Circumcision

[Mags 112]

uncircumcised peens remind me of tube worms.

BUT cut or not - doesn't matter to me... it's all about the girth.

finally someone who agrees with me

I agree too. I don't care either way. I think what is sad is all these woman who have been programmed into thinking an uncut ####### is disgusting, yet they've never slept with a man who is uncut.

Doesn't make sense to me!

Random memory sorta related to the topic: When I was in college, I dated a guy from Poland for about six months. It was my first foreskin experience. He'd moved to the States as a teenager and had a heavy Polish accent, plus a slight stutter. Apparently I provided his first BJ. His feedback: "Wow. That's very s-s-s-s-stimulating." God love him.

First foreskin experience.

[scandal 951]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

What a bunch of #######!! perfect example of how you can prove whatever with statistics. Please, show me the theory of how cutting a part of a man's ####### will prevent infection with or replication of the retrovirus. I guess the prepuce has some weird role in the virus cycle that we are unaware of! Let's circumcise all men and we can forget about condoms!

This is most likely linked to differences if lifestyles/ sexual habits, and the sample chosen for the study.

Think about this: lost of sensitivity due to circumcision affects some men more than others. Some men cannot use condoms because with the lost of sensitivity, they have trouble holding an erection if they use one. Prevent aids: make sure your son will be able to wear a condom!

Saludos,

Caro

Such hostility, my goodness. No one is telling you what to do. If you're not cut and you don't want to get cut - don't.

The reference is to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), the US's pre eminent authority on the state of the art in controlling infectious diseases. That includes H1N1 influenza, as well as HIV and other viral agents. Just because the science in this case seems to indicate a different conclusion than what you would prefer doesn't make it invalid. It does make your temper tantrum appear quite childish however.

You ask

Please, show me the theory of how cutting a part of a man's ####### will prevent infection with or replication of the retrovirus.

Did you even follow the link before posting? Methinks not. Here is the direct answer to your question.

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans ####### may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

1 Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.

2 Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73.

3 Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4.

4 Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10.

I am not an expert in the field - I'm just pointing out the ongoing research. From my layman's understanding, there have been several studies all done in Africa where the incidence of HIV infection is of course much higher than in other parts of the world, including the US. Note that even the cited journal articles are careful to use phrasing like "may reduce risk" and "could be beneficial". No one is drawing definite conclusions. However the early research is promising. No doubt further wider studies are ongoing, most likely also in western countries. Over the next few years expect to hear more and more about such studies.

Also, no one is suggesting that circumcision provides immunity from HIV infection!! It most certainly does not. Anyone seriously offering counseling will tell you to practice safe sex, remain monogamous or abstinent with a partner whose history you know, or use condoms if you are having sex with a partner where you do not know the full history.

[mawilson 2,133]

I have to agree it's completely idiotic.

You have to be out of your friggin' mind to be having unprotected sex with someone who's HIV-positive.

Just use the damn condom! Circumcision ain't gonna save you.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

What a bunch of #######!! perfect example of how you can prove whatever with statistics. Please, show me the theory of how cutting a part of a man's ####### will prevent infection with or replication of the retrovirus. I guess the prepuce has some weird role in the virus cycle that we are unaware of! Let's circumcise all men and we can forget about condoms!

This is most likely linked to differences if lifestyles/ sexual habits, and the sample chosen for the study.

Think about this: lost of sensitivity due to circumcision affects some men more than others. Some men cannot use condoms because with the lost of sensitivity, they have trouble holding an erection if they use one. Prevent aids: make sure your son will be able to wear a condom!

Saludos,

Caro

Such hostility, my goodness. No one is telling you what to do. If you're not cut and you don't want to get cut - don't.

The reference is to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), the US's pre eminent authority on the state of the art in controlling infectious diseases. That includes H1N1 influenza, as well as HIV and other viral agents. Just because the science in this case seems to indicate a different conclusion than what you would prefer doesn't make it invalid. It does make your temper tantrum appear quite childish however.

You ask

Please, show me the theory of how cutting a part of a man's ####### will prevent infection with or replication of the retrovirus.

Did you even follow the link before posting? Methinks not. Here is the direct answer to your question.

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans ####### may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

1 Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.

2 Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73.

3 Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4.

4 Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10.

I am not an expert in the field - I'm just pointing out the ongoing research. From my layman's understanding, there have been several studies all done in Africa where the incidence of HIV infection is of course much higher than in other parts of the world, including the US. Note that even the cited journal articles are careful to use phrasing like "may reduce risk" and "could be beneficial". No one is drawing definite conclusions. However the early research is promising. No doubt further wider studies are ongoing, most likely also in western countries. Over the next few years expect to hear more and more about such studies.

