Does Circumcision prevent AIDS?

[Speak2Truth]

I don't know where that claim comes from. The world of science has demonstrated the reduced risk of various diseases including HIV due to circumcision.

Fact or Fiction: Does Circumcision Help Prevent HIV Infection?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ision-and-aids

"By tracking newly acquired infections in both groups, investigators discovered that circumcision cut HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent. In fact, all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect."

And...

Can Circumcision Prevent the Spread of Herpes, HPV, Other STDs?
https://www.health.com/health/condit...272051,00.html

"Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV), but not syphilis.

This finding—published in a March, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine—adds to the evidence that there are health benefits to circumcision, the surgical removal of the penis foreskin, usually performed on newborns shortly after birth. It was already known that circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, a relatively rare disease, as well as the risk of HIV infection."

WHY lie about this? What is the real agenda in thwarting disease-reducing measures in Africa?

[rossmen]

and then there are your links which don't really support what you write, like these. science is way more measured, circumscribed:), and meaningful than your reporting of it. are you astroturd or what?
mrs ross

I don't know where that claim comes from. The world of science has demonstrated the reduced risk of various diseases including HIV due to circumcision.

Fact or Fiction: Does Circumcision Help Prevent HIV Infection?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ision-and-aids

"By tracking newly acquired infections in both groups, investigators discovered that circumcision cut HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent. In fact, all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect."

And...

Can Circumcision Prevent the Spread of Herpes, HPV, Other STDs?
https://www.health.com/health/condit...272051,00.html

"Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV), but not syphilis.

This finding—published in a March, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine—adds to the evidence that there are health benefits to circumcision, the surgical removal of the penis foreskin, usually performed on newborns shortly after birth. It was already known that circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, a relatively rare disease, as well as the risk of HIV infection."

WHY lie about this? What is the real agenda in thwarting disease-reducing measures in Africa?

[Glia]

It comes from good science, common sense, and long-term statistical analysis.

All of these studies you reference are "junk science" that have been proven false, especially the African HIV studies. These studies were conducted by pro-circumcision promoters and were flawed in their design and quite skewed. The sexual practices and even the genetics of Africans are not comparable to populations outside of Africa.

Curiously, a 2010 study done by the same pro-circ nuts in Africa regarding male to female transmission of HIV found that the female partners of circ'd HIV+ men got infected at 50% higher rates than those of intact men. The study was stopped early because continuing it was "futile." (that's medical speak for "oh sh*t, this isn't working like we thought it would.") Funny how that one did not get a lot of hyperbolic coverage in the media, isn't it?

Here's a very good write-up on the circumcision and HIV issue here:
The Nuts and Bolts of HIV in the USA and Why Circumcision Won't Protect Men

The U.S. Navy, on the other hand, has done studies of its male enlistees and found that presence/absence of a foreskin has no statistical correlation to being infected with HIV. They also found that circ'd men had higher rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia because the immunological functions of the foreskin were not there to protect the urethral meatus and clean the glans.

Regarding the viral STDs, what is going on there is that a man without a foreskin has lost 30-80% of the penile skin, so there is 30-80% less skin to get infected. These diseases live on and get transmitted by circumcised penises just fine and dandy and safe sex requires use of barrier protection, so why lose the protective and erogenous functions of the foreskin? It makes no sense at all. Education, not amputation.

Why the lies about genital amputation having "medical benefits" and bestowing some sort of protection against STDs? There are 2 reasons why:

1) The circumcising superstitions know damned well that the only thing standing between male genital cutting being just as illegal as female genital cutting is in the US and most other first-world countries is the allegations of "medical" or "health" benefits. This is pure quackery.
Genital cutting is a way to reduce sexual pleasure and an attempt to control sexual behavior. Period. FYI, it was introduced as a medical practice in English-speaking countries in the Victorian era to prevent boys from masturbating or as a punishment for being caught masturbating. As recently as the 1970s genital cutting such as clitorectomy was performed on girls and women in the US for much the same reasons. Blue Cross stopped paying for it in 1975.

2) There's lots and lots of money to be made in promoting circumcision. Not only is it a nice income stream for the doctors doing the unethical surgery, there are auxiliary income streams from the equipment used (especially the single-use devices such as the Plastibell and the Shang Ring), the support personnel and the operating room, etc. Later on, there is a nice secondary income stream for treating all of the sexual dysfunctions and related quality-of-life issues for both the circumcised men and their female partners caused by altering the male genitals.

Thinking that circumcision or any form of genital cutting is some sort of protection against disease is a very dangerous and foolish notion, right up there with believing in an invisible man in the sky who talks to you and tells you what to do.

I don't know where that claim comes from. The world of science has demonstrated the reduced risk of various diseases including HIV due to circumcision.

Fact or Fiction: Does Circumcision Help Prevent HIV Infection?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ision-and-aids

"By tracking newly acquired infections in both groups, investigators discovered that circumcision cut HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent. In fact, all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect."

