NIH Circumcision Policy Criticized (time to rehash this debate again).

[William769]

(New York City) A coalition of international medical experts and bioethicists who oppose circumcision generally have denounced the National Institutes of Health endorsement of circumcision as a solution to the HIV/AIDS crisis as being irresponsible.

George Denniston, MD, President of the international group, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, says "The NIH suggestion is dangerous folly. Worse, the NIH plan will permit circumcised men to claim they are immune to HIV and engage in unsafe sex. In cultures where women are obliged to submit, this is a recipe for a human rights disaster to women on a massive scale. Safe-sex education and widespread availability of condoms are the only answers before a vaccine is developed."

Critics of the plan, which include the umbrella group International Coalition for Genital Integrity, note that traditional African cutting and scarring rituals, and even modern medical care, are both proven sources of HIV infection.

Surgeries in villages where even clean water is a luxury are likely to prove risky.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/121606circ.htm

Every post I have come across here on DU supporting NIH recommendation I said was ludicrous siting many of the reasons given here. I am glad to see I am not alone.

[deepthought42]

1. Have you seen the show "Bullshit"?

By Penn & Teller? It's on Showtime. They did an episode on circumsicion (sp?); they even showed one being performed on a newborn baby boy. Ug. It was definately a turn off ( and I'm a woman!).

[derby378]

26. Saw it yesterday for the first time

Yes, I was circumcised at birth. Yes, I'm okay with it. No, I don't think it should be done to babies. It should be a matter of personal choice.

[deepthought42]

77. That's pretty much what I decided...

if I were to ever have a boy. (If I were to ever consider having kids...but that's another issue)

[KittyWampus]

2. The NIH expert I heard specifically stated that circumcision is NOT an immunization and that

the possibility of ignorant men believing this must be addressed.

He also pointed out the need for circumcision to be done hygienically.

In this case, the International Coalition for Genital Integrity should shut the fuck up. Their agenda apparently doesn't take into account the FACTS the NIH presented about uncircumcised men in countries without hygiene who endanger themselves and their partners.

Their foreskin:

acts as a sponge for HIV
presents real possibility of a tear where virus may enter blood stream

[William769]

3. So does the surgical procedures in these countries where it is not sanitary.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Marx Said "He Stood Hegel On His Head"

This is the global warming debate "stood on its head"...

[whoneedstickets]

9. If I get your drift...

you're saying that there are people on 'our side' who support an empirically untenable position on this issue the way some on the right adopt a similarly untenable position vis-a-vis global climate change? I couldn't agree more.

Frankly in my mind this problem is more appalling since the right is burdened by dozens of superstition-based positions especially on issues of biology (beginning with evolution and extending to abortion, stem cell etc.) and criminal justice (ex. death penalty) while I USUALLY see our side as the defenders of reason and scientific evidence in public policy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I could care less if a person's circumcised or not...

But i do care if they embrace or reject the procedure because they are prisoners to superstition, bias,or ignorance...


I don't follow the global warming debate closely but I am persuaded by the readily available evidence it's a problem. I also apply Pascal' Dilemma solution to problems like these. The consequences of acting as if global warming doesn't exist if it does are infinitely greater than acting as global warming doesn't exist and it does.


That's where I fall in the STDS and circumcision debate....



P.S. Before we can get in a big debate about Pascal's Dilemma I am aware of its flaws but it make sense as a general proposition.

[motocicleta]

67. What STDs and circumcision debate?

The one regarding whether circumcision is an efficient and effective way of preventing STDs, or the one where it is argued that because circumcision will lower a random human's chance of getting an STD we should circumcise everybody? This is a crucial distinction that I cannot tell from your arguments. If someone can make the case that circumcision is more cost-effective than any other method of preventing STDs, such as poverty alleviation, access to contraceptives, etc, then I will climb right on board. What I see, though, is the latter debate, and I must reply that I base my major policy decisions on cost-effectiveness. Any opposition to this principle is simply misguided in this era of limited governmental funds and delimited areas for public spending.

The studies in question suggest that male circumcision will provide a 40-88% lower chance of HIV acquisition in males. I see nothing in that which suggests cost-effectiveness.

In reply to your suggestion that condoms also lower sensation: sometimes people wear condoms when they are having unsafe sex, and sometimes they are lucky enough to shed the condoms when they want to create a child and have unprotected sex with a partner that is also disease free. I have yet to see a study which demonstrates that the sensation lost to circumcision is of less value than the protection offered by circumcision. I see quite enough examples of those who anecdotally are willing to offer their opinion that the sensation lost is inconsequential. I also have personally heard from people circumcized later in life that say the sensation loss is absolutely consequential. You'll have to pardon me for listening to those who actually have some empirical evidence. Call me crazy.

Perhaps this is an area of study that science simply can't help with. It is foolish, however, to reject the claims of those with empirical evidence because science can't figure out how to quantify their claims. And I will not support policy that does not have science to back it up. It makes no more sense than to outlaw circumcision because of these anecdotal claims.

The West's record of making big policy decisions in Africa is less than stellar. I say we think about this a little further in context of the sociocultural situation in any country this is suggested for before we go spending precious resources quite possibly not fixing the problem and further alienating the inhabitants. Perhaps we could invest our tax dollars into improving education for girls, which I suspect will also cut HIV 'acquisition'plus give the benefits of improved economic growth, improved overall health, improved civil rights - all while not fucking cutting anyone.

Ahem.

[Crandor]

29. So now people opposing circumcision are Marxists?

Is your argument so weak that you have to resort to petty name-calling?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. If You Literally Follwed My Argument They Would Be Hegelians

Nice strawmen and non-sequiturs you got going there. And ad hominem attacks... Three logical lapses in one sentence.

I suggest you visit here:


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

and here:



http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

My point was to compare those that deny the scientifically proven benefits of circumcision to those that deny the scientifically proven dangers of global warming.