Also, no one is suggesting that circumcision provides immunity from HIV infection!! It most certainly does not. Anyone seriously offering counseling will tell you to practice safe sex, remain monogamous or abstinent with a partner whose history you know, or use condoms if you are having sex with a partner where you do not know the full history.

I'm a woman.

Don't buy into the ####### that some money-centered doctors throw your way. They do it because the circumcision business- it is a multimillion business for doctors. Just like for male circumcision, in areas where they practice female circumcision they use the same arguments to continue its practice "it is more hygienic", "it prevents diseases", "social stigma". That should tell you something!

Regarding HIV...

The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection

A statement by Doctors Opposing Circumcision

Introduction. There have been a number of exaggerated claims made for the alleged efficacy of male circumcision in preventing female-to-male infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) This statement examines those claims and puts them in proper perspective.

History. The theory that male circumcision may be protective against HIV infection was invented and developed in North America. According to Professor Valiere Alcena, MD, he originated the theory that removing the foreskin can prevent HIV infection in an article1 in August 1986.2 The late Aaron J. Fink, MD, a noted North American advocate of male circumcision, then promoted Alcena's theory in letters to medical journals.3-5 North American Gerald N. Weiss, MD, who operates a website to promote circumcision, and others contributed to the development of the theory through a paper, which was published in Israel (1993), identifying the prepuce as a possible entry point for HIV.6 North American circumcision enthusiasts have further promoted male circumcision with opinion pieces in medical journals.7,8 Stephen Moses, Daniel T. Halperin, and Robert C. Bailey are other well known North American promoters of male circumcision.8,9

Numerous observational studies were carried out in Africa, but the evidence-based Cochrane Review (2003) found insufficient evidence to advocate a circumcision intervention to prevent HIV infection.10

Randomized controlled trials. After the failure of observational studies to show a clear protective effect, circumcision advocates obtained funding from the United States National Institutes of Health to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Africa. Three RCTs to study the value of male circumcision in reducing HIV infection have been conducted in Africa since the publication of the Cochrane Review. The studies were intended to find out if circumcision is an effective intervention to prevent female-to-male HIV infection. A RCT under the supervision of Bertran Auvert, French circumcision proponent, was carried out in Orange Farm, South Africa;11 a RCT was carried out in Kenya under the supervision of North American circumcision proponent Robert C. Bailey and Stephen Moses;12 and a RCT was carried out in Uganda under the supervision of North American circumcision proponent Ronald H. Gray.13 Dr. Auvert has been a circumcision proponent since at least 2003.14 Professor Moses has been an advocate of circumcision at least since 1994.9 Professor Bailey has been a circumcision advocate since at least 1998.15

All three studies found that non-circumcised males contract HIV infection more quickly than circumcised males.11-13 This may be because the circumcised males required a period of abstinence after their circumcision. All three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group. Mills & Siegfried point out that early termination of such studies cause the benefits to be exaggerated.16 Dowsett & Couch (2007), even after publication of the RCTs, found insufficient evidence exists to support a program of circumcision to prevent HIV infection.17

Cultural bias. When studying circumcision, cultural bias must be considered:

Circumcision practices are largely culturally determined and as a result there are strong beliefs and opinions surrounding its practice. It is important to acknowledge that researchers' personal biases and the dominant circumcision practices of their respective countries may influence their interpretation of findings.10

More than 50 percent of infant boys in North America still are subjected to non-therapeutic circumcision. There is a well known cultural bias in favor of circumcision in North America,18-21 which may influence doctors at the National Institutes of Health as well as those directing the studies. Doctors conducting these studies may not possess the necessary attributes of neutrality and objectivity. Ideally, researchers from circumcising cultures, circumcised themselves, would recuse themselves from considering the data.

Risks, complications, and drawbacks. The reported complication rate of 1.7 percent seems unreasonably low. Williams & Kapila estimated the incidence of complications at 2-10 percent;22 In the survey by Kim & Pang, 48 percent reported decreased masturbatory pleasure, 63 percent reported increased masturbatory difficulty, and 20 percent reported a worsened sex life after circumcision.23

Effectiveness. Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. The Auvert study in South Africa reported 20 infections in circumcised males.11 A study in Kenya reported 22 infections in circumcised males. Brewer & found higher rates of HIV infection in circumcised virgins and adolescents.24 The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

There are many methods of HIV transmission, including:

* mother-to-child infection,

* transfusion of tainted blood25

* infection with non-sterile needles used in health care,25

* infection by homosexual and heterosexual ####### intercourse,26

* infection by needle sharing to inject illegal drugs,

* traditional African scarring practices,

* tribal (ritual) circumcision,24

* female circumcision,27

* male-to-female heterosexual transmission, and

* female-to-male heterosexual transmission.

