flirting ain't cheating.

in my mind, cheating involves physical intimacy.

[heliarc]

108. On the contrary

The church social is exactly what condones extramarital affairs. God forgives sinners... just have faith in the lord. At least that's what Jim Baker taught me. Oral Roberts too... Oh and Jerry Falwell. That's the best safety net ever!

Come to think of it... I'm going to join a church. -sarcasm-

[varun]

24. European, Australian and Asian men are uncut

why is HIV rate lower there than US?

[cprise]

32. Don't mention that-- Makes too much sense!

n/t

[NickB79]

37. Asia's HIV numbers are skyrocketting

As for European and Australian rates, it has been posited that there are certain genes found in Caucasians that reduce the risk of contracting HIV as compared to Asians or Africans.

Google information on the CCR5 gene and you will find plenty of reading material, such as this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9466996&dopt=Abstract

"A mutant allele of the CCR5 gene, Delta ccr5 , was shown to provide to homozygotes with a strong resistance against infection by HIV."

[pitohui]

50. ok i have heard that theory of the CCR5 gene as well

i just think we need to investigate all possible avenues because there is really not a time left for a lot of these people

unfortunately the "protective gene" angle does NOTHING to help out people who didn't happen to be born w. this gene

[varun]

63. Asians in US have the lowest HIV rates

and Blacks who are usually circumcized have higher rates than latinos who are uncut...

[NickB79]

65. I specified Asians, not Asian-Americans

For example, China's HIV cases are unknown but speculation is that they could be be over 10 million.

India, Thailand, Malaysia, all are experiencing an HIV epidemic.

As for Asian-Americans, they also have one of, if not the highest, average income levels of non-Caucasian US citizens. As other posters in this thread have stated, poverty has a great deal to do with HIV infection rates.

Since 10% of all African-American men are currently in US prisons, it doesn't surprise me that their HIV rates are much higher, circumcized or not. For example:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

"At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males."

Black men have an incarceration rate 3X that of Hispanics. Hmmm, large numbers of men in confined areas for years on end, I wonder if that could have an effect on HIV rates amongst the black community?

[cprise]

75. A very weak-to-nonexistant case

...for slicing 1/2 the skin area and nerves off of a boy's penis.

"We can't help but keep throwing black men into prison with abandon, so hopefully they'll all be circumsized for their protection." Which, uh, isn't protecting them.

[merwin]

133. So do people with big dicks enjoy sex more than people with small ones?

There's half as many nerves on someone with a small penis than there is on someone with a large one. Does that mean that the person with the small penis is now inferior and does not derive as much pleasure from sex?

[varun]

171. quite the opposite

the number of nerves are about the same...just more concentrated in a small dick

[happyslug]

89. But most new case of HIV in the US are Drug related (Dirty Needles).

Thus circumcision will have NO effect (or very little affect) on these types of cases. Circumcision helps against SEXUAL transmission of the Disease (The norm in Africa) as opposed to using contaminated Needles (The norm in the US). Furthermore Europe does a lot more needle Exchange then we do in the US.

[pitohui]

110. absolutely

as i said at the very start of the thread, there is some reason that heterosexual transmission of HIV/AIDS is rare in north america yet common in africa -- and it is not because married men in north america don't cheat, i gave up on that part of the thread when i realized how far people are in denial abt the actual rates of extra-marital sex in usa

we need to identify the reason for the diference in heterosexual transmission rates

if the reason is the special gene, OK, that's pretty frigging useless, since we can't change people's genes

but if the reason is the circumcision or another cultural reason that can be changed, that is a good thing to know because we could start helping people immediately

WHO seems to think circumcision would help and i think it's worth a try if people are willing to accept it for their sons

[varun]

70. Do we have data comparing

caucasians in Europe and US?

[joshcryer]

123. European and Australian men have access to clean water.

Asian men do too, but they are also a culture of family oriented people, who tend to place monogamy with high regard. But HIV still is rising in Asia.

[redqueen]

188. Monogamy is highly-regarded in Asia?

A co-worker of mine travels there often and says the opposite... hmmm.

[joshcryer]

196. The vast majority of the Chinese population lives no where near...

...where travellers go. Read up a bit on "Chinese culture." It's interesting stuff.

[redqueen]

207. I was thinking more of Japan. n/t

[Scairp]

151. Hmmm

This kind of thing does not sit well with my British born husband. He is vehemently opposed to circs. Personally, I have a hard time believing that this could make a significant impact in AIDS infections. I think it would be better to promote condom use and convince husbands not to have sex with anything that moves and then go home to their unprotected wives.

[truthisfreedom]

2. anything that helps is a good idea. it's hard for the far-right to attack

circumcision. real hard.

[varkam]

4. I wouldn't put it past them n/t

[customerserviceguy]

76. Frankly

I've not seen the right wing attack circumcision, but I have seen it in the "earth mother" types that are nominally liberal. I had a hell of a hard time getting my boys circumcised in Group Health's system, they were infused with the most radical parts of the whole natural childbirth thing. The trump card was my own circumstances, I needed to have a circ done at 18, and the idea that my boys might have my condition was enough to convince them to do it.

[silverojo]

7. It's a truly disgusting "study", and questionable at that

It's just more propaganda for the proponents of male genital mutilation. I'm too tired to look up links to stories that make it clear how much BS this "study" is, but if you Google "male genital mutilation", you'll find tons of them.

[qazplm]

8. oh goodness

male genital mutilation??

I suppose snipping the cord is Umbilical mutilation?

This is not like female gential mutilation, which is done to diminish or even get rid of the ability of a woman to have an orgasm.

[joefree1]

28. Male mutilation was started to stop the use of foreskin for mastubation

I don't think that anyone was worried about HIV infection when when they started cutting off the fore skin thousands of years ago. Now it's more about getting that extra fee for the procedure after the birth of a male child.

Here's some good info on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

[Viva_La_Revolution]

84. as the mother of 3 circumcised boys, yes it is mutilation

unfortunately I was uninformed when they were born, and I had no idea that making them "look like daddy" was actually so destructive.

I just apologized to my oldest, who is sitting here with me.

"If I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't have had it done, you know it removes like half of the nerves..."

"don't worry about it, it feels fine"

:rofl:


damn, I love my boys!

[pnwmom]

162. LOL! n/t

How old is your oldest? I can't quite imagine having that conversation with mine . . . maybe in ten or twenty years?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

170. just turned 20

Luckily, we can talk about most anything. :)

[pnwmom]

178. That's wonderful.

My daughter and I do, but my son's much more private.