[William769]

8. "save millions of lives"

Stop listening to Bush now if you want to talk about Fundies...

It's not an obsession, it's a fact of life. As I have said before to know how HIV is transmitted is to know NIH is full of shit.

[whoneedstickets]

12. Your presuppositions...

1) that the use of circumcision will eliminate the need for condoms and education.

2) second that by advocating circumcision we're sanctioning certain sexual practices.

Are valid concerns but beside the point.

Heart disease kills millions of people each year in this country. Imagine we found that preventing heart disease was as simple as trimming off one's earlobes. No lobes, half the chance of a heart attacks. Would this eliminate the need to exercise and eat right? Some might say 'trim the lobes and pass the gravy', but would that be enough to support an injunction against the surgery?

Yeah, I would prefer to see behavior changed toward a healthy lifestyle, but I'm not so obsessed with the point that I'd advocate against people being allowed to obtain the surgical benefits.

Of course heart disease isn't a communicable disease. So reducing the number of carriers in the population isn't an issue. If you factor that in also then a anti-surgery position becomes nearly criminal.


As for a vaccine, as one researcher noted a 50% reduction in transmission is virtually equal in effectiveness to a vaccine.

[endarkenment]

64. "Imagine we found that preventing heart disease was as simple as trimming off one's earlobes"

And we also found that this surgical method was at best 50% effective and not risk free, while taking an aspirin once a day was 90-100% effective? And then you claimed that everyone should have their earlobes cut off? And then it turned out that many of you believe in some voodoo bullshit about god commanding that your earlobes must be lopped off? I'd say that you were irresponsible, dishonest about your motives, and perhaps nuts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. How Is It Transmitted?

I'll go from the most likely to the least likely:

Through blood transfusions


Through sharing of needles


An infected man penetrates another man or woman anally


An infected man penetrates a woman vaginally.


An uninfected man has anal sex with an infected man or woman( This is the problem circumcision addresses)


An uninfected man has vaginal sex with an infected woman. (This is also the problem circumcision addresses )

Theoretically circumcision would break this chain...


Oh, there is a theoretical but small chance of being infected via oral sex but it's remote... It would have to be in breaks in the mouth because the bile in your stomach will most likely kill the HIV virus

[William769]

23. The most likely cause of transmission is semen

I'm sorry, but cut or uncut is NOT going to make a difference on that. But we all know what will.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. You're Missing The Point Of The Studies

The most likely cause of transmission is blood

The second most likely cause of transmission is semen with the passive partner always at the most risk...

Presumably you can start to break the chain by circumcising men. This will reduce the chance of non-infected men getting STDs by penetrating infected partners...


The foreskin provides a place for the HIV virus to harbor when a person penetrates an infected person.

It's physiology 101..

[geardaddy]

72. Point of information...

There is no bile in your stomach. Bile is a product of the liver.

[mitchleary]

5. It is such BS

to mutilate little boys like that. Should be criminal. It is only a draconian implementation to try and curb mastrubation. Thank goodness my father had a enough sense to not allow me to go through it. If a person knows how to use soap and water there is difference, a lttle extra to maintain, that is all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. You're Not Even Close

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL



I thought we were the smart ones...


If you don't think circumcised men enjoying jerking off go to any porn site...

[Bombtrack]

43. what is the point of linking to the same HIV story when the users post and your subsequent "point"

was about masterbation ?

People born in America and the west in general who aren't impoverished and don't engage in orgies and anal sex with random partners have a pretty miniscule chance of getting HIV. It's not as if the 1st world middle-class areas with the lowest circumcision rates (I'll guess and say Sweden) have any documented AIDS epidemics.

And the fact that circumcised men, of course, masterbate doesn't negate the (probably debated or debatable) belief that it reduced the urge. And I don't think it is a matter of debate that that the removal of a substantial fraction of the penises nerve endings that a circumcision brings with it would reduce the sensation and therefor some of the pleasure.

It's not a coincidence that the people without the choice anymore, those who are already circumcised themselves or have already gotten their children circumsised are the hostile ones and the ones who heap the most bullshit and ridicule at the people who have a choice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. The Irony

"It's not a coincidence that the people without the choice anymore, those who are already circumcised themselves or have already gotten their children circumsised are the hostile ones and the ones who heap the most bullshit and ridicule at the people who have a choice."


Maybe it's because these same people say that circumcised men don't enjoy sex and don't enjoy jerking off...I'll wait for the study that suggests this is the case.


Where's the literature?

[endarkenment]

79. I've seen no one make that claim.

"these same people say that circumcised men don't enjoy sex and don't enjoy jerking off"

I believe you have misinterpreted 'reduced sensation' for 'don't enjoy'.

[mitchleary]

61. I am not saying

circ men do not do not, it just makes it harder without lube.

[whopis01]

63. as a circumsized man...

... I can assure you that it does not make it harder without lube nor do anything to curb masturbation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. From Your Article

"Robert Van Howe, MD, Michigan State University says, “Factors such as the unknown complication rate of the procedure, the permanent injury to the penis, human rights violations and the potential for veiled colonialism need to be taken into account."


I'm offended that this clown in the name of cultural relativism would actually infantalize African men by suggesting they aren't smart enough to weigh the pros and cons of circumcision and make an informed decision.

Make circumcision available to Africa and let them reject or embrace it...

[Crandor]

14. When you're talking about places where it's believed that sex with a virgin cures AIDS...

I think there isn't going to be a lot of pro-con-weighing going on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Don't Believe Most Africans Are That Gullible.

eom

[Bombtrack]

52. They never said "most", it doesn't have to be most to point out how ridiculous

your grandstanding about the possibility that PER CAPITA, African villagers are substantially less informed than educated Westerners when it comes to the whole book-learnin stuff. Science, Health, that kind of thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Link

I'll wait for the study that demonstrates statistically significant numbers of Africans believe having sex with a virgin cures AIDS...