And...

Can Circumcision Prevent the Spread of Herpes, HPV, Other STDs?
https://www.health.com/health/condit...272051,00.html

"Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV), but not syphilis.

This finding—published in a March, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine—adds to the evidence that there are health benefits to circumcision, the surgical removal of the penis foreskin, usually performed on newborns shortly after birth. It was already known that circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, a relatively rare disease, as well as the risk of HIV infection."

WHY lie about this? What is the real agenda in thwarting disease-reducing measures in Africa?

[Speak2Truth]

I provided you with links from Science.com and Health.com showing the results of the scientific studies done in Africa. They were pretty clear on the benefits of circumcision. Why do you think Scientific American and Health.com have some sort of agenda that would inspire them to deceive?

You are saying that they are wrong. I would like to see your supporting evidence with links to the other scientific studies. Convince me. Don't just say so, show me.

The Scientific American article describes the study showing the great effectiveness of circumcision and provides detail as to WHY it works:

"It was striking that the trials were in very different settings, but yielded consistent results," says Ronald Gray, study leader for the Uganda trial and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. "This was the largest protective effect ever seen next to condom use," adds Sten Vermund, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. But the question remained: Why?


Microscopic examination of the foreskin yielded important clues for unraveling the benefits of circumcision. Normally, the skin provides a thick protective barrier stemming from keratin—a tough structural protein also found in hair and fingernails. But on the inner surface of the foreskin, the keratin layer is much thinner, resembling the inner lining of the mouth or eyelid more than the palm of the hand.


In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin," says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin. Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells.


In fact, the foreskin's anatomical function actually amplifies the risks. In uncircumcised men the foreskin covers and protects the tip of the penis, paradoxically making the skin there more delicate and prone to microscopic abrasions. These tiny injuries promote inflammation, Fauci says, allowing the virus to come into closer contact with target immune cells. The moist environment that forms under the foreskin also enhances the growth of microbes on the penis's tip, Fauci adds, further stimulating immune responses near the skin's surface.

That's what science is about. Seek the truth through empirical testing and analyze the conditions to understand why particular results appeared.

[theindependenteye]

>>>]I don't know where that claim comes from. The world of science has demonstrated the reduced risk of various diseases including HIV due to circumcision.

The statistics from the studies he cites are debatable in terms of the degree to which the coincidence of circumcision and disease has been "demonstrated." My understanding is that the most that can be asserted is that circumcision may increase the likelihood of cleanliness, which in turn may reduce disease. It might be more effective to educate guys to wash their parts. Alternatively, we might go all the way and promote chopping it all the way off: that'd surely prevent a lot. Though I'd ask for a special exemption, myself.

Cheers—
Conrad

[Speak2Truth]

I followed the link you provided. It discussed statistics of infection rates.

The scientific understanding of why circumcision helps reduce HIV transmission (and other diseases) has been spelled out.

Statistical infection rates do not reflect upon the effectiveness of circumcision. They reflect on social behaviors such as "bug chasing" and "gift giving" and some described in the article you linked.

Circumcision demonstrably reduces HIV transmission risk and we know the biological reasons behind that. Now, it's up to people to behave responsibly.

[Speak2Truth]

Conrad, what was important to me was that the folks conducting the studies went so far as to learn the actual biological mechanisms behind transmission of HIV through the foreskin. They went so far as to determine how it all works so that they would know WHY circumcision was effective at reducing transmission.

I posted the description to further understanding.

[rossmen]

these articles are several years old and are about new cutting edge science which is also a controversial political discussion of a highly personal nature. the articles are research reviews which contain a variety of conflicting info, really just status of the research reports. new questions and info have come out about circumcision and disease prevention. its a hot research topic.

philosophically i tend to hesitate before telling others what to do in their personal life. i am cut, my 25 yr old son is not, and the baby(seems like a boy) coming will not be. are you a medical researcher? why do you care about this question?

I provided you with links from Science.com and Health.com showing the results of the scientific studies done in Africa. They were pretty clear on the benefits of circumcision. Why do you think Scientific American and Health.com have some sort of agenda that would inspire them to deceive?

You are saying that they are wrong. I would like to see your supporting evidence with links to the other scientific studies. Convince me. Don't just say so, show me.

The Scientific American article describes the study showing the great effectiveness of circumcision and provides detail as to WHY it works:

"It was striking that the trials were in very different settings, but yielded consistent results," says Ronald Gray, study leader for the Uganda trial and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. "This was the largest protective effect ever seen next to condom use," adds Sten Vermund, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. But the question remained: Why?


Microscopic examination of the foreskin yielded important clues for unraveling the benefits of circumcision. Normally, the skin provides a thick protective barrier stemming from keratin—a tough structural protein also found in hair and fingernails. But on the inner surface of the foreskin, the keratin layer is much thinner, resembling the inner lining of the mouth or eyelid more than the palm of the hand.


In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin," says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin. Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells.


