BBC :: Circumcision 'cuts' HIV infection

[zenkidori]

Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

[bone]

whatever

i'm keeping mine

[targa_997]

Originally Posted by bone

whatever

i'm keeping mine

me too I'd feel naked without it..

[Goose+]

Join us...

[klutch]

Snip snip.

[Jacobfox]

OWWWWW!

It's times like this that I'm glad that I'm a jew.

[mgkdk]

Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization

[cvrefugee]

[Adunaphel]

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by Jacobfox

OWWWWW!

It's times like this that I'm glad that I'm a jew.

"Circumcision is fundamental to Judaism. It is an essential component of Jewish practice and is a commandment obligatory under Jewish law (Halakha) for all Jewish males. It is usually performed in a ceremony called a Brit milah (or Bris milah, colloquially simply bris) (Hebrew for "Covenant of circumcision")." -Wikipedia

[Blind_Io]

I highly recommend that before you believe something that has been washed and re-published in the popular press you fully examine all the data. I want to see the actual methods they used in this study and how they accounted for cultural variables - such as shame about being circumcised and how it affects sexual patterns. Also, if they did this procedure on these men, what was their initial population? Was there any education, even inadvertently, about sexual diseases or sexual function. How did the experimenters mitigate these confounding variables? Would the fact that this is a surgical procedure which requires follow-up and medication affect the results?

There are far too many unanswered questions, and there is still the problem of performing this optional surgery on babies who don't have a choice in the matter, a surgery that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Here is just one fact you might not know about circumcision, and I hope it gets you to read the literature on the other side of the argument:

At birth the foreskin is actually attached to the glans, or head, of the penis with a membrane. There is no medical or practical separation between the two. To remove the foreskin, a blunt probe in inserted between the glans and foreskin and then moved in a circle around the glans, tearing the membrane and damaging the glans. This membrane is naturally absorbed as the child ages, freeing the glans, but this preemptive tearing irreparably scars the glans, reducing sensitivity. A clamp or "bell" is then put in place over the glans so the now free foreskin can be cut away.

Monitoring of children during the surgery show that they go into a state of shock as their brains are overwhelmed with pain, many pass out. No numbing gels are used.

The result of circumcision include: reduced sensitivity (you are removing what will become up to 12 square inches of the most heavily nerve-laden tissue on the male body - even more nerve endings than your finger tips or face). Overall decrease in length, uncomfortable tightness in the skin on the penis during erection - sometimes even painful. Induction of a curve or angle to the penis. Only partial removal of the foreskin resulting in a second procedure to remove more tissue. Partial or total amputation of the glans due to neglience or secondary infection. Total amputation of the penis due to negligence or secondary infection.

In EVERY CASE: the glans becomes less sensitive and progressively more calloused and scared as the male ages. The foreskin protects the glans, which evolved as an internal organ. Without the foreskin the skin on the glans thickens to up to 4 times it's natural thickness, covering whatever nerve endings survived the initial tearing of the membrane. This is a progressive scarification process that continues through life, with every passing year the glans becomes less sensitive to stimuli.

Oh, and ladies: Some men choose to undergo a foreskin restoration, which restores the function of the foreskin, which is to provide a smooth gliding motion, like a sleeve folded in on itself. The man can never recover the nerve endings that were severed, but the glans does regain some sensitivity. Studies have shown that women find sex more pleasurable with an intact male. One study focused only on women who had the some sexual partner before and after he restored the foreskin. With the same partner, the women of the study reported better sensation and a better experience.

I spent a whole semester preparing a paper on circumcision, and there was not ONE study I found that backed up any claims of reduced disease infection as a result of circumcision. At best they had a correlation, but not causation and even the weak correlations I found could be attributed to other factors that were not taken into consideration for the study: income, education, cultural background, etc.

So here is a question: In women, the Clitoral Hood performs a similar function to the foreskin, it protects the clitoris from being exposed to the elements. Debris and infection can also collect and grow under the clitoral hood, much the same way it can under the foreskin if not properly cleaned. There is an international movement to eradicate female genital mutilation, yet we continue to do the exact same thing to males without their consent in this country. In fact, the United States is the ONLY industrialized nation to have circumcision rates as high as we do, they are much less common procedures in Europe and are almost always based either out of medical necessity or religious mandate. Circumcisions are a multi-billion dollar a year industry and there are people who do nothing but circumcisions because of the high rate of return. Parents of newborns report being pressured by hospital staff to consent to the surgery even though there is no medical reason to cut into the body of a healthy baby and risk infection or complication. In fact children have died as a result of botched circumcisions, others have been castrated and had to undergo gender reassignment - these individuals inevitably face hardship later in life.

So. Is it worth it? I don't think so. This is just a small bit of the evidence against circumcision and the hypocrisy of condemning the idea as it applies to women but not to men.

EDIT: Some Jewish parents are now opting for a bloodless Bris. Incidentally, the original ceremony was not one of foreskin removal, just a letting of blood from the foreskin.

There have been many rationalizations for circumcision through the years, originally it was supposed to be a "cure" for masturbation which supposedly caused mental retardation. Then it was supposed to prevent infection, but why slice off a part of your body when a little soap and water will do? It was taken up by the military to prevent infection in the battlefield and to supposedly cut down on incidents of syphilis infection. So far this is the best reason I have found for circumcision given the conditions of the trenches in WWI. We then go through a series of infections it the surgery is supposed to cure and prevent ranging from sexually transmitted bacteria and viruses (all of which live inside the body, I might add) to preventing cancer in women. None of these claims can be substantiated, but the idea marches on, finding new boogey-men that circumcision supposedly vanquishes.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I my foreskin.

[Shawn]

Circumcised dudes have always been cooler and this is the proof finally.

[epp_b]

"Circumcision is fundamental to Judaism. It is an essential component of Jewish practice and is a commandment obligatory under Jewish law (Halakha) for all Jewish males. It is usually performed in a ceremony called a Brit milah (or Bris milah, colloquially simply bris) (Hebrew for "Covenant of circumcision")." -Wikipedia

IIRC, circumcision happens eight days after a baby is born -- a time when you wouldn't remember anything

[NAIDANAC A]

Thank god...it would have hurt...

[FATMOUSE]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

At birth the foreskin is actually attached to the glans, or head, of the penis with a membrane. There is no medical or practical separation between the two. To remove the foreskin, a blunt probe in inserted between the glans and foreskin and then moved in a circle around the glans, tearing the membrane and damaging the glans. This membrane is naturally absorbed as the child ages, freeing the glans, but this preemptive tearing irreparably scars the glans, reducing sensitivity. A clamp or "bell" is then put in place over the glans so the now free foreskin can be cut away.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaooooooooow. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Well, thank god I'm not Jewish or Catholic.