But I was too at his age, so what can I expect?

[NickB79]

9. This is from the World Health Organization

Probably the premiere health organization in the world. I would wager that the vast majority of men in the WHO are uncircumsized (it is far less common outside the US). Why would an organization comprised largely of uncircumsized men want to be proponents of circumsizion if it serves no useful purpose? Are they in the pockets of Big Used-Foreskin?

[merwin]

13. There seems to be an endless number of people who look at these

studies that come out fairly often and cry "The study is flawed". However, none of them perform their own studies of the same situation... maybe it's because they're afraid of the results?

[pitohui]

51. that's what i thought as well

why would WHO promote this if they didn't see some hope here?

sometimes people see conspiracy where there is no reason for conspiracy

[Nutmegger]

11. Will Google pass this search info along to Agent Smith?

Just wondering...

[robcon]

26. Your definition of propaganda: I don't like your conclusions

If you're too tired to link, why don't you just skipping your slanted view of a medical study.

[fleabert]

144. you are fighting a losing battle with these circ supporters.

I have tried, to no avail, on numerous occasions. If you have the will, you have my kudos. :hug:

they just don't understand how we crazies might not agree with cutting off another person's body part without their consent.

[merwin]

152. Parents do a lot of things to children without their consent.

Such as baptism (if it's in your religion), vaccinations, choosing natural medicine or prescription medication, choosing cloth or disposable diapers, etc. It's all choices that parents make for their child simply because the child cannot make that decision themselves.

You'd be hard pressed to find a circumcised man who thinks he's "missing out" on anything because of it, or that his sex life is somehow diminished. Sex, like many things, is mostly a mental experience. That's why many people can get off without even inserting their penis inside of anything at all.

[fleabert]

186. i think we have gone round and round on this before.

I can't believe anyone would seriously compare cutting off a piece of another person's genitalia with diapers or drizzling water on the head.

People CAN choose to get a circ, after they are an adult- just like a tattoo.

http://tinyurl.com/kwkop

[merwin]

191. Nice selective caring :-)

To many people, 'drizzling watter on the head' is an eternal decision.

Seriously though, it seems like the only people who really seem to get worked up about this issue are people who ARE NOT circumcised. I've never met a single circumcised person who regards this as mutilation, or feels as if their pleasure is diminished in any way.

[fleabert]

202. did you click on the link?

seems there are some who miss what they don't remember having, and weren't involved in deciding to remove.

there are two effective AIDS preventatives that don't involve forced surgery: condoms and abstinence.

More education and the church getting behind condom use would make way more sense to me that forced infant circ.

you know what prevents cervical cancer? hysterectomy. It's that stupid to me to force circ on infants to prevent a sexually transmitted virus.

The water comment to highlight the fact that the act itself is not physically changing the child's genitalia, yes it's really important and life changing for those that choose to do it, but whatever- it's not surgery.

[pnwmom]

159. This is a new, long term, very large scale, controlled study,

designed by the World Health Organization to determine whether other mitigating factors are at the bottom of the differences that previous studies have shown in the HIV rate in circumcised vs. uncircumcised males. So far the results show that there are real differences in the HIV rate, even after accounting for different cultural practices, hygience practices, promiscuity, etc.

The "tons" of stories you refer to are old stories, based on old research. This research trumps them all. Nothing comparable has been carried out by any other group of researchers.

[Bigmack]

10. "Dry Sex" compounds the problem...

"Dry, abrasive vaginas are seen as desirable in sexual intercourse in the vast majority of southern African cultures, notes an article in Tuesday's Village Voice. Aversion to moisture in penetration has inflamed the HIV/AIDS epidemic in this region.

Many men and women regard the smell of vaginal secretions as repulsive, the report says, plus they're embarrassed by the noise of wet sex. Dry vaginas that are swollen with friction are also tighter; this pleases the men because it makes them feel larger. One common belief holds that loose, slippery vaginas are evidence of infidelity.

Dry sex promulgates HIV/AIDS in three ways: The lack of lubricant results in lacerations in the delicate membrane tissue, making it easier for the lethal virus to enter. In addition, the natural antiseptic lactobacilli that vaginal moisture contains aren't available to combat sexually transmitted diseases. Finally, condoms break far more easily due to the increased friction.

Sub-Saharan women attain this dryness in various ways. Herbs from the mugugudhu tree are wrapped in a nylon stocking and inserted into the vagina for 10-15 minutes in a procedure that one woman described as "very painful." Mutendo wegudo (dry soil where a baboon has urinated) is a traditional Zimbabwean recipe. A crushed stone called "wankie" is also utilized, reports the Oct. 23, 1998, World African Network, as are potions called chimhandara ("like a virgin" in Shona) and zvanamina ("taste me only" in Ndebele). Shredded newspapers, cotton, salt and detergents are also used."

http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/10/drysex/

[shanti]

16. dry sex

is PAINFUL sex for a woman. lubrication signals "readiness". this is truly sickening that this is considered a "good" thing. it's extremely close to rape. :(

[B3Nut]

36. I don't see how it could be enjoyable by any stretch

by either participant. Those men down there must not have any nerves in their...um...protrusions.

I read of this and can only say Ouch. Those poor women...then there's genital mutilation...shit a brick....

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Viva_La_Revolution]

85. I had no idea!

of course this would compound the problem.

Those poor women!

[queerart]

12. Some Info

Should anyone want to do some reading

http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm

[merwin]

14. Very "Fair and balanced" website.

I just love how it presents both sides of the issue :-)

[queerart]

15. I'm Guessing Something Is Only Fair And Balanced.......

If it backs up one's own theory/belief on the subject?

A Little Like Fox News....... ;-)

[merwin]

17. An informational website should be either non-biased, or clearly state

their position on their front page. This one hides behind the premise of being a non-biased website... however, looking at their suggested reading:

* Medical bibliography
* Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma; How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All
* The Joy of Uncircumcising! Exploring Circumcision: History, Myths, Psychology, Restoration, Sexual Pleasure and Human Rights
* Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective
* Say No to Circumcision!: 40 compelling reasons why you should respect his birthright and keep your son whole
* Awakenings: A Preliminary Poll of Circumcised Men — Revealing the Long-Term Harm and Healing the Wounds of Infant Circumcision
* Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy
The list goes on...