It reminds me of the suggestion when AIDS was in it's infancy that the much higher incidence of AIDS on the African continent was a function of the higher incidence of heterosexual anal sex among its inhabitants. They conducted studies with African women and most of them were unaware that such an act was even practiced.


Of course they know what we know now. That the greater incidence in African is related to sanitary problems and unsafe sex practices.

[whoneedstickets]

17. The Colonialism reference is rich...

Like we in the west invented circumcision!

No, the colonialism relevant to this topic is the position of a few misguided western elitists imposing their sexual politics on the lives of Africans.

We need to facilitate their choices through education and services to help them stop the needless deaths of generations.

[endarkenment]

80. Absolutely. And the most effective preventive measure

is consistent condom use. So stop with the nonsense that circumcision is effective. it isn't, not compared to other available techniques.

[Bombtrack]

51. Yeah, how dare anyone consider third world primatives being less informed

there are just as many cases of people fucking virgins to ward off AIDS in America and Great Britain as there are Subsaharan Africa.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I'd Like To See A Study That Suggests Statistically Significant Numbers Of Africans Believe That

Nonsense....

[dipsydoodle]

15. Yer but, yer but, yer but.............

if it was stopped they wouldn't be able to plant the offcuts for harvesting when they get to five foot or so high. Republicans would become extinct. :)

[rinsd]

18. These are doctors?

Christ all the NIH said was the being circumsised eliminated some risk factors present in uncircumsised males. Its like saying anal sex is more likely to lead to transmission than vaginal sex (though obviously not on the same scale).

"Safe-sex education and widespread availability of condoms are the only answers before a vaccine is developed."

Totally agreed but should the NIH repress their findings because it is disagreeable to some activists?

[Warren Stupidity]

81. I think the point is that the study is being misconstrued

as promoting circumcision as an effective aids prevention mechanism. It is not an effective aids prevention mechanism. Condoms are an effective aids prevention mechanism.

[depakid]

19. The studies are very clear

and numerous. Run a pub med search using the terms "HIV" and "circumcision" and you'll see that the results are astounding.

That people seem to have emotional agendas or are in denial doesn't change the science.

The efficacy noted in the studies approaches what you'd see in a vaccine. That's a fact- and the reality is that all of you who argue against the procedure would basically condemn millions of people to a slow and painful death.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The Anti-Circumcision Activists Could Give A Rip If They Died.

These studies are like a cross to a vampire...

They have made anti-circumcision into a religion ...


The pro-circumcision advocates have been largely quiet because they naively believed the benefits spoke for themselves...


It's sad...


P. S. The poster up thread said she saw a baby circumcised on tv and was offended by it. When her Aunt Bessie needs a bypass she should deny her aunt that because it's a lot "scarier" to watch...

[William769]

24. I want to be very clear on something.

I Don't care if someone is circumcised or not, what I do care about is the scare tactics used to accomplish a certain goal.

[whoneedstickets]

21. It is really unfortunate...

I know several strident and well intentioned anti-circumcision activists who were convinced that they were on the 'right' side in this human rights issue. They were convinced that routine male circumcision was an unnecessary, inhumane procedure like the unconscionable female version and that both practices should be ended.

For about a decade they appeared to be gaining strength as a movement -- they had cajoled some leading pediatricians and the AMA into condemning the practice saying the risks outweighed the benefits (rare penile cancers) -- and then the weight of medical evidence on HIV came crashing down. There is also evidence of reduced susceptibility to and transmission of HPV that can cause cervical cancer in women. Sadly they've become so wedded to this position that they can't simply admit the truth.

There are some medical benefits to male circumcision that outweigh the small risks and a population that is circumcised would be less likely to rapidly spread some STDs.

[depakid]

22. It's not often that one sees studies that have to be halted

because it's unethical not to treat the controls.

I didn't have any opinion on the issue one way or another until the results started coming in 18 months or so ago- and were replicated time and again. The data and analysis were pretty damn convincing.

That doesn't mean that NGO's and governments shouldn't keep on promoting condom use- of course they should. This is just one more tool in the arsenal in the fight against HIV. I reckon that if some of these folks had ever watched someone that they cared about die from this disease, they might give this research the credence it deserves.

[Crandor]

28. So genital mutilation becomes great just because some don't know how to use a condom.

Brilliant.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. No-We Should Let Africa Die (Saracasm)

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. The Problem Is Most American Women Dig Circumcised Penises

You can say they are culturally biased...


You can say they are wrong...



But you can't say (most) American women don't like em....

[Crandor]

33. Some women are amputee fetishists. Should we start cutting off babies' limbs too?

That's the worst argument for circumcision that I've heard yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I Suspect More Women Dig Cut Cocks Then Stumps But Strawmen Away...

And while you're strawmening away riddle me this:


Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.



and this:



The two trials were carried out among nearly 3,000 men in Kisumu, Kenya, and nearly 5,000 men in Rakai, Uganda. None were infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; they were divided into circumcised and uncircumcised groups. They were given safe sex advice — although many presumably did not take it — and retested regularly.

The trials were stopped by the National Institutes of Health’s Data Safety and Monitoring Board this week after data showed that the Kenyan men had a 53 percent reduction in new H.I.V. cases and the Ugandan men a 48 percent reduction.



and this:

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to AIDS because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans’ cells, which attach easily to the virus. The foreskin may also suffer small tears during intercourse, making it more susceptible to infection.





and this:




French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL



It seems all the arguments of the anti-circumcision proponents have died on the vine so all they are left with it's natural...

It's natural to have wisdom teeth. Perhaps we should leave them in even after they grow in sideways and rot.