Male circumcision might only reduce infection by the last method, so the overall influence on the HIV epidemic in Africa, at best, would be likely to be slight, however, the risk of male-to-female transmission is much higher than that of female-to-male transmission, so a means of partial prevention that targets only the second means at the expense of the first would be counterproductive.

There is no indication that male circumcision would protect women. Viral load is the chief predictor of the risk of HIV transmission.28 Malaria infection increases viral loads, so enhances infectivity.29 Male circumcision would not reduce viral loads and would not reduce infectivity to the female partner. One study, however, has shown female circumcision to be strongly protective.30

Condom usage. Condoms have been shown to be effective at preventing HIV transmission.31 The use of condoms is necessary to prevent infection whether or not the male is circumcised.

Effect on condom use. Male circumcision removes nerves from the penis32 and causes significant loss of sexual sensitivity and function.33 For this reason, many circumcised men are reluctant to use condoms. A program of mass circumcision may reduce condom usage and have an adverse effect on the overall HIV infection incidence.

Vaginal abrasion. "Dry sex" is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa.10 34 Women place various drying agents in their ####### to absorb vaginal lubication. This practice may itself cause abrasion and fissures that provide a portal for the HIV virus.10 28 Circumcision also reduces vaginal lubrication, curtails the gliding action, increases friction and vaginal abrasions,35 so, when combined with "dry sex", may increase the risk of female HIV infection through abrasions. The combination of dry sex and circumcision appears to sharply increase the risk of male-to-female transmission of HIV. A recent preliminary report found that the female partners of circumcised males experience higher rates of HIV infection.36

Relevance to developed nations. These African studies were carried out in HIV “hot-spots”—places where the incidence of HIV infection in the population is high and where the method of transmission is heterosexual intercourse. They are not relevant to developed nations, such as the United States, where the incidence of infection is low and where the predominant methods of transmission are through homosexual ####### intercourse or through needle-sharing by drug addicts.37

Circumcision of children. These RCTs, which studied HIV transmission among adults in Africa, cannot be used to support the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Infant boys do not engage in sexual intercourse so they are not subject to sexually-transmitted HIV infection. They, however, are subject to various complications of circumcision, including infection through an open circumcision wound with various pathogens, such as deadly CA-MRSA.38,39 Other risks include hemorrhage, exsanguination, and death;40 and various surgical accidents, including urethral fistula,41 penile denudation,42 and traumatic amputation of the glans #######.43 By the time today’s newborn boys became sexually active, HIV vaccine is likely to be available so circumcision today, in an attempt to prevent HIV infection in the distant future, is contraindicated.

The high infant mortality rate in the African countries hardest hit by the HIV epidemic means many childen will die before they become sexually active, further vitiating any protective effect of infant circumcision. The time, effort and money would be better spent on community health measures that would preserve their lives and those of their parents.

Because of their minority, children cannot grant consent, so any non-therapeutic circumcision of a child is a human rights violation44 and ethically inappropriate.45

Discussion. Effective methods of reducing HIV infection include education and behavior change.46 Abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage offer men and women the greatest protection in avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission.

Men who have been circumcised may consider themselves immune to HIV and at no risk to their female partner. That, however, is not the case. Circumcised men may still contract HIV and pass it on to their next partner.

The reported complication rate of 1.7 percent seems unreasonably low. Williams & Kapila estimated the incidence of complications at 2-10 percent;22 In the survey by Kim & Pang (2006), 48 percent reported decreased masturbatory pleasure, 63 percent reported increased masturbatory difficulty and 20 percent reported a worsened sex life after circumcision.33

The authors of the RCTs have engaged in the promotion of circumcision.47,48 Van Howe and colleagues argue that their true motivation may be the introduction of universal male circumcision, using fear of HIV as the tool with which to accomplish their goals.46

Social problems. The introduction of male circumcision into a non-circumcising society may present problems such as:

* adverse psychological and sexual effects caused by the diminishment and desensitization of the #######,49

* increased antisocial behavior,49

* violations of human rights,49

* violations of laws that protect children,49 and

* inability to discontinue male circumcision when the need for it no longer exists.49

Politics. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is quite severe in several African nations. In some areas, a high percentage of the population is HIV+. Public health organizations are under intense pressure to solve the problem. The use of male circumcision to prevent HIV infection is akin to a drowning man grasping at a straw. Although male circumcision is likely to be proposed for political reasons, it is likely to have little effect on the overall incidence of HIV infection and may cause later problems. According to Ntozi:

It is important that, while circumcision interventions are being planned, several points must be considered carefully. If the experiment fails, Africans are likely to feel abused and exploited by scientists who recommended the circumcision policy. In a region highly sensitive to previous colonial exploitation and suspicious of the biological warfare origin of the virus, failure of circumcision is likely to be a big issue. Those recommending it should know how to handle the political implications.50

