The Circumcision Discussion

nursee · Jul 16, 2003

You know, I think it's so funny how people view the sexes differently. If you're a woman and you get an infection it's no big deal. You get your antibiotics, cream or whatever you need. If an intact male gets an infection it's "Oh my God! That foreskin has to go!" I know so many women who get UTI's or yeast infections almost every month. I haven't heard any suggestion of getting part of her body cut off. I'm sure if my uncircumcised brother ever had a problem (which he hasn't, I asked before the birth of my boys) the first thing a dr. would recomend is circumcision.

AHarri66, BSN, RN · Jul 16, 2003

I know an intact male who occasionally gets "yeasties" under the foreskin. He buys some Monistat, applies it for the required time, and *Viola!* Yeasties are gone.

Same bug, same drug.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 14, 2006

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2006-12-13T205927Z_01_N13463413_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIDS-CIRCUMCISION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

"A U.S. National Institutes of Health study in Kisumu, Kenya, involving 2,784 men aged 18 to 24 showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV infections in circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men. A parallel study involving 4,996 men aged 15 to 49 in Rakai, Uganda, showed circumcised men were 48 percent less likely than uncircumcised men to become infected."

"Researchers previously had noticed that in places where circumcision is common, HIV was less common."

This might explain why heterosexual transmission is much less rampant in the United States specifically, and West generally. There is a much higher incidence of circumcision here.

~faith,

Timothy.

TazziRN, RN · Dec 14, 2006

I knew there was a reason I wanted the baby circ'd if it was a boy!

zenman · Dec 14, 2006

Finally..."proof" that God made a mistake!

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 14, 2006

Finally..."proof" that God made a mistake!

Sarcasm aside, the issue isn't to revisit 25 yrs of the politics of AIDs in America but how to address its current and future rampant spread in Africa and Asia.

All I said is that these results clicked with an observation of mine: why is heterosexual HIV rates much more rampant there than here. My previous personal musings on the topic was a supposition of relative lack of nutrition or hygiene.

If circumcision reduces transmission, it's a far better option then what has been offered Africa and Asia to date. Maybe a reduction in rates could allow for a better targeting of antiretrovirals. As it is, those ARVs in those countries are teaspoons to a lake. A good drought could do lots more to intervene then a rationed number of teaspoons could on their own.

I wonder how this concept works w/ other viruses. I wonder if there is any relationship between circumcision and herpes or hpv.

~faith,

Timothy.

Josh L.Ac. · Dec 14, 2006

Since I haven't looked at the actual study, does anybody know if it is actually the circumcision that cuts the rate of infection, or is it some other cultural factor of which circumcision is an aspect of? Or is it a bit of both?

ayndim · Dec 14, 2006

Population in

Circumcision AIDS prevalence thousands

Country rate(%) per 100,000 (1990)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan 1 0.2 123,638

Finland 1 0.9 4,984

Norway 1 1.5 4,247

Sweden 1 2.0 8,527

Germany 1 2.2 63,237

France 1 3.5 56,367

Mexico 1 4.2 88,598

Denmark 1.6 4.4 5,135

Italy 1 8.9 57,664

Spain 1 14.2 39,405

UK 7 2.4 57,410

Canada 30 3.8 26,560

New Zealand 40 1.2 3,296

Australia 40 4.5 17,083

USA 85 16.0 251,398

Israel 95 0.5 4,586

Sorry about the chart but it is in the doc. 1st no,. is circ rate, 2 hiv rate/100,000

American men are reluctant to use condoms. Studies indicate a considerably higher acceptance and usage rate for condoms in Europe and Japan, where circumcision is almost never practised. Some have suggested that American men are resisting a layer of latex that would further decrease sensation from a glans already desensitized from the keritinization following circumcision. Moreover, condoms are more likely to fall off the circumcised member78. This low acceptance of condoms may be responsible for the high rate of STD and teenage pregnancy rates in the United States--the only industrialized country that has failed to control bacterial STDs during the AIDS era79.

Hmmm! That would explain the above results. Behavior, not circumcision, is the major player in your HIV risk. And weren't the first round of African studies already proven to be flawed? Why not study it here or in Europe?