[Crandor]

35. I don't care what's natural, I care what's effective

Do you think that X% lowered risk means there will be X% fewer AIDS cases? Wrong. If you're still having unprotected sex, reducing the HIV risk by 50% just means it takes twice as long to get it. If the NIH wants to help the AIDS problem then they should be pushing safe sex, not some ineffective "solution" designed to placate the religious right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Didn't Know The Religious Right Was Pro-Circumcision

Nobody is saying you shouldn't wear a bag but the studies have proved by clear and convincing evidence that if you're not going to wear a bag it's safer to be circumcised.


Again, it's physiology 101...

The foreskin gives the HIV virus a nice, moist place to harbor, ergo:



Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to AIDS because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans’ cells, which attach easily to the virus. The foreskin may also suffer small tears during intercourse, making it more susceptible to infection.




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA

[Crandor]

39. Actually, I meant that they were anti-condom

But in fact, circumcision in the US was originally touted as a way to stop masturbation. Of course we all know it doesn't work, but that's never stopped fanatics. In the 19th century, masturbation was the moral panic du jour and there were plenty of people fueling the fire with pseudoscience about it causing mental disorders known as "masturbatory insanity", and selling "treatments" for it. Most have fortunately died out, but one - circumcision - lingers on, even though most people today don't even know the original purpose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Jews And Muslims Do It For Religious Purposes

I'm pro choice.

If a person in the twenty first century thinks circumcision is going to stop males from pleasuring themselves they should remove themselves from the evolutionary stream.

I think it's a parental decision that a parent should make after consulting their physician and conscience.

I am familiar with the anti-circumcision arguments; circumcision reduces sensation and the procedure presents an unnecessary risk of surgical complications.


The benefits are ease of hygiene and added protection against some sexually transmitted diseases.


A parent should weigh these risks before having their child circumcised.

And an adult should weigh these risks as well...

[Crandor]

41. It's impossible to be pro-choice when it comes to infant circumcision.

Babies are obviously not capable of making the decision for themselves. So the question is really just should circumcision be forced on the baby or not. I say it should not. Now I just know someone's going to bring up vaccines here, so I'll rebut that red herring in advance: Vaccines have to be given early because even babies can get sick. For circumcision, the only real benefit is the HIV "protection". (Hygiene is a non-issue as long as you take a bath or shower once in a while.) Since babies are not going to be having sex why the rush to circumcise right away? Let the child decide when he's old enough.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. You Have The Benefit Of Hygiene And Added Protection Against STDS

A parent has to weigh that against the risk of the procedure which is infinitesimally small and that it hypothetically reduces sensation.


A person should weigh those risks and decide if the procedure is warranted or not. With parenting comes responsibilities and obligations.


In the final analysis those HIV studies are to anti-circumcision activists what Galileo's work was to those who believed in the heliocentric model of planetary orbit.

[gollygee]

76. Why do you think the risk of the procedure is

infinitesimally small?

Many complications aren't known about until sexual maturity.

I doubt it has any relationship to sensation, personally. I've heard anti-circ people say it makes the penis too sensitive, and I've heard them say it makes it less sensitive. Usually, when people argue two extremes, they're saying whatever they can come up with and neither is true.

But I've personally known someone who had a problem as an adult that couldn't have been known about as an infant that was caused by circumcision. And I worked with someone whose son had a problem when he was circumcised. I know it's just anecdotal, but it leads me to believe the number isn't "infinitesimally small". I think it's probably larger than any increase in risk that a guy who uses condoms will get aids.

[whoneedstickets]

46. The answer to this is simple...

Because, as some of the articles discussing this note, adult circumcision is a more difficult and risky procedure. Adult men might not seek it out despite the benefit. It is a fairly simple procedure for infants (the whackos claiming memories of circumcision pain to explain their psychosis-de-jure notwithstanding). Given this, let's explore the vaccine logic more deeply for a moment.

Vaccines are not always 100% effective for any single individual. Its actually much a lower level of protection. The benefit of vaccines is that they reduce the susceptibility of the population as a whole. Those who are indeed resistant to the pathogen create enough of a resistant pool that the virus can't establish the critical mass it needs to sustain itself in the population -- thus ends the outbreak. Vaccination is conducted not to benefit the individual but for public health reasons. The state often uses access to public education as a lever to convince the reticent --free riders-- to take the societally useful precautions.

By circumcising children we create a pool of disease resistant (not immune) subjects who if their number is sufficient could push the disease below its self-sustaining threshold in the population thus ending the threat of HIV. Other steps like teaching safe-sex, encouraging limited partners, and treating disease carries with drugs to reduce their contagiousness can also help, but MY point is a simple one -- TAKE EVERY STEP NECESSARY to reduce the incidence of HIV to a level where it no longer threatens the population and perhaps dies off (except for the samples the US keeps for germ warfare of course). We did it with smallpox, nearly made it with polio and both are FAR MORE contagious than HIV.

Is the removal of foreskin a big enough deal that we should forgo this benefit? Should a man's penis be altered for societal benefit? There is a lot to factor in here obviously, custom, religion, risks to the infant, loss of sexual function (though it is said circumcised men are less prone to premature ejaculation so if sex is a partnered behavior and not an individual one...) AND BENEFITS.

The anti-circ crowd long argued that the BENEFITS were so small as to be nearly zero and were certainly outweighed by the risk and loss (which they tended to exaggerate in my opinion). THAT ARGUMENT IS NOW VERY SUSPECT. There ARE distinct benefits despite all their attempt to pretend otherwise and the equation requires some serious consideration of the real risk and loss.

How much foreskin would you sacrifice to eradicate AIDS/HIV?

[endarkenment]

66. Great! Condoms 90-100% effective.

Glad you agree.

[NashVegas]

25. The Studies Were Conducted in Kenya and Uganda

Where unprotected sex got more difficult thanks to BushCo.

I'm all for circumcision being a choice.

But I don't think the activists who are questioning this study should be entirely ignored.





Western & Central Europeans don't have the circumcision rate that we do, and yet their HIV/AIDs rate is less than ours. Eastern Europe's rate is more comparable to ours, and a good deal of that is attributed to IV drug users. Will circumcision make a difference for them? Perhaps, but general hygiene and condoms will have far greater affect.

