Circumcision halves rate of HIV seroconversion

Circumcision can halve HIV risk

two studies in Kenya and Uganda seem to show that circumcised men have much lower rates of HIV seroconversion than úncut men.

Personally, I don't favour circumcision as a routine procedure with baby boys and think oit is much overused but this study really does suprise me. There has been substanbtial discussion about male circumcision in the past. I just wondered what the diehard oponents of it think of this research.

I reckon you are just angling for a an argument.

What is the economic situation between the two groups? That is the main factor that screws with these kinds of studies.

Edit: nevermind, I see they wacked them for the test.

Oh NO I can hear Parnell storming this way *runs and hides*

Maybe because their willies are sore from being cut off they have sex less often?

hmm not really. I never felt particularly strongly about the issue but had had my opninion genuinely changed by some of the debates on here so that now I would tend to fall down on the side that sees routine circumcision as genital mutilation.

I'm not really interested ina slanging match and would prefer a respectful discussion (is that a pipe dream) But this story caught my eye and as this is the first positive outcome I have ever seen attributed to male circumcision I thought it might be worthy of comment.

I agree BTC, I never felt strongly either way but since reading some of the strong views on the topic, I'm now decidedly against it. I still don't compare it to FGM but I no longer take a passive stance on the issue.

Thats good, tell people who aren't particularly clued up that if they have their foreskins removed they can shag HIV bitches and not worry as much...genius...much better than promoting condom use with the help of modern forward-looking religious backing...

where DO all the HIV bitches hang out in this town anyway?

shhh, theres a serial killer about...

I've said too much...
alas, I am slain!

What's so bad about circumcision? I was done many moons ago, and I'm now slightly concerned that somebody has infringed my rights. The only question is 'How?'???

a real bummer, isn't it.
hat in hand, so to speak.

I dunno, I don't seem to really experience life much differently from my foreskin-toting-friends.

jesus, that's rough. guys toting a bag of foreskins around all day long. but I guess a fella's gotta make a livin' somehow, right? and the "chaps" at the pub do need something to go along with those pints.

After a couple of pints they taste just like pork scratchings. Look pretty similar too if they've been 'on the air' for a few days

there have been a number of studies that suggest that being circumcised reduces the potential for cross infection of several STDs.

This doesnt take away from the fact that we still allow to many Jews into medical practise and they have permeated right through our governments too making it all but impossible to have an open and fair debate on the subject. The stopping of this practise in America and beyond will only be possible once the religious pressure is removed from the argument.

This theory has been around a long time and has been studied intensively. Last time I heard it was bollocks, now it's truth...I'm guessing next year it will be bollocks again. I take that report with a grain of salt

Open debate is difficult in the US because a lot of doctors make good money from doing circumcisions. They defend their interests by funding research to prove it's a good thing. Such as this report. I can't think of any other reason for doing research like this. Circumcision is objectively mutilation. The fact that it's widely practised by certain cultures or in certain countries only means it is a mutilation which has more acceptance than others.

Its fairly obvious why it would reduce the rate of infection. The exposed knob is tougher and then less likely to be injured during intercourse. And in uncut ones, the infected fluids can survive longer under the foreskin further increasing the risk of infection.

Cutting off the penis alltogether would even further reduce the risk of infection, but I'm not in favour of either route.

You are not serious, right?

Throw the Jew down the well!

I believe that the incidence of breast cancer is also strongly reduced through a full mastecomy.

People (of both genders) would probably object if we made it a routine operation for every woman, though...

Wow, that's the most racist thing I've read on this forum since The Israel-Lebanon conflict. To be fair, I haven't been around much recently; I'm sure there have been plenty of awesome racist comments that I missed.

Just in case it disappears (it should).

This from today's Guardian:

Let me see, what's cheaper, more effective and has fewer possible complications: a surgical procedure or using condoms? And which will make doctors more money if they can convince more people to go along with them? I wonder...

I think previously, the studies had been poorly controlled or anecdotal. What is remarkable about these studies is that they appear to have controlled for socioeconomic, religious and rates of sexual activity as well as other factors. This makes these the first fairly conclusive results.

I wonder how many men would willingly lose 30-90% of their sexual pleasure to undergo the procedure? Not many. But I very much doubt they would be told this beforehand.

but surely anything to limit the spread of HIV in Africa that is costeffective should be tried?

There is a cost-effective measure - condoms.

but if it means less people are using condoms because they think it is safe...forgetting about STDs and unwanted pregnancies...

Cut every man's penis off completely. That would be even more effective, and it would drastically cut any overpopulation problems to boot...

Mutilation to stop the spread of disease is NOT the answer.

agreed and condoms should still be promoted. But, when an infection is so endemic ina population that routinely avoids using condoms, could circumcision not also play a part?

Uganda had a very effective program so it is possible to make a huge difference by promoting safe sex.

This is a good point too. It could easily make things worse.

considering that it seems very difficult to introduce condoms, i am not sure how can convince a vast amount of men to get their bits cut.

Are you saying you're against grown men voluntarily getting circumsized to cut their risk of HIV in half?

I can perhaps agree with an argument that it shouldn't be forced on a child but if I have a heightened risk for breast cancer and I wish to have my breasts removed that should be my right.

i am not against it (and also i don't know enough about it) but i am questioning the feasibility.

Sorry Moni, I was addressing the others (Hazza & Wheel), not necessarily you. I should have made that clearer.

To get informed consent you'd have to tell the men that they would lose a lot of sensation. How many would go ahead? The only way to get a large number of men to volunteer would be to not tell them. So ethically the whole thing is a non-starter. Not that that'll make a great deal of difference in practice.

How do you know they wouldn't be given informed consent. You don't know any more than I do how they are planning to go about introducing the project. Lets not put the cart before the horse.

Back to the mastectomy analogy, I'm think there a lot of women who are willing to give up sexual sensation to save their lives.

Or even the skin fore the ...

Normal service will be resumed shortly.

Because if you told men they'd lose anything up to 90% of their sexual pleasure not many would go ahead. And if you didn't tell them, they have not given informed consent, which leaves the docs open to assault charges and claims for compensation,

See Post #2..

Oh now it's 90%

I think some would be willing to sacrifice 100% if it would save their lives. I certainly would.

'Up to' 90%.

Sure, but I think that if you made it a policy to remove the various glands that promote breast growth just after birth, that this would be terribly well received, even if it would prevent most breast cancers...

All that's being debated here is the right to choose.

Hazza, I thought we were discussing adult, informed consent circumcision.

Not too sure about that. Proper scientific, controlled studies on this topic have been done before...this is by no means a first. The results have mirrored previous results and as there are a number of studies which contradict these results which have also been scientifically conducted.

I will wait until there is atleast agreement within the scientific community about this...it's still not known, regardless of what these articles in the paper state.

I studied this briefly in Uni and I must admit that the correlation between HIV spread and being circumcised/unchopped is alarming and LOOKS convincing.

What's the official measure of 'sexual pleasure', coz apparently I'm up to 90% down, and I'm not happy about that.

Luckily I also think that's bollocks - if sex felt 10 times better than it does currently I'd be shooting my load all over the place all of the fucking time.