In fact, the foreskin's anatomical function actually amplifies the risks. In uncircumcised men the foreskin covers and protects the tip of the penis, paradoxically making the skin there more delicate and prone to microscopic abrasions. These tiny injuries promote inflammation, Fauci says, allowing the virus to come into closer contact with target immune cells. The moist environment that forms under the foreskin also enhances the growth of microbes on the penis's tip, Fauci adds, further stimulating immune responses near the skin's surface.

That's what science is about. Seek the truth through empirical testing and analyze the conditions to understand why particular results appeared.

[Speak2Truth]

The reason I care is this:

I see repeated calls to action, to petition or demonstrate, based on vague and often misleading claims. People will jump right in and sign a petition without verifying that its fundamental premise is even true. Lenin called them "useful idiots" for a reason. It hurts me to see people being used - even myself, which is why I ask people to show me if I've got something wrong.

When I see something like that, apparently contradicting the facts, I am interested in at least giving people a chance to make an informed decision.

Because we love one another, we try to help one another avoid being deceived by folks with their own agendas. Truth and openness are the way we guide each other to a better understanding and coexistence.

[addition] I am not a medical researcher. I began my pre-med studies, then changed career paths. I don't like blood. Additionally, in class, I sometimes told people how to fix their own problems, whether it was failing vision or an aching neck. An instructor told me, "You won't make much money as a doctor." I replied, "You're right". I immediately switched to Computer Science, got involved in Aerospace work, changed my life path.

[rossmen]

there is a scientific theory about why circumcision could prevent disease transmission. statistical infection rates are the evidence for this theory. if there are questions about these statistics that is very important in developing this theory further. the question is, "is the theory ready for public policy implementation.?

I followed the link you provided. It discussed statistics of infection rates.

The scientific understanding of why circumcision helps reduce HIV transmission (and other diseases) has been spelled out.

Statistical infection rates do not reflect upon the effectiveness of circumcision. They reflect on social behaviors such as "bug chasing" and "gift giving" and some described in the article you linked.

Circumcision demonstrably reduces HIV transmission risk and we know the biological reasons behind that. Now, it's up to people to behave responsibly.

[Speak2Truth]

there is a scientific theory about why circumcision could prevent disease transmission. statistical infection rates are the evidence for this theory.

No no... go back and look at the biological description of the infection mechanism. It's not statistics, it's details on the actual physical infection process and why circumcision eliminates that particular vector.

[rossmen]

you question one of the dominant theory's of climate science which is moving into public policy. it is up to each of us to decide what is right. i find your use of scientific understanding and research partisan cherry picking. i don't intend to prove anything right, just understand peoples point of view and where it is coming from. the un wants people in africa to cut their kids (and it seems themselves), a movement in sf wants to tell docs they can't cut kids. i don't think you have anything wrong except thinking you know what is right for everyone else.

The reason I care is this:

I see repeated calls to action, to petition or demonstrate, based on vague and often misleading claims. People will jump right in and sign a petition without verifying that its fundamental premise is even true. Lenin called them "useful idiots" for a reason. It hurts me to see people being used - even myself, which is why I ask people to show me if I've got something wrong.

When I see something like that, apparently contradicting the facts, I am interested in at least giving people a chance to make an informed decision.

Because we love one another, we try to help one another avoid being deceived by folks with their own agendas. Truth and openness are the way we guide each other to a better understanding and coexistence.

[addition] I am not a medical researcher. I began my pre-med studies, then changed career paths. I don't like blood. Additionally, in class, I sometimes told people how to fix their own problems, whether it was failing vision or an aching neck. An instructor told me, "You won't make much money as a doctor." I replied, "You're right". I immediately switched to Computer Science, got involved in Aerospace work, changed my life path.

[rossmen]

i see you have an understanding and belief in the theory.

No no... go back and look at the biological description of the infection mechanism. It's not statistics, it's details on the actual physical infection process and why circumcision eliminates that particular vector.

[Glia]

Actually, the "transmission method" has been "spelled out" in the fantasies of circumcision promoters.
It turns out that the Langerhans cells and their special microbial secretion, langerin, KILL HIV AND OTHER VIRUSES. And here's something else to ponder: if circumcision had any preventative effect on HIV transmission, then why did the U.S. have the first major epidemic of AIDS? 90% of the sexually active men in this country were circumcised at the time that HIV was being passed around. Amputation of the foreskin offers no protection for man-on-man sex and is no factor at all in blood-borne infection such as sharing dirty needles. Heterosexual transmission of HIV is low if one is not engaging in risky practices such as having sex with a crack whore or other sex worker.