[depakid]

27. It's not just one or two studies

There are tons of them in the literature.

A Pub Med search uncovers 318 results.

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

I agree though that the research needs to continue (which it has been at a rapid pace).

[Bombtrack]

50. To me it seems like there are "tons of them" in the same way there are global warming deniers

Nothing approaching academic/national or international medical consensus or the positions of the vast majority of those at the top of their fields, but due to the efforts of some very loud crusaders they could fool alot of people into believing it is.

Also one organization finding the potential benefit in reducing some threats which are already astronomically low for educated people in the first world does not ipso facto become proof of necessity. I think you could also reduce the potential for mono and all sorts of other similarly transmitted problems if you cut out someones tongue, not to mention tongue cancer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. More Than One Study:

You should acquaint yourself with then:



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hiv+and+circumcision&btnG=Google+Search

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. That's A Non-Sequitur

"To me it seems like there are "tons of them" in the same way there are global warming deniers"


There is abundant scientific evidence that the foreskin provides a a fertile environment for sexually transmitted diseases to harbor. How is that akin to denying the advent of global warming?

[Touchdown]

82. I would like to see such scientific evidence

that the foreskin provides a "fertile ground" for harboring HIV. ...and NOT from the NIH, or SFGate, or any other pro-circ info you are relying on. "Simple physiology 101" is not a good enough answer. Smegma has the science behind it to be proven as a germ killer.

90% of the human males, and 100% of the animal males are not circumcised. I would like proof of just one species that has gone exitnct or is endangered because of the specie's foreskins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. It Was A National Institute Of Health Study

Prove me to the National Institute Of Health is a pro-circumcision group...


They are career bureaucrats who have been put there by several adminsistrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Health

The San Francisco Gate didn't perform the study. They are a fricken newspaper:



French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL


I want to see a link that smegma (head cheese) is a germ caller. All it does is smell really bad:





Both males and females produce smegma. In males, smegma is produced and accumulates under the foreskin; in females it collects around the clitoris and in the folds of the labia minora.

Smegma is invisible, noticeable as a smooth or moist texture until it is allowed to accumulate, when it takes on its characteristic texture and appearance described in many texts as "cheesy". Since smegma tends to accumulate under the foreskin in males, its presence is less common and less noticeable in circumcised males.

The subpreputial moisture keeps the glans moist and may lubricate the movement of the foreskin. However, if allowed to accumulate and decay in the foreskin cavity it can provide an ideal medium for potentially pathogenic bacteria to colonise<2>; current medical opinion is that allowing smegma to accumulate freely is unhealthy. Accumulation of smegma can cause or aggravate a variety of irritations known as balanitis. Early medical studies such as those by Plaut (1947), and Heins (1958) claimed that smegma accumulation led to the development of penile cancer, but the American Cancer Society states that more recent studies have disagreed <3>.

Preventing accumulation is best done by rinsing the area with warm water. In females, the hood of the clitoris can be gently pulled back to wash away accumulated smegma. Some argue that soap is best avoided because it depletes natural skin oils and may cause non-specific dermatitis <4>. In addition, vaginal deodorants that are sometimes used to combat unwanted odors can be harmful, as they tend to upset the normal balance of bacteria in the vaginal cavity. This can in turn upset the pH of the vagina <5>. Noticeably unpleasant odours can be an indicator of a potentially serious medical problem, and deodorant sprays or washes may hide this condition.

Smegma has become part of the pro- and anti-circumcision movements, with those in favor of routine infant circumcisions citing improved hygiene by avoiding odorous or harmful buildup, and those opposed citing the usefulness of smegma, which is generally lost to circumcisions. Medical opinion is split on the matter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma

[Touchdown]

89. The NIH is American. It's biased toward cutting. Any questions?

They have been for a century and a half, back when circumcision was 'PROVEN" to cure insanity. Your SFGate link is the same info that you've been peddling all along.

You claim to only be considerate of the science of the benefit of circumcision, but you know next to nothing about the science, purpose, or anatomy of what's cut off in a circumcision, and seem , in very James Inhoffe fashion, to be very proud of that. Any info to the contrary, you imeediately poo-pooh as biased.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Hmmmm

Unlike you I have weighed all the arguments in favor of and opposed to circumcision and have come to an informed decision. I belong to the party of facts and evidence not superstition and conjecture.



In the name of pursuing an ideological goal you have stood science on its head. You reject studies commissioned by the Harvard School Of Public Policy, the National Institutes of Health , independent French and South African AIDS researchers, in favor of small studies done by unheralded researchers. It's like embracing Intelligent Design and rejecting Darwin. If I want to learn about evolution I'm going to look at research produced by accredited scholars in the field not professors at Bob Jones University or Liberty College...


And the "smegma" argument. I have read heard a lot of arguments against circumcision but this is the first time I have heard an argument that smegma is an anti-pathogen... If smegma is an anti-pathogen then it makes sense to never wash your penis. If that's the case why do anti-circumcision activists suggest all you need to do to keep the uncircumcised penis healthy is to to judiciously wash it?


The answer is in the question...

[Touchdown]

99. Simple answer, they don't.

Look it up on any anti-circumcision site, and they recommend not to wash with soap and water. Like Limbaugh, you imagined the activists believe that. You don't need soap to keep your eyes clean, and the foreskin serves the same purpose as eyelids do.

The second paragraph of yours is full of shit. You don't believe the foreskin contains sexually sensitive nerves, you don't believe that gliding, as opposed to friction is less prone to vaginal and penile tearing (which HIV can enter. You don't believe anything other than the foreskin is an unwanted piece of skin.

