I've been hearing a lot about this recently and wondered whether there is much weight to it or if it's just something of a fad combined with 'maybe' evidence. I mean, having your foreskin cut off is a big deal, especially if in ten years scientists say 'actually, it makes no difference.'
I don't feel that I'm hugely at risk either way (condoms and regular partners all the way), but does anyone have more information on this?
Oh, and 'cheese' answers (as is the fad tonight) aren't welcome on this one, sorry. Swarovski: yes, I'mquite aware of that. Did you read what i wrote? 'Reduce the chances' are the key words here. It's a tricky question you ask, because one must be very aware of the language these studies (and other studies) use.
Circumcision hasn't been proven to reduce the chances of contracting HIV. The 3 studies in Africa have shown a correlation (a relationship) between circumcision and a decreased rate of contracting HIV, but all 3 studies were terminated a couple years early and all admit they don't know the cause-effect relationship.
So here's where one needs to be suspicious. Since it's terminated early, who knows if the rates of contracting HIV even out later as the studies weren't carried all the way to the end. And since there's no cause-effect reason yet, no definitively knows why removing the foreskin would reduce one's chances of getting HIV. So yeah, as you said, it is a big deal because I suspect in 10 years scientists will say "actually, it makes no difference." Right now, it could all just be a huge coincidence because there's no proven reason why it should work. Besides, in 10-20 years there may be a cure/vaccine, which would nullify the "need" for circumcision.
This much is true though. As long as you practice safe sex (i.e. condom use with single regular partners) and you maintain good genital hygiene, you're at a very very low risk anyway. In this situation, circumcision probably wouldn't be a benefit to you at all.
As a response to other posters, circumcision status has almost no effect on contracting other STDs. Some studies find that circumcised men are more at risk for contracting STDs A and B, whereas other studies find uncircumcised men are more at risk for contracting STDs C and D, but in the end, there's not much statistical difference between the two groups.
On a last note, even if circumcision did provide some protection, one should be careful in how it's implemented as policy. It would be unethical (though done throughout several parts of the world anyway) to circumcise all newborn males, particularly in a region where HIV prevalence is low. That child will have a higher chance of suffering a complication of circumcision than contracting HIV in this situation. Also, children aren't sexually active, and when they are, that's when they should be presented with the option of circumcision. It's no one's right to remove a part of another's body without consent. Sorry, that's just me being a little preachy.
Anyway, below are some links to studies and comments. I think you'll find the info you're looking for there. Although some of them are very anti-circumcision, they do present some good points worth looking at. erm, circumcised or not you can still get aids...
at least make sure to use protection! i don't believe that it lowers the chances significantly (biologically, i see no reason that it would..) but studies have shown that it does have some effect on HIV transmission. No it doesn't reduce the chances of contracting AIDS, and if its done badly it may increase the chances of spreading infection.
Circumcision is nothing other than a barbaric cultural practice. The hygine benefits are non-existant.
AIDS is spread by blood to blood contact. Wearing a condom reduces the risk of a tear in the foreskin and if it does happen then the condom will contain the bleed. So unless you are planning to go commando, then you should be fairly safe.
Don't forget there are other more contagious deadly diseases like syphillis, hepatitis and leprosy to be concerned about, so don't be a stranger to the clinic when you have a new partner. read one of the several scientific, peer reviewed articles that now exist on HIV infection rates and circumcision. cut it out son.circumcision.is to stop people enjoying better sex.for this is a fact.circumcision reduce the chance of aids how? It's about HIV infection and no, it hasn't been proven. There is some evidence after a few studies. However, these studies don't seem very conclusive at all. I suggest you read the studies or their abstracts at this web site http://www.cirp.org to make up your own mind away from the sensationalised media.
Simple statistics seem to show it's not true though, as the 5 countries with the lowest HIV rates don't circumcise, and the USA is the developed nation with both the highest HIV rate and circumcision rate.
Personally I think because if there is a reduction, it's only a slight one, and only happens in female-to-male transmission, it's irresponsible to promote this. Nothing is going to be as good protection as condoms and/or not sleeping around. In fact in places like Africa, creating open wounds is going to be worse for transmission I would imagine, especially if people mistakenly believe (which I imagine they would) that being circumcised means they can't get HIV and even worse can't pass it on. Then again, don't some people in Africa believe condoms cause HIV?
In addition, I really don't think this should be even considered as a reason to circumcise babies. When they become sexually active they can be presented with the evidence and make their own choice. Bearing in mind babies born today will not be sexually active for 15-20 years, and there may well be a vaccine (or we'll be closer to one) by that time. (And there will be some kids who will end up being gay or waiting till marriage with a virgin, so circumcision would be no benefit to them.)