So here's the real skinny on circumcision and HIV:
Male Circumcision – A Dangerous Mistake in the HIV Battle

Summary
Mass male circumcision is being promoted as a method of curbing the AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Stopping the spread of HIV requires using available resources strategically, and circumcision’s costs and harms are too significant to ignore. Mass circumcision campaigns will divert resources from proven prevention programs, result in a high number of complications, increase risk-compensation behaviors, and put women at higher risk for HIV.
Circumcision is an expensive and risky procedure that was shown to reduce risk by 50–60% for heterosexual males only in three highly controlled, short-term clinical trials. However, condom promotion and safe-sex education have already been shown to reduce infection rates more effectively for both males and females, at a lower cost. Furthermore, anti-retroviral drugs have shown a promising 92% reduction in HIV transmission.¹
Adult males are vulnerable to the belief that circumcision offers them immunity from HIV,² raising ethical concerns about promoting adult male circumcision, and questions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention.
Some have proposed circumcising infants, but this, too, has ethical ramifications.³ Removing healthy tissue from children deprives them of their right to autonomy. Surgery of any kind places them at immediate risk from complications, while the HIV benefit, if any, is 15–20 years away.
Male circumcision does not protect women;⁴ in fact, it may increase their risk of contracting HIV.⁵ Further, circumcision does not protect men who have sex with men.^{6 7}
Background
Results from three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in Africa, showing a reduction in female-to-male transmission of HIV after circumcision, have resulted in the promotion of mass male circumcision to reduce HIV transmission.^{8 9 10} This has been followed by the mobilization of vast sums of money from international health agencies and foundations to roll out mass surgical interventions in sub-Saharan Africa, and to influence male infant circumcision policy in the United States.
RCTs Not Applicable to the Real World HIV Battle
A number of factors warrant caution in extrapolating the RCT results to larger populations. Unlike in a real-world setting, study participants were provided free condoms, extensive education and counseling, and they were paid, making comparisons to the general population questionable at best. The only certain conclusion that can be drawn from the RCTs is that while circumcision might delayHIV infection for circumcised males at high risk, it has no effect on infection rates for women, and is irrelevant for children.
There is insufficient evidence that circumcision as an HIV-prevention strategy is efficacious or would ultimately save lives. A 50–60% transmission reduction in a population engaging in high-risk behaviors is ultimately not effective, especially when it promotes a false sense of immunity.
Two recent studies examining African circumcision rates and HIV prevalence found that circumcision status was not significantly associated with HIV. One study examined data from 13 sub-Saharan countries found no association,¹¹ and another found that circumcision made no difference in HIV rates in South Africa.¹² A 2007 study concluded that, once commercial sex-worker patterns are factored in, male circumcision is not significantly associated with lower HIV.¹³
Another 2009 publication also shows that circumcision status is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence rate—national household survey data from 18 countries in which circumcision status was tracked showed that HIV was higher in circumcised males for 10 of the 18 countries (Cameroon, Guinea, Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe).¹⁴
Recent evidence demonstrates that Langerhans cells in the foreskin have a protective effect against pathogens, including HIV, by secreting langerin.¹⁵ and another found that circumcision made no difference in HIV rates in South Africa.¹⁶ A 2007 study concluded that, once commercial sex-worker patterns are factored in, male circumcision is not significantly associated with lower HIV.¹⁷
Recent evidence demonstrates that Langerhans cells in the foreskin have a protective effect against pathogens, including HIV, by secreting langerin.¹⁸ The original theory (which led to promoting circumcision to stop HIV) was that Langerhans cells are an entry point for viruses. It now appears that the theory was partially true, but that the mechanism at work is that Langerhans cells set a trap for viruses in order to destroy them with langerin. It is plausible that Langerhans cells are only infected by HIV when they are challenged by a high viral load.
Read the rest on the IntactAmerica site


The ICGI has a good summary available here:
https://www.icgi.org/aids/

And then there is the mother lode:
How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections

Incidentally, a 2005 study in Tanzania showed that HIV+ female prostitutes who have been "circumcised," ie had their labia and clitoral hoods chopped off, infected their male customers with HIV less frequently than those with intact female genitals. Do you want to start promoting lopping off the labia of little girls as an AIDS/STD prevention method based on this study?

I followed the link you provided. It discussed statistics of infection rates.

The scientific understanding of why circumcision helps reduce HIV transmission (and other diseases) has been spelled out.

Statistical infection rates do not reflect upon the effectiveness of circumcision. They reflect on social behaviors such as "bug chasing" and "gift giving" and some described in the article you linked.

Circumcision demonstrably reduces HIV transmission risk and we know the biological reasons behind that. Now, it's up to people to behave responsibly.

[Speak2Truth]

Okay, I'll do some reading on the links you sent.

HIV transmission rates in the USA have nothing to do with circumcision. Look up "gift giving" and "bug chasing". Needle sharing. Heck, I argued with a college student who insisted he would have unprotected sex with an HIV infected person because that's not how it is transmitted. Where the heck did he get that idea?

Even as your earlier link pointed out, there are certain behaviors that transmit HIV rapidly that have nothing to do with circumcision. Gay and bisexual men are strongly inclined to engage in those behaviors. All this talk about HIV infection rates is irrelevant to the issue of this discussion topic.The biological question must be separated from rates of infection in various societies.