And once more for the record. I was sliced apart as an infant. Without my permission, my consent, or even before I knew what I lost. You may not care about your body being violated, but I DO! How hypocritical is it that you call me some kind of global warming denier, when you supposedly stand for a woman to have autonomy and full decision making over her own body, but you deny that very same autonomy to me, simply because I'm an American male, and "we do circumcision here, so get used to it" or "it's nothing but a useless piece of skin". What we are talking about is the piece of our bodies that is the tool of what makes life worth living, sex. Sure, the brain is much more powerful as a sexual organ, but you can't imagine having 70,000 more nerve endings, or rigid bands. To diminish that, or to violate that for some pre-defined panacea, is the height of physical violation. For you to deny all that (You said: I have weighed all the arguments in favor and against...), and call me a flat earther, is not only the most insulting and dismissive thing one can say, but you are advocating that millions more of me will be hounding you into your old age. My position is simple. His body, his choice. "Leaving it up to the parents to decide" is nothing more than an American belief that this is good for you, so shut up and be happy you were butchered.

I am not denying this study. I am saying it's too early to make a universal recommendation. I also hold their motivations suspect. The harvesting of infant foreskins for the cosmetics industry and Bio-research is big business. They pay top dollar to hospitals for infant foreskins and their cellular regenerative structures (of course the actual owners of these foreskins are never paid a dime...worse their parents are charged on average $800 a snip). Since the practice is almost illegal in Sweden, down to practically nil in UK, Australia, New Zealand, about 20% in Canada, and down to little more than half in the US, they need a steady new supply. It's quite convenient that this practice is said by these researchers (who have a history of pro-circumcision studies with always the same conclusion...circumcision is universally recommended), will cut the contraction rate at these rather unbelievably astonishing rates, to the (AMAZING) very disease that is decimating the Sub Saharan continent, costing millions of lives, money, and political will. Very convenient indeed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I'll Be Checking For The Link That Suggests Smegma Is A Germ Killer

Perhaps they can collect it and use it as an anti-bacterial soap...

[Touchdown]

90. The answer is in youur Wiki link.

There is debate among the medical establishment about the benefits/harm of smegma. You seem to have taken one opinion and applied fact to it, and dismissed the other as the rantings of a quack. You've taken a side, whether or not you admit it.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/

The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which secrete cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens),17 and pheromones such as androsterone.18 Lysozyme, which is also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids destroys bacterial cell walls.

The natural composition of preputial bacterial flora is age dependent and similar to that of the eyes, mouth, skin, and female genitals.19 Washing the preputial sac was once thought to aid hygiene. Washing a stallion's preputial sack with soap, however, encourages the growth of pathogenic organisms.20 Washing the human prepuce with soap is a common cause of balanoposthitis.21

Fussell et al have claimed that the prepuce is predisposed to colonisation by pathogenic bacteria, but they did not measure naturally occuring bacterial flora in living cohorts with undisturbed preputial microenvironments.22 They measured bacterial rates in dead, amputated, chemically treated prepuces inoculated with virulent strains of pathogenic bacteria--conditions that represent no known biological or behavioural reality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. We're Humans Not Horses

Washing a stallion's preputial sack with soap, however, encourages the growth of pathogenic organisms.20 Washing the human prepuce with soap is a common cause of balanoposthitis.21

[election_2004]

37. I'm circumcised, and I'll still use a condom

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

And for the record, I still think infant circumcision for baby boys should be the parents' choice...and it's a difficult one, no matter what the parents decide.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Of Course You Should Use A Condom...

The problem is the reluctance for whatever reason of some men to use condoms. In the event they don't it's been proven by clear and convincing evidence that circumcision reduces the risks of contracting the AIDS virus.

[Zookeeper]

74. But, you're forgeting....

Everyone always does what they are supposed to do. As long as parents teach their uncircumcised boys to clean themselves, all of them will always follow instructions. Once men know that condoms reduce STDS and HIV, they will always use them. It's a perfect world, you know. :sarcasm:

[Kelly Rupert]

42. I participated in this circumcision thread, and all I got

was this turtleneck sweater.

[geardaddy]

73. Hee-hee! n/t

[Zookeeper]

75. It looks like it would be good for....

mountain climbing.

[Bombtrack]

45. I guess there's no bullshit at all in declaring what's best for one born to Botswanan street family

would be best for a child born to a middle class kid from New Hampshire.

Yes, despeate measures are sometimes needed to fight an AIDS epidemic where you're born to into the high risk.

But straight educated Americans don't come anywhere close to being high risk for AIDS no matter what some would like us to believe, far enough away so that they have the choice when they reach the age of sexual opportunity.

[whoneedstickets]

47. What about the next infection?

Sure hetero, middle class Americans who aren't drug users have a low risk of HIV, but what about the next virus?
The foreskin has been implicated in the transmission of several viral pathogens. After AIDS and HPV there may well be other STDs to which a circumcised population is less vulnerable (see my post above explaining how vaccinations work). No disease has been found that spreads more rapidly due to circumcision.

Are the risk and 'loss' of sexual function (I quote that point because it is debatable at best) so great that it offsets the potential protection of lives? We might be glad that we live in a largely circumcised society.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. The Ironic Thing Is That The Anti-Circumcision Activists Will Say Condoms Can Control Those Viruses

The ironic thing is that anti-circumcision activists will say condoms can control those viruses while simultaneously arguing circumcision reduces sensation as if condoms do not.



The sexual function argument is so much cacka... If circumcision reduces sexual function why do Muslim countries where circumcision is routinely performed have the highest birth rates. It doesn't seem to hinder them.

[Bombtrack]

49. you both didn't actually provide an example of irony and you're changing meanings

to mislead about what people are talking about all over the place.

If someone is talking about "sexual function" to describe sexual pleasure and sensation then yes there is both medically supported evidence (in addition to standing to basic reason) that removing tons of nerve endings from a persons penis would do that.

