Had routine circumcision been in place-48% reduction in STD's

Current rates of circumcision in the US should be in the range of 70-75% for newborns. The study posted earlier puts it in this range except for the West Coast, where is is shown as 31%. I find this figure suspect. Here on the West Coast U.S. there is a large percentage of Hispanics, many of whom come from Mexico where circumcision is not widely practiced, and Asians, where the same is true.. In fact, a recent Univ. of Chicago study put the rates in the US at 80% for whites (90% if the mother had some college), 66% for blacks, and 54% for Hispanics.

No one is saying circumcision of newborns should be mandatory, but the family should be given an informed choice, and the New Zealand study that there is a 48% greater chance of getting an STD if uncut should be publicized, plus the African AIDS studies.

 

i bet you could make a hash of that study. they probably took liberties in drawing the conclusions they did.

 

I'm not circumcised myself, and I've got as much emotional response to the idea as anyone (I'm against it, in case you can't guess). But that doesn't mean that I'm deliberately making myself blind to the fact that there's respectable research saying that circumcision really does reduce the risk of sexually transmitted disease, both the old-fashioned kind and AIDS. I'm sorry, but this is too important to ignore. Not that I'd say the risk is so great that every little boy ought to be circumcised, but it's something we should all be aware of, especially us all-natural intact guys, and any sex partners we have. Obviously, since AIDS is worse in America where men are mostly circumcised, versus in Europe where they mostly aren't, there's more to it than having a foreskin or not. But when conditions are equal for the circumcised and the uncircumcised men, differences do show up.

There was a study in New Zealand back in the 1970s that came up with pretty convincing results, and you can read about it here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/5/1971

They say "Estimates of the population-attributable risk suggested that universal neonatal circumcision would have reduced rates of sexually transmitted infection in this cohort by 48.2%."

 

did you purchase and read the entire study carefully? closely examine the design of the study for potential confounding variables? one must be very careful about drawing causal conclusions from these correlational studies.

 

Yes, I did all of that. Based on your reading of the full study, what do you suggest was wrong with it?

 

i have a problem with any correlational research being used to establish causation. don't you?

 

then you are a bad parent... its not your body to choose..

 

you shouldnt believe every "scientific study" you read....there are scientific studies that say smoking weed causes guys to grow tits and wider hips.......never seen that before

 

That's just propaganda Bullshit

 

safe sex is the ONLY way to control STD's its stupid to even consider exposing someone to an STD because they are under the impression they are less likely to contract anything because they are circumcised..

is it a coincidence that the US has one of the highest circumcision rates in the western world, and coincidently the doctors are paid to do the operation?

healthcare in the US can be driven by fiancial gain....

 

I predict that in a year, the U.S. and many other countries will recommend routine neo-natal circumcision, especially in countries where the AIDS risk is high. I favor circmcision, and put (some of) my foreskin where my mouth is.
I am very happy with the way my penis looks, and so is my lady

 

You definitly can't argue with science if you're not a scientist and have no relative experience in the subject.

Either way, I couldn't IMAGINE not being circumcised. I'm glad =)

 

I don't know/care either way. All I'll say on the matter is that different scientists often disagree. For something to be the truth it would have to be accepted by the scientific community at large. I haven't checked out the report, but before taking it seriously people should check that its a) peer reviewed, b) the person or persons who wrote it have the right qualifications, c) the person or persons who wrote it performed a fair experiment, and d) the person or persons who wrote it are not considered crackpots by their colleagues.

 

Newbunkle - In Africa, there is an HIV/AIDS crisis. Perhaps one third of the people in Zimbabwe have contracted it, and something needs to be done. Free condoms, abstinence all are good ideas, but something more is needed, and that is routine circumcision. People are lining up for it...Why?

The underside of the foreskin is a membrane, not skin, and it's sensitivity when the penis is erect is what is touted by uncut guys as the best reason for not being cut. But that same sensitivity also allows the HIV virus to enter the body through the pores in that area. You have unprotected sex with a woman infected with HIV, your penis goes flaccid, and the foreskin covers the head, trapping the HIV virus in the moist area between the glans and the underside of the foreskin, and it enters the body that way.

If you are circumcised, and have unprotected sex, once you withdraw, the penis just goes flaccid and the glans and shaft remain exposed to the air, and the HIV virus, which does not like fresh air, dies before it can enter the body. That is why the World Health Organization studies done recently in Africa are so significant - they took populations of circumcised and uncircumcised men, and studied their sexual practices.