Circumcised men are at greater risk of HIV infection

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 14, 2006

Sorry about the chart but it is in the doc. 1st no,. is circ rate, 2 hiv rate/100,000
American men are reluctant to use condoms. Studies indicate a considerably higher acceptance and usage rate for condoms in Europe and Japan, where circumcision is almost never practised. Some have suggested that American men are resisting a layer of latex that would further decrease sensation from a glans already desensitized from the keritinization following circumcision. Moreover, condoms are more likely to fall off the circumcised member78. This low acceptance of condoms may be responsible for the high rate of STD and teenage pregnancy rates in the United States--the only industrialized country that has failed to control bacterial STDs during the AIDS era79.
Hmmm! That would explain the above results. Behavior, not circumcision, is the major player in your HIV risk. And weren't the first round of African studies already proven to be flawed? Why not study it here or in Europe?

The above is not only a 7 yr old article, it is one from an anti-circumcision site. It's expressed purpose seems to be to rebut evidence, even then, that circumcision was noted to decrease HIV transmission.

At first glance, the article (it can't really be called a study) mentions its specific biases against circumcision. It tries to overfit direct and simplistic correlations into its analysis: for example, that the U.S. has higher HIV rates than Europe because circumcision leads to less sensation and so, less use of condoms. But, that simplistic correlation ignores that fact that Israel, with even HIGHER circumcision rates, have far less percentages of HIV rates - so, the direct comparison the article tries to force with the U.S. doesn't hold. Obviously, there are other cultural issues at play in the use of condoms. For example, one could be religious: the Catholic church has a principled stance against the use of condoms and Israel doesn't have nearly as large Catholic populations.

The article specifically leaves out areas where HIV is rampant. While it might be nice to compare Western nations and HIV rates, that says NOTHING about HIV rates and Africa and Asia. Indeed, the argument the poster makes is why not study it in the West? Increased access to condoms, privacy concerns, and aggressive treatment regimens make it more difficult to study in the West. In any case, the BEST place to study any epidemic is in epidemic areas.

Finally, I'll take an unbiased, contemporary, controlled study over a 7 yr old analysis by a vested party, any day.

From the FAQ on the site quoted above's main webpage: "Although there is an apparent geographical correlation between male non-circumcision and HIV infection on the African continent, this is not true globally, and the pattern seen in Africa could easily be due to other factors."

Fine, I'll accept the above reasoning. I'm not on a campaign to increase the number of circumcisions performed in the U.S. IF the above statement from CIRP is correct then, lacking evidence of the 'other factors' that reduce HIV transmission, circumcision in those nations seems like a prudent method to facilitate those 'other factors'.

This finding is not at issues or odds with the 'circ or not circ' debate in the States. Whatever the reasons for not circ'ing a child, those reasons do not compare with saving the lives of children (and adults) in nations where HIV remains epidemic and where the resources (ARVs) to treat it simply aren't available.

~faith,

Timothy.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 14, 2006

If this data regarding circumcision proves to be true, AND if the Catholic church, as it is considering, relaxes its stance on condom use (not for birth control purposes, but for infection control purposes) then maybe some real tools can be brought to bear to stem this epidemic in Africa and Asia.

At issue is neither how circs are viewed in the West, nor birth control in the Church. Neither position is threatened by arming people with the tools to save their lives in affected areas.

And THAT is the issue that matters most: the real and desperate need for tools to save the lives of countless victims in epidemic nations.

Indeed, this study was SO promising, that NIH ended the study early in order to offer circumcisions to its control population.

~faith,

Timothy.

Jelli_Belli · Dec 14, 2006

Circumcision is a barbaric, cruel, and unneccesary procedure inflicted on baby boys by an undereducated public. The foreskin is not a vestigial organ. It is an important part of the male reproductive system and provides several important services:

1. It contains tens of thousands of nerve endings and plays a large role in the sensation of reaching climax for males. Removal of the foreskin not only lessens sexual pleasure, it can lead to ejaculatory problems (esp. for males that are circumcised late in life.)

2. The member is NOT an external organ. It was designed to be housed inside the foreskin. This helps prevent injury and keeps the member lubricated.

3. The foreskin also helps prevent UTI in males by keeping the head of the urethra covered and away from bacteria covered foreign bodies (ie. pants and undershorts).

There is no credible evidence that circumcison prevents any disease that proper hygiene and safe sexual practices can not prevent 10 times better.