We must also separate the issue of female genital mutilation, which you seem to be trying to connect to male circumcision. Again, it's a completely unrelated issue.

The question we are addressing is, biologically, whether removal of the foreskin reduces likelihood of transmission of HIV and other diseases. Agreed?

[Glia]

That's great that you are willing to do some reading. Do so with an open mind. You just might learn something!

To me the real question is whether amputating genital tissue -- of either gender -- should even be considered as some sort of disease prophylactic measure. Of course my answer is a resounding NO! There are other, far more effective and non-harmful ways to achieve these objectives. Send genital cutting back to the Bronze Age where it belongs.

Performing such an amputation on a child is a human rights violation and a violation of the child's right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. For this to be done by medical professionals who have taken an oath to "do no harm" is utterly unconscionable.

WRT to male circumcision/genital cutting being not comparable to female genital cutting... how exactly do you come to that conclusion? This is something that I hear a lot, and it is utter nonsense. The only people who find it necessary to differentiate between male genital cutting and female genital cutting are those who want to practice one and not the other. There are also cultural issues affecting this perception, such as being from a culture that practices male genital cutting but no longer practices female genital cutting.

The gender of the child whose genitals are being cut is a non-issue. The amount of tissue or structures that are removed/altered is a non-issue. FYI, the most common form of female genital cutting is the removal of the clitoral hood (prepuce clitoris) and the tip of the clitoris. This is absolutely analogous to male circumcision (removal of prepuce penis and desensitizing the glans penis) and far *less* erogenous tissue amputated than in male circumcision.

The only thing that matters is that genital cutting on children creates abnormal genitals that cannot function as they should, and it reduces or even destroys sexual sensation and pleasure. it is a violation of the body of a person who cannot defend him/her self and is unable to give consent.

Okay, I'll do some reading on the links you sent.

HIV transmission rates in the USA have nothing to do with circumcision. Look up "gift giving" and "bug chasing". Needle sharing. Heck, I argued with a college student who insisted he would have unprotected sex with an HIV infected person because that's not how it is transmitted. Where the heck did he get that idea?

Even as your earlier link pointed out, there are certain behaviors that transmit HIV rapidly that have nothing to do with circumcision. Gay and bisexual men are strongly inclined to engage in those behaviors. All this talk about HIV infection rates is irrelevant to the issue of this discussion topic.The biological question must be separated from rates of infection in various societies.

We must also separate the issue of female genital mutilation, which you seem to be trying to connect to male circumcision. Again, it's a completely unrelated issue.

The question we are addressing is, biologically, whether removal of the foreskin reduces likelihood of transmission of HIV and other diseases. Agreed?

[Speak2Truth]

To me the real question is whether amputating genital tissue -- of either gender -- should even be considered as some sort of disease prophylactic measure. Of course my answer is a resounding NO! There are other, far more effective and non-harmful ways to achieve these objectives. Send genital cutting back to the Bronze Age where it belongs.

How about ear piercing? Or other piercings?

You obviously have a strong dislike for circumcision but it's not harmful. I should know.

I look at a guy with a huge hoop distorting his earlobe and... well, it's hard to get used to. Maybe you have the same reaction to a circumcised pecker?

I strongly believe there's a difference between circumcision and what is done to young girls to prevent them from experiencing certain sexual pleasures. I'll say from experience being circumcised in no way inconveniences me.

I had hoped we could agree to focus the disagreement on whether circumcision actually reduces transmission of STDs as those scientific studies found.

I haven't had time to read the links yet - traveling right now.

[Glia]

Yeah yeah yeah. Same old nonsense that Conrad and a few others had to say when I first started posting on this topic a few months ago. The other attempted reductio ad absurdum counter-arguments are subjecting children to haircuts, nail clipping, and immunizations.

The "well, I'm circumcised and I'm just fine" dogma seems to be quite sticky. It is disturbingly similar to what women who have been subjected to female genital cutting say. Are you opining that these women are fine and they have not been harmed by having parts of their genitals amputated?

There are a few reasons for this POV:

1. Recognizing and admitting that you have had something cut off of your body and taken from you by people who who are supposed to take care of you and look out for you is very psychologically threatening. It is far easier to tell yourself that it is better that way and that they did it because they loved you, it didn't hurt, blah blah blah. This is a rationalization and defense mechanism that abused children (and the adults they become) often use.

2. Since so few American men over 30 are intact, most men have no idea what the foreskin does and what they have lost. "Get it done early so he does not know what he is missing" is one of the justifications for routine infant/childhood male genital cutting (it also acknowledges that he will be missing something). By the time an intact boy is 2 years old or so, he has figured out that his foreskin is loads of fun to play with and feels really good. A man mutilated in infancy has no comparison. And most heterosexual men do not have direct experience with the function of another guy's unit. Therefore, the circ'd straight man has no comparison, so he thinks he's fine. Ignorance is bliss or something of that nature.