Opposing evidence. Both the public and the medical community must guard against being overwhelmed by the hyperbolic promotion of male circumcision and must receive these new studies with extreme caution. There is contradictory evidence that male circumcision is not as effective as proponents claim. One study found that male circumcision had no protective effect for women51 and another study found that male circumcision increased risk for women.52 Grosskurth found more HIV infection in circumcised men.53 Barongo et al. found no evidence that lack of circumcision is a risk factor for HIV infection.54 A study from India found little difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men in the conjugal relationship.55 A study carried out in South Africa found that male circumcision offered only a slight protective effect.56 A study carried out among American naval personnel found no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between non-circumcised and circumcised men.57

The future. The development of a vaccine is the best hope for the solution to the HIV epidemic.58 Several teams of scientists are working to develop vaccines that will prevent infection with HIV and other vaccines that will treat those already infected.59 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has contributed $287 million to 16 research groups for development of a vaccine.60

Conclusion. Male circumcision is a highly emotive operation that generates strong feelings in many men,10 especially those who have been circumcised,61 as have most North Americans. The trauma associated with the operation may generate a desire to repeat or reenact the trauma.62 Other men may feel a need to justify their own circumcision by the generation of claims of health benefits.61 The medical literature is full of protective claims for various diseases, such as sexually transmitted disease (formerly called venereal disease),63 male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection.64 All such claims have been disproved.

The RCTs on which the current claims are based have been carried out by men who have a previous history of promoting circumcision. DOC has little confidence in such studies, especially since contradictory evidence exists.

Male circumcision may increase male-to-female transmission of HIV and mitigate any reduction in female-to-male transmission. A preliminary report confirms the increased risk to women.65

Instituting a program of male circumcision is of dubious value. It will divert resources from proven methods of epidemic control and it may generate a false sense of security in males who have been circumcised. The desensitization of the ####### that frequently results from male circumcision is likely to make men less willing to use condoms. A program of male circumcision very likely may worsen the epidemic.

The epidemic in Africa may have little to do with lack of circumcision and everything to do with the percentage of the female population engaged in female sex work. Talbot (2007) has established a correlation between the number of female sex workers in the population and the level of HIV infection.66

Calls are being heard for the circumcision of children although (assuming that male circumcision is effective at controlling female-to-male infection) this could not be helpful until the child becomes sexually active. As previously stated, the non-therapeutic excision of healthy body parts from non-consenting children is a violation of human rights44 and medically unethical.45 Therefore, the true motivation of the circumcision proponents must be questioned.46 It may be perpetuation of neonatal circumcision, not control of HIV.

DOC believes that more emphasis on education, behavior change—such as abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, provision of condoms, treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases, treatment of genital ulcer disease, control of malaria, and provision of safe healthcare would be more likely to produce beneficial results. The ultimate answer is likely to be one or more of the vaccines now in development.

doctors opposing circumcision - on HIV

Saludos,

Caro

Edited June 13, 2009 by JVKn'CVO

[Texanadian 10]

My birthing teacher was present when they circumcised her first boy. They strapped him down, and before cutting they have to separate the gland from the prepuce with a razor. They boy was in obvious severe pain. Needless to say, her second was uncut.

The trouble with using anesthesia on a newborn is that the anesthetic can cause swelling, which in turn complicates the operation. Thus many don't use any. It's also a cost saving measure.

I'm a woman.

Don't buy into the ####### that some money-centered doctors throw your way. They do it because the circumcision business- it is a multimillion business for doctors. Just like for male circumcision, in areas where they practice female circumcision they use the same arguments to continue its practice "it is more hygienic", "it prevents diseases", "social stigma". That should tell you something!

Vaginal abrasion. "Dry sex" is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa.10 34 Women place various drying agents in their ####### to absorb vaginal lubication. This practice may itself cause abrasion and fissures that provide a portal for the HIV virus.10 28 Circumcision also reduces vaginal lubrication, curtails the gliding action, increases friction and vaginal abrasions,35 so, when combined with "dry sex", may increase the risk of female HIV infection through abrasions. The combination of dry sex and circumcision appears to sharply increase the risk of male-to-female transmission of HIV. A recent preliminary report found that the female partners of circumcised males experience higher rates of HIV infection.

I've often thought about the the hypocrisy of promoting male circumcision as a hygenic thing. Yet we all know that it's women who get infections down there. Pretty rare for a male to get a uninary infection......yet I don't see people saying that women should get circumcisions. It's just the opposite. People say it's genital mutilation and a travesty of human rights. And then they take their son to get him cut.

The dry sex aspect of the sub-saharan Africa baffles me. Why??? Are they having sex to try and start a fire with sparks?

[scandal 951]

I'm a woman.