They also took a male population from villages where circumcision was not practiced normally, and tested them for HIV, and then for those HIV free, they circumcised half of them, and left the others uncut. The incidence of HIV in the uncut men in the study was twice as high as in the cut men, when studied again three years later. This study has been repeated in various African communities, and the results are the same. The study has now been suspended, as it is now considered by WHO to be medically conclusive, and it was determined to be inhumane to continue to play with the lives of humans like this, even though the study was valuable.

From your posts, it is clear you are from the UK, where circumcision was common until the early 1950s, when National Health decided no longer to do it for free. Before that, circumcision in the UK also had certain class elements - if you were a public school (private school in the U.S.) boy, there was a good chance you were circumcised, as the male members of the Royal Family were. If you were from the "lower classes", it was more likely that you would be uncut. By not covering circumcision, this male class distinction was eliminated by National Health in the early 1950s, except where it is done for health reasons, or if the foreskin cannot be retracted (and I would judge that a number of Brits since the 1950s who cannot retract their foreskins go through life like that, not knowing that there is a better way).

Many British males over 55 are circumcised, and most under 55 are not. "Daddy, why does yours look different from mine?", may be a question which has been asked in the UK over that past few decades.

If you are uncut, and most of the boys you grew up with also are, and the girls you dated have only been with guys with uncut penises, there is a certain comfort in this. Likewise, in the U.S., where almost 90% of white boys born to mothers who had attended college are circumcised, the same comfort factor exists. Where I grew up, in a wealthy New England suburb, I would say that 99% of the boys were circumcised, and it was a rarity to be uncut (and regarded as sort of weird looking). We were conditioned to accept the way we all were, and the way our fathers and brothers were.

But in addition to cosmetic and conformist reasons, there was a health factor which dictated circumcision in the U.S. and other countries where it was done for non-religious reasons, such as the Commmonwealth countries. Cancer of the penis, infections generated under the foreskin, and a sense (without medical evidence) that being circumcised led to less chance of contracting an STD, also were reasons for doing this.

In the U.S., in recent years, there has been a movement to not do routine neonatal circumcision, but to evaluate the situation as the boy matures, and do it when and if it becomes medically necessary, due to infection issues, too tight foreskin, etc. My nephew's boys, both homebirthed, were not circumcised at that time (unlike thie father), their parents adopting a "wait and see" attitude. With the recent medical evidence from Africa, and the New Zealand study, all carefully done, and the HIV and STD crisis in the world today, and the ease of movement of persons between continents today, there may be a renewed push for routine neonatal circumcision.

I favor it.

 

It is a stretch to take the experience of a few African tribes and extrapolate the result to conditions in the developed world. We have a real world example right before us. If circumcision protected against HIV, we would expect the rate to be much lower in the US (where the vast majority are circumcised) than in Europe (where the vast majority are not). In fact, the reverse is true. Using the same logic that was applied to the African tribes, we would therefore conclude that circumcision FACILITATES the spread of HIV in the developed world.

 

Most HIV in the US results from unprotected anal sex by gays, dirty needle usage by addicts, and unprotected sex with prostitutes. Being cut or uncut does not protect the HIV victim from getting it if he engages in these practices.

The fact remains that the underside of the foreskin is particularly susceptible to the entry of the HIV virus or STDs after unprotected sex. If you and your partner are disease free and true to each other, and have unprotected sex, or always use a condom, there is no need to be circumcised, if your foreskin retracts easily, if you like the look and feel of the uncut penis, and your partner does too.

 

Of course.

But the facts remain that (a) the studies were methodologically unsound, and (b) one cannot conduct a study in a semi-literate preindustrial African society and extrapolate the results to a modern industrial nation. If circumcision slows the spread of HIV in Africa that is fine, but it should not be given as a reason for circumcision in the US.

One concern I have is that circumcision might confer a false sense of security and lead those who were circumcised to engage in even riskier behavior once they forget about the counseling that accompanied the circumcision.

I'm not sure that health had much to do with the initial popularization of circumcision in the US. It was touted by the Puritan elements as a way to keep boys from masturbating.

 

You cannot say that the African circumcision studies, which have been endorsed as sound by the World Health Organization and the U.S. National Institutes of Health, have unsound methodologies. And the New Zealand study was conducted over a 25 year period.

In the 19th Century, it is true that stopping masturbation was one of the early reasons in the U.S. for recommending circumcision, but the recognized health benefits of having it done soon became the most popular reason. And a circumcised penis became what most Americans, men and women, accepted as the way it should look. And I truly believe the sex is better for both men and women when the guy is cut.

 

i would have to disagree.