You're comparing the forced amputation of the primary erogenous tissue of child's genitals to ear piercing? Really? I'd suggest that you take an anatomy class, but most anatomy texts and courses in this country do not include the penile foreskin and depict the penis as circumcised, as if that's how it was made! You would need to go to Europe to get an accurate text or class.

Name a body part that can be amputated without causing a problem. Ear lobes are about the only one I can think of. And that would seem to be at the heart of your absurd comparison: you think the foreskin is useless and/or dirty.

Amputating the penile foreskin, especially before puberty, creates an abnormal penis that cannot possibly function as it is supposed to. This is a foreign concept to most Americans because we have been subjected to this bizarre demonization of the the foreskin started by the Victorians and perpetuated by the circumcising superstitions.

Four generations of American men have been circumcised at such high rates that most Americans really do not know what a normal penis looks like, much less feels like. The abnormal became the normal for most Americans born before 1985 or so, and they continue to think that the mutilated penis is what it is "supposed" to look like. This is one of the sad attributes of genital mutilation cultural traditions -- transgenerational perpetuation because of the aesthetic preferences of the parents/culture. All of the other nonsense about "health benefits" or "reducing disease" is part of the rationalization. Again, exactly the same rhetoric as used to justify female genital cutting/mutilation.

So what about ear or body piercings? What an adult wants to do with his or her body is his or her choice. If adults want to pierce or cut off some part of their own body, they are welcome to do so. What is done to children who cannot give informed consent is quite another story. It violates their right to bodily autonomy and takes away their option to make their own decision when they reach adulthood.

With respect to circumcision and STDs, I've made my case; you should read before commenting further on the topic.

How about ear piercing? Or other piercings?

You obviously have a strong dislike for circumcision but it's not harmful. I should know.

I look at a guy with a huge hoop distorting his earlobe and... well, it's hard to get used to. Maybe you have the same reaction to a circumcised pecker?

I strongly believe there's a difference between circumcision and what is done to young girls to prevent them from experiencing certain sexual pleasures. I'll say from experience being circumcised in no way inconveniences me.

I had hoped we could agree to focus the disagreement on whether circumcision actually reduces transmission of STDs as those scientific studies found.

I haven't had time to read the links yet - traveling right now.

[Speak2Truth]

Do you have an uncircumcised penis and can therefore explain to me what I'm missing? Or are you simply relying on the word of others, like myself, to tell you their experiences?

Name a body part that can be amputated without causing a problem. Ear lobes are about the only one I can think of.

Foreskin. Toenails. Hair. Appendix. Um... what exactly do you mean by "causing a problem"? Do you merely mean "causing a change in the body"? If so, earlobes are right out.

Circumcision goes back at least 4,000 years. It did not start with the Victorians. So do body piercings. I don't think earrings are demonization of earlobes. And I don't think those Kayan neck rings are demonization of the neck.

And that would seem to be at the heart of your absurd comparison: you think the foreskin is useless and/or dirty.

Really? Can you quote me?

I am not trying to dispel your personal reasons for despising the practice of male circumcision. I despise the practice of female circumcision especially because of its intended effects.

I am trying to focus on the assertion you made that circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. It is the topic of this forum thread. That is my only point of dispute. I seek truth. Are you prepared to focus on that question by comparing sources of information and trying to determine what is most valid and why?

I am.

[Glia]

Being female, I don't have a penis of any configuration. However, it does not take a genius to observe differences in sensitivity and function, albeit on a second-hand (ahem) basis.

There was an objective, scientifically conducted test of penile sensitivity conducted by Morris L. Sorrells M.D. and published in the British Journal of Urology in 2006. The study found that overall the circumcised penis has 1/4 of the sensation that an intact one does, and the most sensitive structures of the penis are amputated by circumcision. Dr. Sorrells discusses the test, procedure and results in this interview:
https://youtu.be/PDh63jVkNVg

A text description of the experiment and the results:
https://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

Here's a good description of what was lost and comparisons of male and female genital parts and amputation:
https://youtu.be/V1FcN3lT40w

Another good description of what is lost to circumcision:
https://youtu.be/V1FcN3lT40w

And here's a great summary of the degradation of sexual function for both the male and the female caused by foreskin amputation:
https://youtu.be/BgoTRMKrJo4

By "causing a problem" I mean changing function and creating negative ramifications of some type in the person's quality of life and/or ability to function. Hair and nails are keratinous extensions of the body. Yanking nails out of their beds would hurt and create abnormal function of digits from which they were yanked because they would not have their protective nail. the appendix is not "vestigial" and has a necessary function. Earlobes... other than being fun to have nibbled on, they are expendable. And accessorizing them is enjoying them, not demonizing them. Have you ever heard of someone saying that earlobes are unclean and therefore must be sliced off? How about playing with your earlobes will make you go blind? Nope? see, no demonizing of earlobes. Plenty of demonizing of foreskins.