Don't buy into the ####### that some money-centered doctors throw your way. They do it because the circumcision business- it is a multimillion business for doctors. Just like for male circumcision, in areas where they practice female circumcision they use the same arguments to continue its practice "it is more hygienic", "it prevents diseases", "social stigma". That should tell you something!

Ok, you are a woman. My apologies for not knowing your gender. I think we can both agree that your (or my) gender is irrelevant to our discussion.

You are still using the word '#######'. I'll note again, I am not an expert in the field. I am citing evidence that has been presented in the medical community showing a link between circumcision and reduced HIV infection rates. I did so because the overall topic of this thread is circumcision, and people have asked what if any benefits there may be. There may indeed be a benefit, based upon this research. Many professionals think so. I tend to agree, based on my limited understanding of the research. You don't - that's your right. You may call it '#######', but by doing so you don't make your argument stronger, you just sound shrill.

You make two unsubstantiated claims. (a) that there is a multimillion dollar business to be protected in the performance of circumcisions, implying that there is some form of lobby or conspiracy to promote the practice (b ) that the practices of male and female circumcision are somehow equivalent.

Neither statement is true. Your making these statements without any basis does not make them true.

Regarding "female circumcision" -- I did not mention this practice, nor is it mentioned on the CDC webpage, and I am unaware of anyone suggesting that it has beneficial values. On the contrary, that practice is more often and correctly known as female genital mutilation. It is a much more invasive and dangerous practice, removing not just an external flap of skin (as in males), but significant tissues in the ####### including the entire #######.

Quoting from the wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

In the past several decades, there have been many concentrated efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) to end the practice of FGC [Female Genital Cutting]. The United Nations has also declared February 6 as "International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation".[8][9]

There is no comparable effort by the WHO or the UN or any comparable body whatsoever to end the practice of male circumcision.

The two practices are simply in no way comparable.

Thank you for your posting of the complete text of a countering position by the "doctors opposing circumcision". I had seen their web page when I posted my CDC article yesterday. No doubt there are doctors and others professionals who disagree, even strongly. And that is good. There should be debate and more studies done, and the existing studies should be critiqued. That is valid science. I do note however that the CDC opinion is based upon peer reviewed journal submissions. The webpage you cite does not. I personally would give the CDC higher marks for authority on the subject, that is why I quoted from their web page as opposed to other sources I may have chosen. You are free to disagree with me.

Again - if you personally feel that male circumcision has no benefit and in fact is somehow harmful, by all means do not have it performed on your children and feel free to speak your mind against it. I am circumcised, my sons are circumcised. I know for fact that no trauma has occurred to me personally as a result. And I am open to the possibility that there may be associated health benefits to the procedure.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm a woman.

Don't buy into the ####### that some money-centered doctors throw your way. They do it because the circumcision business- it is a multimillion business for doctors. Just like for male circumcision, in areas where they practice female circumcision they use the same arguments to continue its practice "it is more hygienic", "it prevents diseases", "social stigma". That should tell you something!

Ok, you are a woman. My apologies for not knowing your gender. I think we can both agree that your (or my) gender is irrelevant to our discussion.

You are still using the word '#######'. I'll note again, I am not an expert in the field. I am citing evidence that has been presented in the medical community showing a link between circumcision and reduced HIV infection rates. I did so because the overall topic of this thread is circumcision, and people have asked what if any benefits there may be. There may indeed be a benefit, based upon this research. Many professionals think so. I tend to agree, based on my limited understanding of the research. You don't - that's your right. You may call it '#######', but by doing so you don't make your argument stronger, you just sound shrill.

You make two unsubstantiated claims. (a) that there is a multimillion dollar business to be protected in the performance of circumcisions, implying that there is some form of lobby or conspiracy to promote the practice (b ) that the practices of male and female circumcision are somehow equivalent.

Neither statement is true. Your making these statements without any basis does not make them true.

Regarding "female circumcision" -- I did not mention this practice, nor is it mentioned on the CDC webpage, and I am unaware of anyone suggesting that it has beneficial values. On the contrary, that practice is more often and correctly known as female genital mutilation. It is a much more invasive and dangerous practice, removing not just an external flap of skin (as in males), but significant tissues in the ####### including the entire #######.

Quoting from the wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

In the past several decades, there have been many concentrated efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) to end the practice of FGC [Female Genital Cutting]. The United Nations has also declared February 6 as "International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation".[8][9]

There is no comparable effort by the WHO or the UN or any comparable body whatsoever to end the practice of male circumcision.

The two practices are simply in no way comparable.