Personally, my son slept through the entire event... the wound didn't bug him either. Unless he's the kind who secretly represses his pain and is going to let it out as a teenager where he kills our entire family. :sarcasm:

[anotherdrew]

58. it IS non-biased -. there is NO good reason for Circumcision

condoms would stop a lot of AIDS deaths too. so would a lot of other things...

[NickB79]

64. Good reason: circumcision reduces HIV exposure

When the condom breaks due to dry sex (which happens quite often) the uncircumcized man will be a a much greater risk of exposure to HIV than the circumcized man.

That's the whole point of this study: there is no one silver bullet to stopping HIV, so we have to look at all feasible approaches to REDUCING exposure.

Until the day comes that they will have a 100% effective cure or vaccine against HIV, all we can do is limit exposure to the virus.

[Megahurtz]

66. Agreed!

There is no good reason for circumcision.
It's a cruel and heinous act based on Religion
and the fear and loathing of sex down through History.
(i.e. sex is "dirty")

[merwin]

83. Actually, the medical reason for it is that in places where people do not

shower on a daily, or even weekly basis. And for those who say that you can just teach your child how to clean himself... look at how hard it is to get them to clean their teeth properly, let alone their kibbles and bits. Now try that in a third world country.

If these studies are flawed, tell me how they are flawed. Provide proof that they are flawed. Provide research in the same situations that prove the opposite. All I hear is people saying that the studies are obviously flawed and inaccurate, but no reasons why.

And for the "It's a coincidence" answer, or "There's no proof that the circumcision is what is causing the lower HIV rates"... well then join in with the tobacco companies. There's no 100% hard proof that tobacco use or second hand smoke causes cancer. Yet somehow, the majority of smokers die of some form of cancer. Interesting coincidence, I bet.

[Cronus Protagonist]

101. I can clean under my foreskin with a simple procedure not requiring water

And so can every single uncircumcised male in the world. It's called "spit" and it works wonders. Soap, which is drying and chemically abrasive, should not be used on an uncircumcised penis, BTW, as the glans is not calloused and the shaft directly beneath the glans is not covered in scar tissue like it is with circumcised males.

Condoms work better, are enourmously cheaper, readily available, do not require any surgery, carry no risk of infection and they prevent other diseases too, some of which are also fatal. One wonders why they would promote a method that is inferior and costly over one that works better and is cheaper.

Perhaps the researchers are justifying their own scars.... like you? I'm just mentioning that so you can think about it, as I don't know why you would be so pro-mutilation. Anyone who has a foreskin cringes at the thought of losing the most eroginous zone in their entire body, yet you seem so cavalier about it that I doubt you've ever known what it's like to be fully functional.



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[AngryAmish]

105. Lots of men won't use condoms

Even folks educated about HIV. Guys get drunk, count on luck, etc.

Condoms only work when used.

[Cronus Protagonist]

114. So your argument is cut them up so they don't have to remember condoms?

I'm almost sorry it's not 1943 as you could get a job helping Mengele in the Nazi SS camps. Perhaps we should cut off your lips so you don't have to remember to clean your teeth and you won't get cold sores on your lips, which won't be there any more.

:evilgrin:

[AngryAmish]

172. If you must know

I happen to be circumcised myself. I don't remember the procedure since I was days old. I certainly enjoy sex.

I don't feel mutilated. If there is something missing from my sex life I would like to know.

Obviously you feel very emotional about this. Respectfully I ask, why? I for one believe that if I lived in an area where HIV was endemic I would have my son circumcised because of the reduced risk of HIV just as I will have my daughter take the anti-HPV vaccine to protect her.

[varun]

106. you dont even need spit

when urinating, one can pinch the opening of the foreskin, collecting some urine around the glans. Then, one can wash the glans with urine (which is sterile), without touching the urine.

[Cronus Protagonist]

113. Hahaha I know about that too, but didn't mention it

I prefer spit or just a little rub with my thumb and/or perhaps a clean towel when I can't have a shower. I know a lot of people here in the US are disgusted by the normal operations of the human body, so I ommitted that option. Perhaps that squeamishness is part of the problem, or a result of decades of pro-cutting propaganda in the US over the issue - I think the latter, but who could know for sure?

[merwin]

128. Like most sensation, it is 90% mental, 10% physical.

Some women get off from having their nipples massaged... does that mean that a nipple piercing is mutilation? The hair on your body adds to sensations... does that mean that you shouldn't shave?

Here's the question that our OB posed to my wife and I when we were making the decision... "Do you, or any other circumcised men you know, feel that sex is not as pleasurable as it could be?". The answer was a very clear NO. Every circumcised man that I know derives a tremendous amount of pleasure from sex. Would it be even more pleasurable if uncircumcised? Nobody knows... But I do know that every human in the world experiences sex in a different way, uncircumcised or not.

[joshcryer]

135. Have you gone a month without bathing in clean running water?

If not I don't believe you have any basis for comparison. You might not use direct soap, but your hands are largely sterile when you bathe, and any excess grime does get rinsed away.

[Cronus Protagonist]

139. No, but I can spit every day of the month

And my penis never gets dirty anyway, beause I have a forskin to protect it. the only cleaning we're talking about here is washing away a few collected skin cells. Are you claiming that exposing my glans to the jungle or desert would be cleaner than having in-built protection?

I guess I don't understand your point because that's clearly not a valid argument so you couldn't be making it.

[joshcryer]

142. You say you "can" but in practice you don't.

Do it. Let's do the experiment. Have fun with that.

[Cronus Protagonist]

147. You don't have to believe me when I tell you my dick is always clean

But to believe your own projection in the face of my assertion to the contrary may be a sign of madness. Additionally, HIV is not caused by an unwashed dick, so your claim that I don't clean my dick isn't even germaine, let alone true.

[joshcryer]

193. I didn't say you didn't.

You're projecting some mythical cleanliness level on people who hardly have access to an environment where they may be clean. We're talking about people living in squalor. You no basis for comparison with them.

[LostinVA]

168. Saliva isn't even close to being sterile

Cleaning it with tea or coffee would be better. Even Coke.

[pnwmom]

180. They are NOT promoting circ OVER condoms. They're promoting BOTH

used TOGETHER, because together they provide more protection than condoms alone or circumcisions alone.

And they need to do everything possible to reduce HIV because the fraction of the population already infected is horrendous -- an emergency not comparable to anything we have here.