If a person is talking about "sexual function" in terms of reproductive ability then that is something I've not heard anti-circumcision "activists" (are you a pro-circumcision activist?) say that it does but it would be certainly a seperate (and for me less compelling issue) from that of reducing sensation and sexual pleasure.

You also didn't respond to my earlier post and I'm wondering if you can or will.

and on another note, it's pretty damning to any argument when you're a proponent of the theocratic Islamic hellholes accepted position and against that of the most secular liberal Western countries like Sweden and Australia.

Australia is a very comparable similar country to the United States in culture and structure and values, atleast ONE OF the most similar. It isn't sexually backwards and confused and just fucked up beyond anything healthy like Saudi Arabaia. It has 1/6th the AIDS rate of us and I would venture a similar fraction of circumcisions. Not that these kind of black and white "this/therefor" country wide comparisons are the most cogent ways to settle these arguments, but you used one for something I didn't even know anyone was arguing about, that of pregnancy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. To Prove That You Would Need A Study That Circumcised Men Enjoy Sex Less

If someone is talking about "sexual function" to describe sexual pleasure and sensation then yes there is both medically supported evidence (in addition to standing to basic reason) that removing tons of nerve endings from a persons penis would do that.

"Tons" of nerve endings...


"Tons"



To prove that you would need a study a that suggests circumcised men enjoy sex less. Anybody that has watched even a modicum of porn knows that proposition is laughable.

Also, you would need studies showing statistically significant numbers of circumcised men seeking treatment for sexual dysfunction. Perhaps you can link one of these studies.


It's also interesting that you avoid whoneedtickets' argument that the foreskin has been implicated in the transmission of other viruses like the human papiloma virus, the precursor to cervical cancer. That certainly destroys your proposition that circumcision isn't of importance to heterosexuals. I'll wait for that too...


The irony part

The irony part...

Since you don't get it I'll s a y i t v e r y s l o w l y...


The opponents of circumcision claim that the circumcision procedure presents an unnecessary risk and that it reduces sensation.


They then simultaneously argue that sexually active men should wear condoms. Of course, but condoms certainly reduce sensation; the sensation that's supposed to be preserved from not having a circumcision.



You then suggested that circumcising males to reduce sexually transmitted diseases would be akin to removing people's tongues to prevent mononucleosis. The flaw in that argument is that hundreds of millions of circumcised males lead happy and productive lives but few if any males (or) females lead happy and productive lives without tongues.

[Bombtrack]

53. BTW the post I was talking about that you didn't respond to was #43

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2938934#2943655

[Touchdown]

83. I addressed that strawman argument in another thread.

Thnks for pretending that your silly argument still means something.:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. Thanks For Elevating Dogma Over Science

eom

[Touchdown]

92. You did that. Otherwise I wouldn't have said anything to you.

What you don't know is that there were studies done in the mid 80s-90s. Studies that have had plenty of time to pan out whether or not this is effective. Where's the big news on those? Nada? Wonder why? Can you say Downing Street Memos?

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.

Unfortunately, this subject has received an unbalanced treatment in the popular and scientific press. For example, in February 1996, Scientific American printed an article by two Australian researchers, JC Caldwell and P Caldwell, based on the apparent correlation between HIV infection and non-circumcised populations in Africa. Their retrospective analysis did not examine any patients. Furthermore, de Vincenzi and Mertens (AIDS, 1994) had, two years previously, criticized the design of such studies;17 and although this fact was pointed out in at least two letters to the editor, the magazine chose to edit the letters severely for publication. The Caldwells were also allowed a rebuttal that did not address the criticisms. See the original complete (unpublished) Fleiss and Hodges (1996) and Falk (1996).

In one recent study, Baeten et al.72 reported a small increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition in intact vs. circumcised truck drivers in Kenya. This study followed a cohort of 745 long-distance truck drivers. Subjects self-reported their sexual behavior at quarterly intervals over a 1–2 year period. Commonly reported behaviors included multiple partnerships, failure to use condoms, and contact with prostitutes. This study concluded that circumcision status "may explain the rapid spread of the HIV epidemic in settings, found throughout much of Africa, in which multiple partnerships and a lack of male circumcision are common."

Baeten et al. estimated that the rate of HIV-1 infection amongst prostitutes frequented by working-class men in Kenya is 60-65%.72 During the course of the study, 43 of the 745 men experienced seroconversion to HIV-1. It is important to point out that HIV can be prevented through several known very effective means, such as condom use, and limiting exposure to multiple partners. Rather than advocating universal circumcision (as some have done), it would be more appropriate to advocate better public health education in African countries regarding these issues.

What you also refuse to consider is that throughout the last century, circumcision has been the cure all for any number of diseases, and ALL, every single one, have been proven false. Yes, even urinary tract infections.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

So please excuse my looking upon this new "study" as dubiously as I look upon all the others that have been proven wrong.

[BoneDaddy]

62. This is simply

a old rehash by the anti-foreskin crowd to justify the tribal religious act of circumcism. They have been trying this for years.

Just let people choose what they want for their sons and stop the whole justification of circumcism based on religious grounds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Was That Really The Purpose Of The Studies?

Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

AIDS experts immediately hailed the result, saying it gave the world a new way to fight the spread of AIDS, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would now consider paying for circumcisions.

“This is very exciting news,” said Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at Harvard’s Center for Population and Development, who has argued in scientific journals for years that circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of Africa where it is practiced.

In an interview from Zimbabwe, Mr. Halperin added: “I have no doubt that, as word of this gets around, millions of African men will want to get circumcised and that will save many lives.”

But experts also cautioned that circumcision is no cure-all. It only lessens the chances that a man will catch the virus, it is expensive compared to condoms, abstinence or other methods, and the surgery has serious risks if performed by folk healers using dirty blades, as often happens in rural Africa.

Sex education messages to young men need to make it clear that “this does not mean that you have an absolute protection,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an AIDS researcher and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which sponsored the trials. Circumcision should be added to other prevention methods, not replace them, he said.