Thank you for your posting of the complete text of a countering position by the "doctors opposing circumcision". I had seen their web page when I posted my CDC article yesterday. No doubt there are doctors and others professionals who disagree, even strongly. And that is good. There should be debate and more studies done, and the existing studies should be critiqued. That is valid science. I do note however that the CDC opinion is based upon peer reviewed journal submissions. The webpage you cite does not. I personally would give the CDC higher marks for authority on the subject, that is why I quoted from their web page as opposed to other sources I may have chosen. You are free to disagree with me.

Again - if you personally feel that male circumcision has no benefit and in fact is somehow harmful, by all means do not have it performed on your children and feel free to speak your mind against it. I am circumcised, my sons are circumcised. I know for fact that no trauma has occurred to me personally as a result. And I am open to the possibility that there may be associated health benefits to the procedure.

Circumscision rules.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

Circumscision rules.

keeps your hand from slipping off, eh?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Circumscision rules.

keeps your hand from slipping off, eh?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's hard to make ####### cheese without a foreskin.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

You make two unsubstantiated claims. (a) that there is a multimillion dollar business to be protected in the performance of circumcisions, implying that there is some form of lobby or conspiracy to promote the practice

# If circumcision doesn't provide any health benefits, then why do doctors still do it?

The primary reason in the United States is cosmetic. The image of the circumcised ####### has become so much a part of our cultural consciousness that most people do not know what a non-circumcised ####### looks like. They may feel that the natural look is ugly or may think it is unhygienic. Discomfort with the natural appearance of the ####### is a learned response.

Tradition is powerful. Many parents cite their desire to have their son look like his father, or like his friends. As the circumcision rate in the U.S. falls (it is now around 60%), the intact ####### will become the norm instead.

Some parents ask for circumcision because they believe that it will save their sons from having health problems later in life. In fact, circumcision does not provide any protection against infection, penile cancer, or sexually-transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS), and does not reduce the rate of cervical cancer in female partners. (See the Circumcision Information Resource Center, under "The role of the prepuce in prevention of disease and infections.") Myths about circumcision are slow to die and are still used to justify many surgeries.

Another reason doctors continue to perform circumcisions is that they, like the general public, are unaware of the value of the foreskin. The standard medical education in the United States includes the technique of circumcision but lacks a description of normal penile anatomy or function. Around the turn of the previous century, medical textbooks began printing images of circumcised penises instead of intact ones, so most medical students do not even have the opportunity to learn what a normal adult ####### looks like.

Many doctors and medical students are not aware that infant circumcision is not recommended by any national medical organization in the world.

Circumcision is also a procedure that doctors can perform in just a few minutes. The cost of an infant circumcision is a few hundred dollars. Amputated foreskins can be sold later to pharmaceutical and medical companies for use in research and in the production of shampoos, emollients, and skin for burn therapy. These financial incentives may complicate the issue.

circumcision faqs

(b ) that the practices of male and female circumcision are somehow equivalent.

# Isn't female circumcision worse than male circumcision?

Female circumcision is typically viewed as more horrific than male circumcision because it is usually done under unhygienic conditions rather than in a hospital, and because one form of female circumcision, infibulation, is particularly severe. However, both male and female circumcisions are classed as genital mutilation by the International Coalition for Genital Integrity. Both forms of circumcision remove functional, normal tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals, and permanently damage the sexual response. And in most cultures where female circumcision is performed, male circumcision is also performed with equally unhygienic instruments. Regardless of the child's gender, when done to infants or children, unnecessary genital surgeries violate human rights because they are amputations performed without medical need and without the individual's consent.

The World Health Organization recognizes three types of female circumcision. Type I removes the clitoral hood and/or the clitoral tip. Type II removes the clitoral hood, #######, and part or all of the #######. Type III, also known as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, involves removal of all external female genitalia and suturing of the vaginal opening.

Male circumcision can be compared to type I or II female circumcision. Although the glans is not harmed at the time of circumcision, the loss of protective structures causes it to dry out and lose sensitivity over time. It is also important to note that most of the nerves and pleasure receptors present in the ####### are, in the male, present in the foreskin and its associated structure, the frenulum. Removal of these nerves constitutes a loss that can be most adequately compared to a partial clitoridectomy.

circumcision faqs

Thank you for your posting of the complete text of a countering position by the "doctors opposing circumcision". I had seen their web page when I posted my CDC article yesterday. No doubt there are doctors and others professionals who disagree, even strongly. And that is good. There should be debate and more studies done, and the existing studies should be critiqued. That is valid science. I do note however that the CDC opinion is based upon peer reviewed journal submissions. The webpage you cite does not. I personally would give the CDC higher marks for authority on the subject, that is why I quoted from their web page as opposed to other sources I may have chosen. You are free to disagree with me.

References for the article (omited on the original posting due to being too long)

References:

1. Alcena V. AIDS in third world countries. N Y State J Med 1986;86(8):446.

2. Alcena V. AIDS in third world countries. (letter) PloS Med 2006;October 16. [Full Text]

3. Fink AJ. A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS [letter]. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1167.