[pnwmom]

181. This research shows that condoms PLUS circumcisions is MORE effective

than either condoms alone or circumcisions alone. The WHO is strongly advising people to continue using condoms, whatever they decide about circumcision.

[Cronus Protagonist]

100. Hahaha you must work for Fox News, right?

In any case, you would be a perfect fit there....
:evilgrin:



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[pnwmom]

18. The info on that site is outdated and doesn't take into account

the large scale, controlled studies on HIV transmission that the World Health has been conducting in Africa.

[MrPrax]

19. The stats are interesting...

Not sure about the rest of the site...it seems to be against circumsion...

–Canada: <17% overall in 1996-97, with large regional variations.
–U.S.: 57.2% circumcised before leaving hospital in 1998.
–Australia: 12.1% circumcised in 2000.

The huge discrepency at first glance would seem to be Australia and Canada have single payer medical systems and the US doesn't. Circumsion in Canada is optional -- you have to pay for it. It's not covered and for good reason -- it's not necessary.

In the US, it would seem that the medical industry is still using fear tactics to 'lard' out the maternity bill with unnecessary surguries. It's nuts to expose a newborn to unnecessary surgery that simply overloads their little immune systems...primitive.

[applegrove]

21. Let's see the RW take on that!

[Megahurtz]

67. Oh they would love it!

I'm sure they would say that it's "God's will" to be circumcised.:sarcasm:

[applegrove]

126. If it is healthy..it is healthy. I'm wondering what the take on it being

good on the fight on aids will be. Cause they care so very much about that in the rest of the world.:sarcasm:

[Up2Late]

22. Oh, Not this Lie again! I heard that back in the 1950-60's...

...the Medical community or the Government pushed this "...Circumcision prevents diseases ..." as "common knowledge," but it actually wasn't based on any research or proof.

Anyone know if that's true?

[Bridget Burke]

25. Ask the World Health Organization....

The source of the study.

[robcon]

27. The resistance to science is amazing on this thread.

It really is hard to penetrate people who don't want this study to be true.

I could understand some listing of counter-results. But the bleat on this thread is a series of unscientific attempts to ridicule the science instead of face it.

[DavidDvorkin]

29. It's the standard reaction to data favoring circumcision

The wildly emotional reaction to male circumcision has always been hard for me to fathom. It seems to be increasing as the years pass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

35. I feel like I'm reading a Freeper thread about global warming

Over the past couple weeks, I've seen a couple studies released and witnessed an approximately 80-90% denial rate -- simply because the science doesn't back their own personal beliefs.

It's astonishing and rather sad. How are "we" ever going to wake people up to the reality of global warming when "we" cherry-pick the science that we want to believe??? (I'll go ahead and tell you the answer: it ain't gonna happen.)

[stanwyck]

98. I'm with you, Tyrone

it's as though the "23%" that John Dean talks about in his new book who will never - despite facts upon facts - will ever waver from their carved in stone beliefs have jumped on this thread.
We've got our own little fundamentalists here, haven't we? Never mind the science. Never mind the facts.
It's anti-circumcision creationist theory and no amount of "science" is going to change their closed down minds.

Thanks for your post.

[rinsd]

118. Nail meet head....

[pnwmom]

179. Good point, Tyrone. The two major studies currently being conducted

in Africa are THE definitive studies, and yet so many people here are treating them like "junk science."

[FreeState]

56. True or not a condom will work even better.

What ever the science says here, one can not just look at this one piece of the puzzle and say - oh we need to start circumcising these people. Would it not be cheaper and more effective to educate and supply developing countries with condoms? After all if someone is circumcised and has sex without a condom the likelihood of spreading HIV is higher than when a condom is used during sex every time by anyone cut or uncut.

If we found that female circumcision stooped a percentage of HIV infections would we be advocating that as well?

[NickB79]

62. What does female circumcision have to do with male circumcision?

The male equivalent of female circumcision would be cutting the penis off mid-shaft, not removing a bit of foreskin.

Removing the foreskin has little to no effect on the sexual experiences of men, whereas removing the clitoris and labia of a woman can permanently remove her ability to experience pleasure during sex and can kill her during childbirth.

The two are not even remotely comparable. Comparing the two trivializes what women go through when they are circumcized.

Increased circumcision amongst African men (most likely as newborns, rather than as adults) is one part of a multi-faceted approach to reduce HIV, along with anti-viral medication, condoms, and education. No one is saying circumcision alone will solve the problem, but if a circumcized man does have a lapse in judgement and doesn't use a condom, or if the condom breaks due to the prevalence of "dry sex" in Africa, his risk is still reduced compared to a non-circumcized man.

For example, seatbelts and airbags won't save your life EVERY time you're in a car accident, but you'll wear them to boost the odds, won't you? Circumcision is a way to boost the odds of remaining uninfected, as is condom use and education.

[merwin]

129. I'm sure that cutting off the penis (the equiv. of female circ) would stop

a huge percentage of HIV infections. Nobody I know is advocating that!

[pnwmom]

163. The research shows that circumcision adds protection that goes beyond

that offered with condoms alone. But the WHO definitely does not want to discourage condom use -- they want to increase it. The best protection would include both.

[anotherdrew]

59. so what if the study is true? Who cares, Africa is not about to start this

I guarantee you Circumcision is not going to catch on in Africa.

[pnwmom]

160. It already is catching on in Africa.

Thanks to publicity about this research coupled with the very real AIDS crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html?ex=1303876800&en=ddc5294f31df4cc1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

SNIP

"Armed with new studies suggesting that male circumcision can reduce the chance of H.I.V. infection in men, and perhaps in women, health workers in two southern African nations are pressing to make circumcisions broadly available to meet what they call a burgeoning demand.

The validity of the approach is still being tested. But in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, surgeons at the University Teaching Hospital began offering circumcisions for about $3 some 18 months ago and are urging the government to expand the service nationwide. Dr. Kasonde Bowa, a urologist at the hospital, says about 400 patients a month request the procedure — eight times as many as the surgeons can accommodate.

"One reason we decided to set up this service was the increasing evidence in the research in relation to reducing H.I.V.," the virus that causes AIDS, he said. "The evidence is very strong."

In Swaziland, the Health Ministry backed a workshop in January to train 60 doctors in circumcision, responding to what it called a surge in demand. Studies indicate that circumcision may protect against H.I.V., the ministry said, adding that the service should be more available.

SNIP

[RobinA]

102. The Resistance to Science is Amazing

on this SITE, not just this thread.