The two trials were carried out among nearly 3,000 men in Kisumu, Kenya, and nearly 5,000 men in Rakai, Uganda. None were infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; they were divided into circumcised and uncircumcised groups. They were given safe sex advice — although many presumably did not take it — and retested regularly.







http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA







French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL


To be candid I am totally burned out on this debate. No minds will be changed here...

[BoneDaddy]

69. I don't disagree with the studies

at all. I think it is great news. But... because of the long standing conflict with this issue it is often co-opted by the people who for a LONG time have been trying to come up with a scientific way to justify a tribal religious practice. It is that that I have a problem with.

I, like you, am tired of the argument as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. I'm Trying To Get Out Of This Debate...

But when you look at Jewish and Muslim customs* regarding circumcision and dietary restrictions some of those restrictions made sense in light of their time and some arguably make sense now. The operative word is "some".

I'm not defending every prescription and proscription in the Bible or the Koran but the writers didn't make them all up because they wanted to lead people around by the nose. Some made sense. Again I'm not defending every prohibition and prescription.


Muhammad based a lot of Islamic law on Jewish law in the hope more Jews would convert to Islam but that's another discussion.

[BoneDaddy]

71. Hehe

me too. On this issue I am fully "to each his own".

[depakid]

78. What is it about science that some people don't understand?

There's no "anti-foreskin crowd."

There's only a large set of studies that show very impressive differences between circumcised men and non-circumcised men with respect to the incidence of HIV (and other STD's).

As a matter of setting health policy, it makes good sense to consider how to apply those findings to fight disease- just as I would hope we'd do with any other set of findings.

[Touchdown]

84. Total Bullshit.

"There is no anti-circumcision crowd" You know that is a huge load of dung.

For someone who claims to only be interested in "facts", you llove to ignore the motivations of these and many other "researchers", and the history of their advocacy for circumcision in the past. Many of these doctors advocated circumcision long before they conducted this study.

The latest study, touted by the NYT, has been questioned on ethics, becsause they denied the uncurcumcised control group condoms. The circumcised group were all newly circumcised as well. No wonder they stopped the study early. Those newly circ'd men could not have had sex, sinc they were still convalescing. They got the results they wanted, stopped the study, mmade up some bullshit about "ethical ramificatiuons of continuing" and published it, claiming it as a "Virtual Cure" If this is true, that they denied the use of condoms to anyone, they are cold blooded killers, and should not be anywhere near health policy of any continent.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7519/781

[depakid]

88. Refusing to accept the science doesn't make it go away

you can rationalize all you want in support of your emotional agenda, but the researchers in these HIV and STD studies have presented their work in conferences and published them over and over in credible peer reviewed scientific journals.

If they were flawed in the ways you suggest, they wouldn't have been published. QED.

[Touchdown]

91. Same for you. Snake Oil Salesman.

Where this issue is concerned, the medical establishment has ALWAYS been biased toward circumcision. They wouldn't have published it, if they didn't get the results they wanted. They always publish studies that seemingly prove a surgical procedure (profit margin) as beneficial.

So, you are sayin that the Doctor who questions their study is not credible, and only the hand clappers of those "peer reviewers" are credible? Yep! You don't really care about science. You only care about circumcising.

[question everything]

93. Yes, the medical establishment has always supported

circumcision because years of observations demonstrated that circumcised men and their partners are healthier than the uncircumcised ones.

I was once at a cancer symposium and a urologist commented that he'd never had to remove a circumcised penis.

Yes, condoms are the best method, however many African men (and Americans) do not like to use condoms... not masculine enough, I suppose. And African women do not have the power to force the men to use them or else. Thus, being circumcised is the next best thing.

And circumcising babies is a lot simpler and less pain than circumcising adults.

And, yes, most women are used to circumcised penis so an uncircumcised one can generate revulsion and mocking. There was a famous episode on "Sex and the City" where one of the men finally decided to get circumcised after being ridiculed and rejected by too many women. Once there, he was not going to commit to one partner. He was free and was ready to go conquer the world.

[Touchdown]

100. Eh' no.

Years of justificatins and building long bridges to link circumcision to healthier sex lives have demonstrated that the American medical establishment likes the profits the practice bring in. Nothing more. You are confusing the American obsession with slicing apart the sexual organs of babies (is that pedophelia?) with the rest of the industrialized world, most of which abandonded the practice ages ago. The Orient never did it.

I was once in a wild animal park, and a biologist told me that no animal ever went extinct because of foreskins.

Not buying the results of this, or any of the previous studies that say circ'ing helps halt HIV infection. The previous ones were debunked, or inconclusive. This one will take timme to be proven correct.

Women have no say. I would not condescend to to tell any woman how to run her reproductive life. I would expect the same kind of respect for my autonomy as well. If this happens a lot, then I'm glad I'm gay, as men have a lott less hang ups on nature. Cutting off something on my body because of a fetish that American women have is sexual harassment.

You may object to that term. Let me do the math. Aesthetics+Sexual attraction= Fetish.

"Sex in the City" is a TV show...fiction, remember?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. Respectfully

Respectfully, you're arguing with a gentleman who belives smegma is an anti-pathogen:



"Smegma has the science behind it to be proven as a germ killer..."

-Touchdown


I don't believe this gentleman is going to change his opinion in light of new evidence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. Didn't Clinton Say We're The Party Of Facts And Evidence

eom

[Touchdown]

98. Of course, but both sides of the evidence.

What is the anatomy and purpose of what's cut off? Where are you wqeighing the science for that against this (even you have to admit) new study that may prove to be fool's gold?

The only science your promoting is the cutting off of a vital sexual organ. If you don't weigh both sides, then you are the Fox News of "Facts and Evidence".

This is the second time I asked you to define a foreskin, and you've dodged it once.

[endarkenment]

65. Hey baby don't worry I'm circumcised.

Sleep well clipper club.