4. Fink AJ. Newborn circumcision: a long-term strategy for AIDS prevention. J R Soc Med 1989;82(11):695.

5. Fink AJ. Newborn circumcision: a long-term strategy for AIDS prevention. J R Soc Med 1990;83(10):673.

6. Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of a diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993;29(1):42-3.

7. Cameron DW, Simonsen JN, D'Costa LJ et al. Female-to-male transmission of HIV-1: risk factors for seroconversion in men. Lancet 1989, ii:403-7.

8. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet 1999;354(9192):1813-5.

9. Moses S., Plummer FA, Bradley, JE, Ndinya-Achola, JO, Nagelkerke NJ, and Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sex Transm Dis 1994;21:201-10.

10. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J, Egger M, Low N, Weiss H, Walker S, Williamson P. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003. Oxford: Update Software. [Full Text]

11. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, et al. (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2:e298. [Full Text]

12. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:643-56.

13. Gray RH. Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;369:557-66.

14. Rain-Taljaard RC, Lagarde E, Taljaard DJ, Campbell C, MacPhail C, Williams B, Auvert B. Potential for an intervention based on male circumcision in a South African town with high levels of HIV infection. Aids Care 2003;15(3):315-27. [PubMed]

15. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR. Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Infect 1998;74(5):368-73.

16. Mills J, Siegfried N. Cautious optimism for new HIV prevention strategies. Lancet 2006;368:1236.

17. Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007;15(29):33-44. [Full Text]

18. Paige KE. The ritual of circumcision. Human Nature 1978;1(5):40-8. [Full Text]

19. Riner R. Circumcision: a riddle of american culture. Presented at the First International Symposium on Circumcision, Anaheim, California, March 1-2, 1989. [Full Text]

20. Miller GP. Circumcision: cultural-legal analysis. 9 Va. J. Social Policy & the Law 2002;9:497-585. [Full Text]

21. Waldeck SE. Using male circumcision to understand social norms as multipliers. University of Cincinnati L Rev 2003;72:455-526. [Full Text]

22. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993;80:1231-6. [Full Text]

23. Kim D, Pang M. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2006 Published on line ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x [Abstract]

24. Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, Roberts Jr JM. Male and female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:217–26. [Abstract]

25. Brewer DD, Brody S, Drucker E, et al. Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm. Int J STD AIDS 2003;14:144-147. [Full Text]

26. Grulich, AE, Hendry O, Clark E, et al. Circumcision and male-to-male sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS 2001; 15(9):1188-9. [Full Text]

27. Brady M. Female genital mutilation: complications and risk of HIV transmission. Aids Patient Care STDS 1999;13(12):709-16. [Full Text]

28. Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, al., for the Rakai Project Study Group. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodefficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 2000;1342:921-29. [Abstract]

29. Abu-Raddad LJ, Patnaik P, Kublin JG. Dual infection with HIV and Malaria fuels the spread of both diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Science 2006;314(5805):1603-6. [Abstract]

30. Stallings RY, Karugendo E. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? Presented at the Third Annual International Aids Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, Rio de Janeiro, 24-27 July 2005. [Abstract]

31. De Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. N Engl J Med 1994;331(6):341-6. [Abstract]

32. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the ####### and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-5. [Full Text]

33. Kim D, Pang M. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2006 Published on line ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x [Abstract]

34. Baleta A. Concern voiced over "dry sex" practices in South Africa. Lancet 1998;352:1292. [Full Text]

35. Warren J, Bigelow J. The case against circumcision. Br J Sex Med 1994; Sept/Oct: 6-8. [Full Text]

36. Circumcision protects men from AIDS but might increase risk to women, early results suggest.International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, 6 March 2007. [Full Text]

37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC HIV/AIDS Science Facts: Male Circumcision and Risk of HIV Infection: Implications for the United States. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 23, 2006. (PDF) [Full Text]

38. Bratu S, Eramo A, Kopec R, Coughlin E, Ghitan M, Yost R, et al. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospital nursery and maternity units. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; Jun. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no06/04-0885.htm [Full Text]

39. Epidemic Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus: Dramatically Increased Risk for Circumcised Newborn Boys. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2005. [Full Text]

40. Newell TEC. Judgement of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan. Burnaby, B.C.: British Columbia Coroner's Service, Monday, 19 January 2004. [Full Text]

41. Limaye RD, Hancock RA. Penile urethral fistual as a complication of circumcision. J Pediatr 1968; 72(1):105-6. [Full Text]

42. Sotolongo JR, Hoffman S, Gribetz ME. Penile denudation injuries after circumcision. J Urol 1985;133:102-3. [Full Text]