[cprise]

30. This study is bogus

The difference between circumcised and intact men only shows up in the Africa study. Why?

And why aren't they studying men who were circumcised at birth?

The fact is, that if you cut 50% of the skin and nerve-endings from a man's penis, he is NOT going to be as sexually-active as normal for months or even years. Plus bringing men in for an operation on their genitals is not supposed to make them unusually self-conscious about sex?

[robcon]

34. Gee, the science says otherwise.

I think I'll go with the science, rather than your deeply held beliefs.

[FreeState]

60. Just because science shows this does not mean its the answer

there are other more effective ways of stopping the spread of HIV - hint: Education & Condoms.

We do not cut off women's breasts because it would cure breast cancer. We should no mutilate bodies when there is a more effective way to stop the spread of HIV. - one that does not lead to oh Im circumcised I don't need a condom! We need massive education and free condoms for everyone in Africa.

[cprise]

71. These studies don't sample men who live with circumcision normally

They subject the men to a surgical procedure and then put their sex life under a microscope.

You OTOH ignore studies based on statistical sampling of people going about their normal lives. So your definition of "the science" is rather heavily skewed.

African men and women need sex education and paternalistically slicing parts off them because they're not expected to learn any better is pretty damned disgusting.

[pnwmom]

164. What is paternalistic about this? The impetus is coming from

the African governments themselves. The HIV crisis some of the countries are undergoing is almost unimaginable from our safe, secure little vantage point.

[NickB79]

39. Africans don't have the mutant CCR5 gene, perhaps?

Google CCR5 + HIV and see what you find. It conveys increased resistance against HIV infection, and is found primarily in those of Caucasian descent. That, along with the cultural aspects mentioned elsewhere in this thread (ie dry sex), could make Africans far more susceptible to HIV infection.

[pnwmom]

161. Other studies have compared men who were circumcised at

birth and those who were not, and they have previously shown a lower HIV rate among circumcised men.

But those studies were criticized because of the differing cultural backgrounds and hygiene practices of the two groups of men. This study, by assigning adults randomly to circumcision (or not) was designed to eliminate and/or account for those confounding factors.

The only reports I have seen of side effects were men whose stitches came loose because of having sex too soon after the operation. So your concern about men not having normal sex for months or years is probably unwarranted.

[David__77]

33. I do not like circumcision, but I believe this is probably true.

I do not think it is a good thing to involuntarily circumcize male babies. That is a decision an adult should make, and I suspect few male adults would opt to cut off a part of their genitalia.

That said, I do think that it makes scientific sense based on what I've read that an uncircumsized man, because of the more membranous glans, could more easily contract HIV than a circumcized man.

[unda cova brutha]

111. if * would get serious and spend our $$$ to fight aids

rather than fight his little war in Iraq, we would't have this problem.

[RCinBrooklyn]

38. Hmmm... The Mutilation Solution. I though tatooing HIV+ers was bad enough.

[Laughing Mirror]

40. Medicine & money would prevent AIDS deaths in Africa too

Why don't they try that, rather than suggesting butchering millions of people because they're too cheap to give them the treatments like all the rich countries get. Why don't they stop providing treatment in Europe, for example, and then tell all the men that have to get circumsized if they want to help stop AIDS. We'd see how far they'd get with that cruel and unusual policy. The World Health Organization, not based in Africa as far I as know, would be ridiculed high and low for such a "study." We'd laugh in their rosy pink faces.

[robcon]

42. I don't see what the medicine and money will achieve.

If the main problem is that HIV-positive people are having sex, and spreading the virus, what would be the purpose of giving medicine that ameliorates symptoms. Isn't the first problem (not the only problem) reducing the incidence of the virus? Isn't this just about the only known way to prevent the spread of the disease despite sexual contact?

[Toucano]

44. Has Europe had waves of mass circumcisions that I didn't read about?

No, they used MONEY to fund EDUCATION to reduce the incidents of infection.

It's well documented that earlier administration of HIV drugs delays the progression of the infection to AIDS.

Look at this map and think about the poverty rates of those countries with 1% or more of their populations infected. Poverty is a huge factor in the transmission of the disease.

[cprise]

72. Don't show them STATISTICS

That's not... err...umm... scientific!

Anyway, education will probably be too expensive for these Africans. Best to just slice bits from their bodies so they don't have to think (and just maybe it will even work).

[pitohui]

54. see my most post below, robcon

the short answer is that the person suggesting medicine and money is unaware of the huge problem transporting the medicines to patients in rural africa

you can buy the medicine with the money, but you still have the lack of roads and transport which is making it impossible for the infected in many areas to receive their medicines on a regular schedule

[Laughing Mirror]

81. The rich have no trouble extracting the wealth and resources from Africa

but when it comes to bringing relief and medicine, all of a sudden there is no way to get the help to them because there are no roads or modes of transport. I don't buy that. If they wanted to get the resources to the people who need them they'd find a way.

[Laughing Mirror]

82. The old white Pope in his red dress and slippers would agree with you

I'm sure.

[pitohui]

52. the problem with medicine

i have only visited kenya so can only speak to the situation there, the prob. w. getting medicine to the people in rural areas is absolutely enormous, the roads are bad beyond belief, words can't describe, a rich person or family may be able to travel by private airplane to get around, a poor person may have no option but travel by foot, in places the so-called roads are indistinguishable to the eye from a rocky dried-up river bed

getting REGULAR supplies of medicine to maintain people w. hiv/aids is v. v. difficult and in some areas it it just not going to happen

this is why kenyan researchers are so much in the forefront of searching for a one-time preventative or treatment -- condoms and medicines must travel, and regularly -- but a vaccination only has to happen once, a circumcision procedure (assuming it would help) only has to be done once -- the white western world has pretty much abandoned the search for a vaccine, saying it is too difficult and possibly unnecessary, but i know kenyan doctors dispute this, they say a vaccine MUST be found, because a one-time vax could make all the difference

i don't think anyone believes circumcision is a be-all or end-all but any "one step" technique that might help could make a real difference

it is just impossible to believe until you have seen it -- there are literally people so poor that they have no clothesline and they put out their laundry to dry on the ground

that is what we are up against in the real world

money, medicine, and education are WONDERFUL things, problem is, they are LONG TERM things -- and people are dying right now today, any little thing that might help NOW should not be despised

ok, rant over, sorry

[Laughing Mirror]

86. Getting medicine and money to the poor is somehow impossible, yet

getting a "one-step technique" scalpel to those same poor people is somehow less impossible, apparently, and "could make a real difference."