Circumcision as an African puberty ritual has been practiced for c. 4000 years. It was medicalized (ie co-opted by the medical practice) from the circumcising superstitions in English-speaking countries about 150 years ago ie during the Victorian era. They demonized the foreskin to justify cutting it off, something that the medical industry and the circumcising superstitions are still doing today. FYI, just because something has been done for a long time does not mean that it is a good idea. This is the fallacious argument of antiquity.

You have not read the previous material that I provided to you regarding circumcision and HIV/STDs. Do you need even more? If so, here you are:
https://www.nocirc.org/circ&aids.php

Here's the bottom line: circumcision is not an effective STD prevention measure. It does not have "health benefits." It does not reduce the sexual transmission of HIV; if anything, it increases it. The only thing it does do is create an abnormal penis that does not function normally (it functions, but not normally), make a mess of sex lives, and make money for the medical industry and mohels. Inflicting it on a child is morally and ethically wrong and a violation of his human rights.

You obviously have access to a computer and an Internet connection. If you want to learn, then read the materials in the links that I have provided to you. If you just want to haggle over absurdities, then you're barking up the wrong tree here cuz I'm done.

Do you have an uncircumcised penis and can therefore explain to me what I'm missing? Or are you simply relying on the word of others, like myself, to tell you their experiences?

Foreskin. Toenails. Hair. Appendix. Um... what exactly do you mean by "causing a problem"? Do you merely mean "causing a change in the body"? If so, earlobes are right out.

Circumcision goes back at least 4,000 years. It did not start with the Victorians. So do body piercings. I don't think earrings are demonization of earlobes. And I don't think those Kayan neck rings are demonization of the neck.

Really? Can you quote me?

I am not trying to dispel your personal reasons for despising the practice of male circumcision. I despise the practice of female circumcision especially because of its intended effects.

I am trying to focus on the assertion you made that circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. It is the topic of this forum thread. That is my only point of dispute. I seek truth. Are you prepared to focus on that question by comparing sources of information and trying to determine what is most valid and why?

I am.

[Speak2Truth]

I am reading your links and responding to them. For example, this one:

https://www.nocirc.org/publish/11-HIV.pdf

It does not claim that circumcision fails to reduce the chance of HIV infection. It dances around that question by saying things like "Circumcision cannot prevent the spread of HIV;". Well, nothing can except abstinence from sex or any contact with an infected person's bodily fluids.

Prevention is not the question. The question is whether circumcision can REDUCE THE CHANCE of catching HIV from an infected person. The article gives a subtle nod to that fact, saying "Circumcision is less effective, more risky, and more expensive than programs that successfully have reduced or stopped the spread of AIDS, such as aggressive educational approaches that discuss the danger of HIV and the importance of safe sex and condom use."

Less effective... yet not contraindicated.

I'm in no position to tell the UN that circumcision should not be included among other approaches to reducing the spread of STDs.

I agree that other methods must be employed. Condoms have a high enough failure rate to warrant their exclusion as a preventive measure. Education is key. Abstinence then Monogamy would pretty much solve the problem outright.

Just think - if the "free love" mindset could be reversed, in Africa and the USA, much progress could be made against unwanted STDs.

[Glia]

As with so many things in this life, one must consider the source when evaluating claims and results of studies. One would be wise to evaluate the method of the study, something that the majority of the lay public or journalists are unable to do. Heck, a disturbing number of scientists do not seem to be able to do it, either!

the postulated method behind the "amputating foreskins reduces the risk of being infected with HIV" assertion goes like this: The foreskin is thin and prone to tears and therefore is an entry point for HIV. It also keeps the glans moist and mucosa-covered, making it virus-friendly. Like all mucosa, the foreskin has immune cells (Langerhans cells in this case) that the AIDS virus can hijack to infect the body. This came out of a thought-experiment by a circumcision promoter (aka a circumcisionist) in the mid-1980s.

Turns out the thought-experiment was not correct as summarized by this narrative published in 2007 on the ICGI web site:

"Recent evidence demonstrates that Langerhans cells in the foreskin have a protective effect against pathogens—including HIV—by secreting Langerin [de Witte]. The previous theory was that Langerhans cells are an entrance point for viruses. It now seems that the theory is partially true, but that the true mechanism at work is that Langerhans cells set a trap for viruses in order to destroy them with Langerin. Circumcision constitutes the removal of healthy, functional, and biologically unique tissue and is unwarranted for the prevention of HIV [Cold]."

