Circumcision & HIV

GB and others, I am quite surprised that people are questioning the validity of the study. It’s two studies, one with 2700 participants and the other with 5000. It’s sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). They used large control groups. This is the gold standard in epidemiological studies.

Of course, using a condom is better and washing with soap and water immediately after sex is also better, but why would you debate a well defined and executed study? They’re not saying its the only answer, just one possible answer.

I’m not a fan of adult circumcision, but I do believe in child circumcision if it conforms to your beliefs. There are many people that debate the benefits and the supposed loss of feeling, but there is ample evidence that circumcised individuals catch fewer stds, HIV and infections. Just my thoughts.

The problem is it doesn’t conform to the child’s beliefs. Modifying the body of another person without that person’s permission, is assault and battery. I admit this is my biggest problem with infant and child circumcision. The reason you gave are the same reasons given by practitioners of female circumcision, yet everyone in the west recoils in horror when female circumcision is mentioned. Some defend the difference by stating that female circumcision is more extreme yet male circumcision removes up to 25% of penile skin and usually removes the frenulum, the most sensitive part of the penis.

The difference is that one practice is inculturated by us, the other is foreign. We can easily see the evils of female circumcision yet are culturally blinded by male circumcision though in both cases it’s forcible genital mutilation and I see that as a fundamental violation of a person, any person’s, right to an intact body. If you use belief as a defense of circumcision then you cannot object to female circumcision or other rites practiced around the world which indelibly and permanently change a minor’s body to suit another person or group of persons.

Did they just find the number of people who were circumcised and non and find out how many of them had the aids? Did they check how many had sex, and if their partners had hiv?

Since the presence of the foreskin does not change how the disease is transmitted from one individual to another, we must focus on the effects of circumcision on grown men.

I’m willing to bet that it hurts like a bitch, and probably discourages the poor sod from using Mr Winkey for a while, hence less exposure to potentially diseased individuals.

It would be of interest should this study have included men who have been circumcised at birth.

Perhaps they should compare HIV statistics between, say, Israel and Lebanon.

-Borat, leading scientist

Why Israel and Lebanon Borat, leading scientist?

Borat’s on to something. The guys that get circumcised are probably not having as much sex due to their surgery and recovery. Also, the fact that the men getting circumcised are knowingly doing it as part of a study the effect on the spread of HIV, may indicate that they are more concerned/careful about HIV than the men who are not getting circ’d.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the uncircumcised men were not encouraged to do anything to decrease their risk of AIDS..

To the conspiracy theorists:

Simply because people are circumcised for religious reasons does not mean this study was part of a conspiracy to scientifically legitimize it. Religious zealotry has no effect on the physics and chemistry of STDs. I find your assumptions a bit illogical. I would expect that the NIH would have fairly high standards of scholarship and the main reason even though studies have been “suggesting” HIV is prevented by circumcision since the 1980’s they think they have now “proven it” is because these studies have address the most critical concerns raised over those studies. It is at the very least a possibility. The healing period alone is such a clear risk behavior reducer it would be very surprising if they did not control for sexual rates and practices. If they did not obviously you have a very good point the problem is you don’t know. The fact that you are so willing to conclude that the studies are crap based only on a report of them makes you seem awfully biased. On the other hand I do have a problem with such news reports I wish their was an ethical standard of not leaking such findings to the press until they come out in a journal and so other professionals in the field can immediately comment on the methodology and conclusions of such a study. Critical thinkers have to be patient for the whole story.

Wow this has to be the best argument against circumcision I have seen.

I believe this report can be considered poorly executed at best, and perhaps shit-disturbing.

Oh, if only Dr. Kellogg had never been born..

-Borat, can live without Shreddies (tm) if it means protecting children

Moorth,

When you have a son born in a U.S. hospital and ask that he not be circumcised, you begin to believe in conspiracies. There must have been a dozen different health professionals inquiring about my son’s circumcision status during the 24 hours he was there after birth.

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that the recovery period is about 6 weeks for healing and there’s no sex during that time. Yes, no sexual contact during those six weeks would reduce HIV infection for those who were abstaining and nationally. Then what, for those who have had the procedure?

If there is no concomittant education program - men may infer that they no longer risk HIV infection, having been circumcised - which also offers information and availability of condoms that are acceptable to the male population* there will still be a lot of HIV infection occuring.

But, HIV infection rates may in fact be reduced via circumcision; the men we are talking about are more often having vaginal sex, not anal sex with other men.

The argument about whether male circumcision is “mutilation” will go on and on. I’d suggest the majority of us who have been circumcised don’t feel mutilated, or hold resentment against our parents or health care professionals for events way back there in the past. I do understand that some feel badly taken-advantage of, having had no say about whether they would be circumcised as infants or not. Maybe it should be optional for the individual when he turns 16, gets his driving learner’s permit and may become sexually active sometime soon after.

*There is a thread hereabouts somewhere (Twat’s News?) about African men disdaining the condoms manufactured in Asia, Europe, and the US because they don’t fit right.

I would not assume that the experimental procedure, forgive me for not knowing because I have not read the article, is sound and comprehensive based on the funding source. I personally am uncircumcised and also interested in the data (perhaps I will read it).

From what I gather based from the previous replies, the fact that both circumcised and uncircumcised participants contracted HIV still does not really substantiate much of anything. The researchers’ hypothesis can only be substantiated not proven. In this case, there was a greater frequency of HIV in the participants who were uncircumcised. I would be convinced if the only variable between the groups was the foreskin, but in an experiment like this that is definitely not the case. I am not for one outcome either way. I am only being critical of the experimental design.

Great new cure for brain tumors is a full lobotomy for babies when they are born. Probably wouldn’t be that popular an idea, unless of course we had some ancient fairy tail book telling us that God wanted the chosen to do that to their baby’s when they were born.

My point is that you have no idea of the design, until you read the study rather than the leaked results to the press.

Avocet,
The argument isn’t whether it’s mutilation since the penis can not be repaired to it’s original form and function after circumcision(i.e. the definition of mutilation). The argument is whether people who would like their original penis back should be allowed to call it what it is.