One can only shake one's head at such unbelievable hypocrisy and ignorance.

[drm604]

92. The scalpel only has to get there one time.

Medicine and condoms are used up and thus have to be delivered repeatedly. So yes, getting the scalpel there one time is more possible than getting condoms and medicine there regularly without fail.

Note that I said "more possible" and not "less impossible" which is a meaningless rhetorical phrase. If you want to argue against male circumcision that's fine, but do so logically and without attacking straw men and using meaningless language like "less impossible".

[Laughing Mirror]

97. I argue against imposing male circumsion on part of the world's population

but not on another part of the world's population. My example in this thread is the notion of imposing what I consider barbaric torture on my brothers in Africa but not on my brothers in Europe. To me this is wrong and so I argue against it, whether you like the way I argue it or not.

[drm604]

99. It's not a matter of whether or not I like the way you argue.

The point is that flawed arguments are less likely to work. They make you appear insincere. They make it appear that you are trying derail the discourse in order to hide a lack of real arguments. If you have real solid arguments then make them. If you don't, then you may need to rethink your position.

[Laughing Mirror]

166. While fighting back the maniacs armed with scalpels in this thread

I have ungraciously overlooked the ruler-thwacking schoolmarms, the pedants and the boors. Please accept my sincere and heartfelt apology for taking so long to respond.

[pitohui]

109. have you ever been to kenya or to any part of africa?

the kenyan medical researchers seem quite frustrated at the betrayal of the west, which seems to have abandoned the search for a vaccine in preference to maintenance medicines that cost people endless sums of money and which also have to be transported to the people in distant rural areas where there are no roads

while you prattle abt the debatable evils of circumcision, these people are dying, and thousands of pairs of empty shoes are put out for sale in the markets by the sides of what major roads there be, who buys them i can't imagine

it's heart-breaking

in such a circumstance, i will accept the opinion of WHO and of the kenyan doctors that one-time techniques like vaccination would be a better solution than medicines and condoms that get used up and can't always be transported to the people in time

i get it that some men are very attached to that bit of skin on their weenie, but crap, we are talking life and death here, that bit of skin should not be more important than his wife's life or the life of his children

IF circumcision helps, and WHO feels it does, i think it should be offered to the women who want this option for their infant sons

if the mothers choose not to get it, i agree that it should not be forced on them, but waiting until the boy is an adult significantly increases the risk and pain of the surgery and, like the poster upstream, the man may well wish he'd had it done when he was younger

at some point you have to trust someone to know what they're doing, if WHO's recommendation is not good enough for you, who do you trust?

[Tansy_Gold]

117. thank you, pitohui

I'm not going to argue with the anti-circumcision advocates here. They have their minds made up and nothing's going to change them.

But in the event that you might want to present your side of the story, with your personal experience, in some other discussion, you might want to include this --

The idea of a one-time-only procedure that reduces the risk of HIV transmission is valid, not because it's a matter of getting the scalpel to the patient but rather of getting the patient to the scalpel.

I would imagine -- and you may correct me if I'm wrong -- that if there were a program promoting circumcision as a tactic in the fight against HIV/AIDS, that program could set up clinics that women would bring their male babies to perhaps at the time they are brought for innoculation against small pox. Instead of taking the medicine or procedure to the patients, the patients could come to the procedure, and of course they'd only have to do it once, not over and over and over again.

Of course, I'm sure you would agree that education is another facet of the worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS. And perhaps our brothers and sisters in Europe, who are more educated in a more science-oriented system and who have access to more science-oriented information than our brothers and sisters in Africa, also have better resources for obtaining condoms to help stop the spread of the infection AND have less cultural resistance to using condoms AND do not have the culturally-constructed preference for "dry sex" that exacerbates all the other risks.

Now, as a woman who has had a sufficient number of male sexual partners over the years, most of them circumcised, I can tell you that none of them seemed to have any difficulty performing satisfactorily. Well, okay, there were a few instances. . . . but those were temporary difficulties, not permanent physiological impairments. :evilgrin: While it may be true that removal of the male foreskin diminishes some sensation and perhaps diminishes some sexual pleasure, it does NOT render the male incapable of sexual performance or incapable of sexual pleasure.

That is not the case in the procedure inappropriately named female "circumcision," which is the excision of all organs of sexual pleasure for the specific purpose of removing sexual pleasure. (If the purpose of circumcision was to reduce masturbation, I suspect someone discovered it didn't work a loooooooooooooooooong time ago. . . . .. . . )

The male must be left capable of erection and orgasm in order to reproduce; the female does not. Female genital mutilation removes all capability of sexual pleasure, and that is its purpose.

Well, pitohui, I'm only preaching to the choir. It's a shame no one else can listen in.


Tansy Gold, the obnoxious

[pitohui]

199. i agree

you put it v. well, sometimes i am frustrated in trying to express myself

[Laughing Mirror]

156. No I have not been to Kenya, but yes to other parts of Africa

and if you're touting the virtues of butchery as a way of treating poverty (the real problem) and disease then I'll think I'll find me another travel agent. Send in the clowns ...

[pitohui]

200. how is it butchery?

WHO is suggesting that circumcision provides some protection, if so, it should be available, as tansy says upstream a little, it can easily be done when the infant is receiving childhood vax

i do not understand how circumcision can be viewed as butchery, many americans (and i guess i am one) actually see it as more attractive and aesthetic, hence, to us, it is not butchered but enhanced, it's really just a matter of taste whether you think it's butchered or not

sort of like, to some people, if a woman has cut her hair, she has butchered herself and destroyed her looks, but to many of us, that attitude is old-fashioned and silly -- there is no right or wrong, it is simply a matter of taste

if you don't want circumcision for your kids, fine, but another parent might want another option

as far as interfering w. sensation, the issue you have is that condoms, indisputably, affect sensation for a lot of men, i don't know any circumcised man who claims to be unable to enjoy sex because of being circumcised but i know PLENTY who claim that sex can't be enjoyed w. a raincoat

send in the clowns indeed! it just seems like you are making an aesthetic argument (circumcision is icky and unnatural) and making it more important than the health argument

if this was joe blow minister saying get circumcised, ok, laugh it off, but it's WHO saying this

so i think the families should be offered the option

[joshcryer]

122. A bit of clean water would probably be even more effective...

But making it available to all Africans would cost billions if not trillions of dollars.