For all the other things circumcision apparently cures/prevents, check out this slideshow: http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/ (they have all since been proven to be false, unsurprisingly) i WOULDN'T THINK SO -USE A COMDOM I totally argee with you.
In 50鈥檚 鈥?60鈥檚 Circumcision was to stop masturbating
(Found to be not true)
In 70鈥檚 鈥?80鈥檚 Circumcision was to be cleaner
(Found to be not true)
In 90鈥檚 It stopped Cancer
(Found to be not true)
And today people say it stops AIDS and STDS
What will they think of next? It stops global warming.
People think the foreskin is just skin and they are wrong. It is the most sensitive part on a man any uncircumcised guy knows that. I come on this site weeks after weeks telling people not to do it and they still do it. There happy for there sons to have there penis cut off. They don鈥檛 care about what the child thinks or feels. I think people are sick in the head for doing it to a defenseless child, if you want to be circumcised good for you but don鈥檛 bring your innocent children into it.
I believe in children鈥檚 rights. They have a right to a foreskin. Girls have a right to a clitoris. Ok, that is true for people having sex without a condom. And if they are doing that, they obviosuly aren't worrying to much about catching something, are they?
Circumcision is so unnescessary. The studies are very dodgy and there has been a lot of counseling of the circumcised group to lower their risk factors. The protection claimed is only slight (certainly not enough to stop the need for condoms) and lessens with each new study. The link below puts the case very well with plenty of references. As Geoff pointed out, the studies were pretty flawed.
Check out HIV statistics:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...
As you can see, the United States (the industrialized nation with the highest circumcision rate, has the highest HIV rate). Most of Europe and Latin America (who don't circumcise) have lower rates.
In addition, another medical study found that prostitution, not circumcision (specifically mentioned in the conclusion) is what spreads HIV that much; that makes sense.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArti...
Circumcision has become a lot less common everywhere and a lot advantages are also held by being uncircumcised, so don't worry much about it. Research here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?... In March 2007 the World Health Organization and UNAIDS recognized male circumcision as an effective intervention for HIV prevention, but warned that male circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent the heterosexual transmission of HIV. This is all a game of numbers and half-truths. Trebla really hit the nail on the head but allow me to elaborate.
All the "studies," and I use the term loosely, have managed to come up with is a possible correlation between the lack of a foreskin and lower incidence of HIV. Mind you, the 60 percent quoted SOUNDS huge, but it's not. I believe in one study the circumcised men that were infected with HIV by the end of the study numbered 27, the unicircumcised men were somewhere in the 40s. When you look at those numbers, it's not really that compelling. But when you shout 60 percent REDUCTION! It sounds like more of a big deal than it really is.
As for all the people talking about circumcision prevents HIV, read this:
"Consistent with the baseline findings, women partnered with circumcised partners had higher levels of sexual risk during follow-up, being more likely than women with uncircumcised partners to self-report a sexually transmitted infection (6% versus 4%, p < 0.001), have symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection (26% versus 20%, p < 0.001), and to have a risky sexual partner (a man with symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection, or who was HIV-positive; 23% versus 14%, p < 0.001). Women with circumcised partners also had a lower mean number of protected sex acts (8.6 versus 8.3 per month, p < 0.001). "
http://www.nam.co.uk/en/news/863ED8A3-78...
Now how would people feel if we went around shouting that being circumcised has shown an increased risk for STDs based on this study? It'd be kind of stupid right? Right. Circumsizion has not been categorically proven to reduce AIDs risk. It has been linked to a slight reduction of chance by a limited survey conducted on men in sub-Saharan Africa.
If you want to reduce the chance of getting AIDs, use a CONDOM.
Condoms
not
Circumsizion Yes, circumcision does help. See article below. But it also helps prevent many other STDs. Yeast infections, etc. A guy has to be really really intent on keeping his business very clean in order to prevent the problems caused by not being circumcized. Yes, several studies in Africa in the northern regions (top of Africa) comparing what was different from the southern regions show that the tribes that practiced circumcisions on the men had a far less incidence of contracting the Aids virus. The foreskin that was taken off eliminated the virus from staying in the folds and pockets, reducing infection rates of the person.
There have been a couple of studies done on this and they all are coming to the same conclusion. actually it reduces he chances of spreading cervical cancer to a woman
personally
i would never be with a man if he wasnt!
when i have children if they are biological or adopted they getting the knife to fix that! |