43. Gluckman GR, Stoller ML, Jacobs MM, Kogan BA. Newborn penile glans amputation during circumcision and successful reattachment. J Urol 1995 133(3) Part 1 :778-779. [Full Text]

44. International Human Rights Law and the Circumcision of Children. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2006. [Full Text]

45. Medical Ethics and the Circumcision of Children. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2006. [Full Text]

46. Moore DM, Hogg RS. Trends in antenatal human immunodeficiency virus prevalence in Western Kenya and Eastern Uganda: evidence of differences in health policies? Int J Epidemiol 2004;33(3):542-8. [Full Text]

47. Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Hodges FM. HIV Infection and circumcision: cutting through the hyperbole. J R Soc Health 2005;125(6):259-65. [Full Text]

48. Garenne M. Male circumcision and HIV control in Africa. PLoS Med 2006;3(1):e78. [Full Text]

49. Boyle GJ. Issues associated with the introduction of circumcision into a non-circumcising society. Sex Trans Inf 2003;79:427-8. [Full Text]

50. Ntozi JPM. Using circumcision to prevent HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: the view of an African. In: Health Transit Rev (Australia) 1997; 7 Supplement: 97-100. [Full Text]

51. Carael M, Van de Perre PH, Lepage PH, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission among heterosexual couples in Central Africa. AIDS 1988;2(3):201-5. [PubMed]

52. Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al. Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23(2):371-80. [Abstract]

53. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9(8):927-34. [PubMed]

54. Barongo LR, Borgdorff MW, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in urban areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6(12):1521-8. [PubMed]

55. Changedia SM, Gilada IS. Role of male circumcision in HIV transmission insignificant in conjugal relationship (abstract no. ThPeC7420). Presented at the Fourteenth International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-12, 2002. [Abstract]

56. Connolly CA, Shishana O, Simbayi L, Colvin M. HIV and circumcision in South Africa (Abstract No. MoPeC3491). Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004. [Abstract]

57. Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA. Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population (Abstract no. TuPeC4861). Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004. [Abstract]

58. Singh V. No vaccine against HIV yet—are we not perfectly equipped? Virol J 2006;3:60. [Full Text].

59. Spearman P. Current progress in the development of HIV vaccines. Curr Pharm Des 2006;12(9):1147-67. [PubMed]

60. Gates Foundation pledges $287M For HIV vaccine research. Medical News Today, 24 July 2006; [Full Text]

61. Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:93-103. [Full Text]

62. van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12(2):389-411. [Full Text]

63. Darby RJL. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005: pp. 260-84. (ISBN 0-226-13645-0)

64. Glick LB. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005: pp. 179-214. (ISBN 0-19-517674-X)

65. Anonymous. Circumcision protects men from AIDS but might increase risk to women, early results suggest. International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, 6 March 2007. [Full Text]

66. Talbott JR. Size matters: the number of prostitutes and the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. PLoS ONE 2007;2(6): e543. [Full Text]

Again - if you personally feel that male circumcision has no benefit and in fact is somehow harmful, by all means do not have it performed on your children and feel free to speak your mind against it. I am circumcised, my sons are circumcised. I know for fact that no trauma has occurred to me personally as a result. And I am open to the possibility that there may be associated health benefits to the procedure.

If circumcision were really harmful, wouldn't a lot of men be talking about it?

A lot of men are. National organizations such as NOCIRC (National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers) and NORM (National Organization for Restoring Men) testify to the existence of millions of men who have lost sensitivity and function due to circumcision. Married, single, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men of all ages are finding that their adult sexuality has been compromised by the loss of their foreskins in infancy.

Because our culture discourages men from admitting feelings of inadequacy or discussing health problems, particularly those of a sexual nature, many men have felt unable to describe their problems or have not found a receptive audience to their concerns. Many are also unaware of how much feeling they have lost; it is impossible for a circumcised man to know what his experience of sexuality would have been, had he not been circumcised. There is medical literature suggesting that circumcision causes sexual dysfunction later in life, as well as anecdotal evidence from circumcised men who experienced problems with chafing or lack of pleasure from sex (see Personal Stories).

Circumcision affects each man differently. During the healing process, some may be able to reroute more or fewer of the severed nerves and blood vessels and may retain more or less ability too feel. Some men feel numb during sexual activity and are unable to feel any pleasure. One man who was circumcised as an adult compared his sexual experiences before and after to the difference between seeing in color, and seeing in black and white.

circumcision faqs

Saludos,

Caro

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Please don't quote that whole post.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's hard to make ####### cheese without a foreskin.

Spook loves the fromunda cheese!

[Immigrant2009 0]

WOW, looks like it's a hot topic here on VJ.

[scandal 951]

WOW, looks like it's a hot topic here on VJ.

Apparently.