[Laughing Mirror]

157. Of course it would be more effective

Funny how easy it is to take billions if not trillions of dollars worth of resources out of the continent of Africa for the benefit of non-Africans, but when it comes to bringing some of that money back into the continent, the very idea becomes damn near impossible to imagine.

Well I do imagine channeling those billions and trillions of dollars back to Africa, whether some white man in Geneva, or on these forums, likes it or not. That is what I'm concentrating on.

[Toucano]

43. Total mastectomies prevent breast cancer.

Think of all the money we'll save on mamograms!

[Megahurtz]

69. Yeah, seriously this is a Crap Theory.

Many circumcised men in other parts of the world still get AIDS.

Sounds like some FundyNut pushing circumcision. :sarcasm:

[LostinVA]

95. Mastectomies and circumcision aren't the same things

I'm neither advocating nor disregarding this study. I'm just saying that posts on this thread that are equating mastectomies or female genital mutilation to circumcision are way off base factually.

[w4rma]

45. Is it because circumcised men are socially different? More religious

and therefore more unlikely to engage in sex at all? Or maybe they have more access to health care (it does take a degree of technical experience to circumcise). Or maybe they are more conscious about the AIDS epidemic and are trying anything to keep from catching AIDS?

[AngryAmish]

93. These are well controlled studies

They controlled for sexual practices (dry sex), number of partners, etc. The first studies were criticized for the behavior differences but the repeated, verified studies were all quite sound.

[HuckleB]

104. Actually...

there are many remaining factors not accounted for in all the studies. This is a desperation move by the WHO, and we shouldn't assume that it means the "science" cannot be questioned.

[merwin]

130. What are these factors you speak of?

And what is the scientific basis for your wanting to include them in the studies?

[lynne]

46. The overlooked word in this article is AFRICA -

- which is repeated numerous times. This is old news as this info regarding HIV in Africa and circumcision has been around before.

My son is not circumcised. Should he decide to move to Africa, I'll recommend he check into it.

[politicat]

53. If it didn't take cultural & religious practices into account, it's flawed

Extra-marital sex is more or less acceptable depending on culture. Within the Islamic community, sex outside of marriage is far less acceptable than it is within the indigenous religious communities and within the Christian community. There is a sharp difference between rates of circumcision in those communities as well, with Islamic men far more likely to be circumcised than uncircumcised.

Too many variables to control for, I'm afraid. It would be better to look at native born persons in a country with about equal rates of circumcision (i.e. European) than in Africa. Controlling for hygiene practices as well as religious as well as cultural as well as sexual preference.... that's a lot of control.

[anotherdrew]

55. ok who want to wade into africa and start croping foreskins?

not me thanks

this is sure to cause another wave of koro

[Megahurtz]

68. The BlackMarket Body-Parts Dealers will jump

at the chance to crop-and-sell foreskins for Stem Cell Research!!!:bounce:

:sarcasm:

[cprise]

73. Yet so true:

http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

[judaspriestess]

74. is that what is called a "false-positive"?

thats crazy

[Clarkie1]

80. Circumcision is just stupid.

There is absolutely no reason for it.

[AngryAmish]

94. Unless one is African and want to stop HIV

[Clarkie1]

189. No, it's still stupid.

The risk of infection from the procedure far outweighs any dubious benifit from the mutilation.

[kamtsa]

88. Castration is even more effective

[happyslug]

90. No it can not, no evidence that Castration stops someone from having sex

And thus spreading HIV, unlike the 20+ years of evidence connecting Circumcision with lower HIV rates. The first reports came out of a Doctor remembering a Circumcision map after he saw a may on the spread of HIV in Africa. The two maps matched, but his report was attacked for HOW Circumcision Stopped the Spread of AIDS was unknown till about 2000 (Tis held up even when corrected for difference in religion etc and the only difference is circumcision). At that point it was found that while AIDS Virus can NOT survive outside the skin, it could survive in the folds of the uncircumcised penis foreskin. Furthermore AIDS could NOT penetrate the Skin, but could penetrate the foreskin on the Penis. Thus it is the foreskin of the uncircumcised male that is the problem on the spread of AIDS and the lack of Foreskin that reduces the chances of getting AIDS for the circumcised male.

[mainegreen]

96. Forget education! Forget condoms! Just chop your wee-wee!

It's not like it evolved for a reason or anything. Just chop it, and while your at it, you don't need your tonsils either!

When science recommends chopping off/out body parts that aren't sick, I recommend running in the opposite direction.

[Cronus Protagonist]

150. Thanks for getting it. This is a moral issue, not a clinical one.

Chopping something off people's bodies has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with mutilation.

[depakid]

112. Any time I start thinking that progressives are inherently smarter

than Republicans- or are particularly adept at critical thinking, all I have to do is read a thread like this.

Fact is, this research has been going on for several years now. The findings show a remarkable protective effect- in at least one of the studies it was close to vaccine efficacy, and they've been replicated under controlled circumstances.

Not that it matters to some people.

Apparantly they'd prefer to see the unchecked spread of HIV (and other STD's) rather than temper their own emotional responses.

[Cronus Protagonist]

115. I agree, you did drop the collective intelligence of the thread a bit

Perhaps if you stop agreing with the position that people should have body parts removed so they don't get infected the collective IQ will rise a bit.

Or, alternatively, perhaps you could sponsor a study to have people's lips removed to see if they have less cold sores and need to clean their teeth less. Come to think of it, if they also removed their noses, I bet the HIV infection rate would go down too - who wants to get fucked by a noseless person? And, in Africa, perhaps men with scars on their penises get to fuck less too... that didn't occur to you, did it?

[depakid]

116. Perhaps you should run some pub med searchs

and see for yourself how dramatic the results are. In one instance, a large study actually had to halted, because it wouldn't be ethical to continue with the control group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Once you've looked at the science, you might be less inclined to make embarrassing statements like the ones above.

[Cronus Protagonist]

137. There's a science of mutilation?

You just don't get it. We're talking about methodically surgically removing parts of people's bodies to try to prevent a disease that can be ELIMINATED through simple education and the use of condoms.

Let's see. Pick from the following choices for yourself:

1. Cut off part of your sex organ
2. Wear a condom
3. Abstain or limit sexual activity
4. Stick to one partner

Choose as many as you want. The second is the most effective, the last two are fairly effective and all but the first work for a host of other diseases in addiciton to HIV.