So why do people continue to want to torture (and make no mistake, circumcising a baby is torture) their newborn child? Circumcision is a traditional Jewish procedure linked to a passage in the old testament. Circumcison here in the US was instituted during the Victorian era by religious heads that felt that by removing the sensitive area on the member, they could prevent little boys from touching themselves and masturbating (sounds kind of familiar to female genital mutilation, doesn't it?). I think that most every sensible person out there would agree that this is rubbish, so why does circumcision remain so prevalant?

Aesthetics and conformity. Parents are so concerned with what their children will look like and how they will be perceived by the public that they are willing to strap a baby to a board and let someone slice a part of their body off with a razor. I find it shamful that this society has such a disdain for the natural state of the body. We dye our hair, fake tan, fake boobs, botox, a thousand types of plastic surgery, and mutiliate the genitals of our young all in some quest of what society finds "desirable" for a body to look like.

Lets not forget the financial side of things too. Circumcision is a 400 million dollar business. Common sense tells us that a MD is going to advocate for any procedure that they will be paid for. Circumcision is a fast and profitable way for 0B's and Pediatricians everywhere to make a buck.

We live in a time when most people are enlightened enough to realize that female genital mutilation is a human rights violation and find it a repulsive practice, but in the same breath can advocate for the same thing on a male child. Where is the logic in that?

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 14, 2006

Circumcision is a barbaric, cruel, and unneccesary procedure inflicted on baby boys by an undereducated public. The foreskin is not a vestigial organ. It is an important part of the male reproductive system and provides several important services:
1. It contains tens of thousands of nerve endings and plays a large role in the sensation of reaching climax for males. Removal of the foreskin not only lessens sexual pleasure, it can lead to ejaculatory problems (esp. for males that are circumcised late in life.)
2. The member is NOT an external organ. It was designed to be housed inside the foreskin. This helps prevent injury and keeps the member lubricated.
3. The foreskin also helps prevent UTI in males by keeping the head of the urethra covered and away from bacteria covered foreign bodies (ie. pants and undershorts).
There is no credible evidence that circumcison prevents any disease that proper hygiene and safe sexual practices can not prevent 10 times better.
So why do people continue to want to torture (and make no mistake, circumcising a baby is torture) their newborn child? Circumcision is a traditional Jewish procedure linked to a passage in the old testament. Circumcison here in the US was instituted during the Victorian era by religious heads that felt that by removing the sensitive area on the member, they could prevent little boys from touching themselves and masturbating (sounds kind of familiar to female genital mutilation, doesn't it?). I think that most every sensible person out there would agree that this is rubbish, so why does circumcision remain so prevalant?
Aesthetics and conformity. Parents are so concerned with what their children will look like and how they will be perceived by the public that they are willing to strap a baby to a board and let someone slice a part of their body off with a razor. I find it shamful that this society has such a disdain for the natural state of the body. We dye our hair, fake tan, fake boobs, botox, a thousand types of plastic surgery, and mutiliate the genitals of our young all in some quest of what society finds "desirable" for a body to look like.
Lets not forget the financial side of things too. Circumcision is a 400 million dollar business. Common sense tells us that a MD is going to advocate for any procedure that they will be paid for. Circumcision is a fast and profitable way for 0B's and Pediatricians everywhere to make a buck.
We live in a time when most people are enlightened enough to realize that female genital mutilation is a human rights violation and find it a repulsive practice, but in the same breath can advocate for the same thing on a male child. Where is the logic in that?

A perfectly catched argument by those that oppose circumcision for asthetic/hygienic reasons. I could debate some of the points, but, since it is obviously, by your choice of words, a very personal matter to you, there is no point.

It is also not at issue here.

Circumcision to protect against life depriving and society wrecking disease processes is NOT about asthetics. This is not about a newfound Western athetics debate, but about saving lives in areas of the world that don't have the luxuries at their disposals that would lead to cultures that can afford to spend their time arguing asthetics. The SAME luxuries that allow us to spend our time arguing these asthetics also afford us the medications and treatments to NOT have to consider the costs of such positions, if our morality is enforced on other parts of the world.

For the record: I'm HIGHLY educated and all 3 of my boys are circ'd, but again, that's not the point; saving lives is the point. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are ignorant and just need more education. That rationale only supports positions where there is a need, within the argument, to deny a valid, if opposite, point of view. In this case, the need comes directly from the position being a minority position. Ultimately, it becomes a circular argument: I'm right because those that disagree with me are wrong.

~faith,

Timothy.