There is also this succinct summary in How the Circumcision Solution in Africa Will Increase HIV Infections (2011)

"Lack of biologic plausibility
How does cutting off the foreskin prevent the transmission of HIV? This question remains unanswered. Proponents of the circumcision solution have speculated that the interior mucosa of the prepuce is thinner and more prone to tearing, but mucosa of the inner and outer prepuce have been shown to be of the same thickness.7 Proponents also speculate that HIV is more likely to be transmitted through the foreskin because it has a high concentration of Langerhans cells, which they believe are the entry point for HIV. Research has shown that Langerhans cells are quite efficient in repelling HIV and explains why the transmission rate of HIV is one per 1000 unprotected coital acts.8 The inner foreskin secretes langerin, which kills viruses.9 Langerhans cells also protect against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which may explain why circumcised men are at greater risk for getting an STI (unpublished data). In general, mucosal immunity provides a stronger barrier to infection than the skin. Finally, to support their plausibility argument, circumcision proponents have identified the sub-preputial space as a harbor for sexually transmitted viruses. Meta-analyses assessing the susceptibility to genital infections with herpes simplex virus and human papilloma virus have not shown an association with circumcision status.10,11,12 Unfortunately, these speculations have been repeated so often in the medical literature that many physicians and public health officials consider them factual. There is, however, no direct scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the foreskin is a predisposing factor for infection."

You seem to have either not read these articles or conveniently did not mention them.

The are a few reasons why these "study" results are all over the place. the main one is because the foreskin is simply not a factor either way in sexual HIV infection for men. Another is the number of cofounding factors making it impossible to isolate the role of the foreskin; most of the cofounding factors, as you correctly point out, are behavior and social issues which are impossible to control in the real world. Another issue is the bias and motivations of the people doing the studies, i.e., they are strongly pro-circumcision.

And I have to agree with you that the 11-HIV.pdf publication from NOCIRC is not strongly worded. However, that does not negate or invalidate all of the other analyses and research that others have presented.

With respect to the free love issue, there's an old saying: you play, you pay. How much trouble should we be going to trying to protect people from themselves? Face it, if your darling 17 year old son is shooting heroin and having sex with a crack whore, he's going to catch something. A certain percentage of adolescents and young adults, especially males, are going to die from things like car accidents and drug overdoses. A good parent would be putting his or her energy into raising a child that does not engage in risky behavior rather than chopping off parts of his genitals as some sort of "safety precaution." Can you really tell what a man's sexual risk factors are going to be when he is still a boy in diapers? No, of course not.

The AIDS "protection" nonsense is just the latest in a very long string of scary diseases that circumcision has been purported to reduce or prevent. It's a lot easier to scare parents into having their child "done" than to convince the adult owner of a foreskin to have it cut off.

You may not be convinced enough to tell UNAIDS or WHO anything, and that's fine. At least you looked at it, albeit with a mind that does not seem exactly open. To me, the moral and ethical issues combined with the lack of strong scientific evidence either way and the suspicious motives of the circumcision promoters combine to create a compelling argument to not be doing circumcisions in any continent, much less promoting them -- and definitely not forcing them on children.

I am reading your links and responding to them. For example, this one:

https://www.nocirc.org/publish/11-HIV.pdf

It does not claim that circumcision fails to reduce the chance of HIV infection. It dances around that question by saying things like "Circumcision cannot prevent the spread of HIV;". Well, nothing can except abstinence from sex or any contact with an infected person's bodily fluids.

Prevention is not the question. The question is whether circumcision can REDUCE THE CHANCE of catching HIV from an infected person. The article gives a subtle nod to that fact, saying "Circumcision is less effective, more risky, and more expensive than programs that successfully have reduced or stopped the spread of AIDS, such as aggressive educational approaches that discuss the danger of HIV and the importance of safe sex and condom use."

Less effective... yet not contraindicated.

I'm in no position to tell the UN that circumcision should not be included among other approaches to reducing the spread of STDs.

I agree that other methods must be employed. Condoms have a high enough failure rate to warrant their exclusion as a preventive measure. Education is key. Abstinence then Monogamy would pretty much solve the problem outright.

Just think - if the "free love" mindset could be reversed, in Africa and the USA, much progress could be made against unwanted STDs.

[Glia]

You may not be willing to tell UNAIDS, WHO, etc. anything, but the South Africa Medical Association is:

South Africa Medical Association calls infant circumcision unethical and illegal

June 26th, 2011 by ICGI

The Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee of the South Africa Medical Association’s (SAMA) statement on CIRCUMCISION OF BABIES FOR PROPOSED HIV PREVENTION is:

“The matter was discussed by the members of the Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee at their previous meeting and they agreed with the content of the letter by NOCIRC SA. The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.”

FYI, condoms and barrier protection used properly are 98% effective. Unlike genital cutting, they are 100% reversible.

One of reasons why the intactivist groups are against these mass circumcision campaigns is that they detract resources from other proven programs that stress abstinence, monogamy (faithfulness), and barrier protection. (This was included in the original post on the thread.)

Dr. Dean Edell explains the Africa situation and the ramifications in this 2009 interview:

I'm in no position to tell the UN that circumcision should not be included among other approaches to reducing the spread of STDs.

I agree that other methods must be employed. Condoms have a high enough failure rate to warrant their exclusion as a preventive measure. Education is key. Abstinence then Monogamy would pretty much solve the problem outright.

Just think - if the "free love" mindset could be reversed, in Africa and the USA, much progress could be made against unwanted STDs.