So go ahead, choose for yourself and if you're already cut, you can't choose because someone else, faced with the above choices, choose #1.

Sorry, but that's all one needs to know to make an intelligent decision. How can any impartial observer choose #1, and most importantly, if you had a foreskin and had the choice, which would you choose?

(surely not #1?)

[depakid]

145. Emotionally loaded language

and unrealistic expectations aren't going to help to slow the spread of this epidemic.

No matter how strongly you feel about it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

148. I'm an HIV educator. What's your qualification?

And I notice you address my style and not the substance. Which one would you pick? Chop your dick? I think not.

[merwin]

153. When the culture itself is against #2, #3, and #4, what are you left with?

The culture in Africa is far from our own culture, where condom use is considered a normal thing and OK. When the culture views condom use as a bad thing, it's nearly impossible to teach the majority of these people otherwise. It's like, oh, trying to force democracy on the Iraqi people. Look at how many times it's been tried and how well it's worked each time.

[joshcryer]

120. Nice use of strawmen.

Really nice.

[Cronus Protagonist]

134. Thanks. I pride myself on them

It makes for a more entertaining conversation and it's always fun to mock the willfully ignorant using their methods. It's somehow freeing, in a way.

[merwin]

131. Uh, how is circumcision comparable to having your nose removed?

It's more equivalent to having plastic surgery on your nose to make it smaller.

Circumcision does not remove an ENTIRE body part. You're not cutting off the entire penis here.

[Cronus Protagonist]

136. The entire foreskin is cut off

And it's very much a full blown body part. If you had one, there would be no question in your mind about that. True, the nose metaphor, like all metaphors, isn't an exact one, but would you cut off your nose to spite your HIV?

Didn't think so.

[merwin]

154. Really? I always thought it was a part of the penis, not a body part in

itself. Do the medical books describe it as its own body part?

[LostinVA]

169. It's not a full blown body part at all

It's like cutting off your earlobe.

I'm not arguing for or against circumcision, but some of the rhetoric on this thread is bizarro: comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation or a mastectomy, calling the foreskin a body part, etc.

[joshcryer]

119. To end all the bickering here, it's all about HYGINE.

This came up once before, and the essential point that I made was that this is about HYGINE. I find it highly unlikely that the results would be the same in western countries, because, you know, we have access to clean water, and bathe daily with antibacterials and so on. However, in places like Africa, obviously they don't have this, and it is a known fact (if not common sense) that foreskin requires more care and cleaning than a lack of it (yes I know that foreskin creates anti-bacterial secretions, but that only goes so far, as this study shows).

A lot of old "rituals" are geniunely the result of practices realized to be clean. Chopping off the foreskin isn't anymore "ritualistic" than washing ones hands before eating.

[merwin]

155. Somehow, I don't think that will end bickering here :-)

[joshcryer]

195. Hey, everyone went fairly quiet.

What can I say, last time this came up a lot of people saw the obviousness of the problem. ;) I guess DU has went a bit more militant/ignorant since then. (Hope I don't get banned for saying this.)

This study isn't saying "circumcision is better." It's saying "circumcision in improverished regions with significant cases of HIV is a viable percaution to quell the spread of HIV." But people don't get it...

[robcon]

121. Too many (for my taste) want to dismiss the science

They have their strongly held beliefs, and no science can pentetrate those ideas, it appears.

[merwin]

132. What does 10 studies all concluding the same thing prove?

And the absense of any other studies in Africa proving the opposite? That means NOTHING! :sarcasm:

BTW, global warming does not exist either. Why should we mutilate our cars to make them run on inferior fuel, also making us get less pleasure from driving them?

[Cronus Protagonist]

138. Now that's a strawman that puts my own to shame

I bow to your superior fallacy.

[Bridget Burke]

174. Circumcision is an easy target for the sexually dysfunctional...

Whether or not to circumcise a boy baby in the modern USA is definitely worth discussing.

But most circumcized guys manage quite well.

[superconnected]

140. Somehow I just don't see the patriarchy joining together and deciding

to do this to men in order to stop their sexual pleasure.

Doing it to women, yes. But to men, highly unlikely.

Unlikely because the patriarchy has so far always gone off it's own self interest and usually at a huge double standard to anyone else.

I doubt they will ever change.

So I'm going to throw out christian conspiracy theorys on this and decide it's true - circumsicison was shown to help prevent aids. But, getting in the way of the patriarchys self-interest in getting their sex pleasure, I expect it not to hold up with them. They'll choose aids over wearing a condom, getting circumsized or anything else that a study says will prevent aids - if it means getting in the way of their sexual pleasure. I expect them to claim the study couldn't possibly be true...

[Bridget Burke]

175. Aren't Judaism & Islam generally considered "Patriarchal"?

--especially by the "Wonderful Matriarchies were overthrown by Evil Patriarchies" crowd?

Both faiths require circumcision for males.

We've got quite a few on this thread denying the study. Are they Patriarchs?

[superconnected]

176. ...

[saigon68]

141. A LOT OF PROFESSIONAL CIRCUMCISER'S WILL BE NEEDED

In Africa the wages will be lousy, they will need a subsidy

But as they say --- you can't beat the tips

[joshcryer]

143. How about teaching them? Several primitive societies do it.

I don't see the problem with it being adapted far and wide from a ritualistic perspective. Bring back ritualistic circumcision!

[Cronus Protagonist]

149. Yeah, and maybe if we can teach them that, we can teach them to wash...

Let's face it, all these bloody penises will have to be washed anyway.

:evilgrin:

[joshcryer]

194. With what? Some mythical fresh running water?

Or the runoff from cities full of germs and pollutants? Would you allow your sensitive glans in that filth? No... spit is apparently good enough...

[Cronus Protagonist]

198. You must already be surgically altered

No one in their right mind who has a foreskin would have it cut off to make it less likely they would catch HIV, particularly when condoms work against not only HIV but hepatitis B and most other STDs.

It's unethical to surgically remove perfectly normal and functional parts of people's bodies without their consent. And it's unethical to perform said surgery on a population just to reduce statistical risk. It's as simple as that.

I know you like your own scarred dick, but I promise you that if you had a foreskin not only would it attached to you, you would be attached to it and would not want it removed. Why can't you understand that?

[IronLionZion]

187. education and healthcare will stop millions more

so will condoms and monogamy.

[regnaD kciN]

192. This study is part of the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy!

:sarcasm:

[pitohui]

201. ok you made me giggle EOM

.