UN: Male Circumcision is important in stopping HIV

I quite frankly think that circumcision sucks. I'm not "cut", but wonder how 'cut' guys get off. Do they have to use lube every time?

 

but not when your sleeping with a cut guy? thats pretty dumb if you arent sure of someones sexual history you probably shouldnt have unprotected sex with them, cut or not!

 

This attitude is exactly why circumsision is far less effective than education. Circumsision does not confer imunity.

Leave other peoples' body parts where you found them.

 

I cant believe this is even being seriously debated, i really wonder how many males would feel comfortable having sex with an infected woman just because he has a cut penis - not many I'd wager.

For me I'd take my chances un-cut with a condom over cut and without a condom any day.

 

Andy - guys with a "loose cut" like me can pull the remaining foreskin over most of the glans when erect, just like you can. No lube is necessary.

For the others posting above, my point was that if I were a woman going to have unprotected rather than protected sex, I would think twice about doing it with an uncut guy, since the studies pretty conclusively show that there is a significantly greater chance of getting STDs or HIV. Of course, for a woman sex with a guy wearing a condom is much preferable to unprotected sex with any guy, cut or uncut.

 

still, if you are having unprotected sex your at risk either way. i bet in a place like the united states, instead of africa where this study took place, if you slept with a man who was cut and a man that wasnt, you have equally likely chances of getting something

 

"Pretty conclusively"? The authors don't think so. They specificaly say that their study is very limited in scope, that the result only applies to the geographical areas that they studied. And that there is a significant risk that newly circumsized men will have a false sense of immunity.

This "significantly greater chance" that you mentioned. What is it? What is the probablity of catching AIDS from an un-cut partner VS a cut partner? (Actualy, didn't the study look at whether the man gets AIDS and not address the question of the woman's chance of getting aid from differently trimmed men. (It addressed heterosexual sex only. The authors specificaly warn against extrapotlaing their data to homosexuals.)) Do you have a link to the study or to what exactly this "significantly greater chance" is?

1) Circumsision does not prevent AIDS.

2) This study is as thorough as those that said that thalidomide was a safe treatment for morning sickness. Don't mutilate your sons based on what your local paper reports. Never, never, never make health decisions based on a newspaper report of a scientific study.

Its not your body part, don't mutilate your sons.

 

IM sorry mike, but yes circ does prevent HIV / AIDs by 60% , these studies where not biased and they had given each man information on safe sex and also given them condoms

but than again
condoms break. why because they arn't 100% effective, and people get pregnant... so they can also catch aids/hiv
If theres a change of someone not catching this deadly disease than i would definately get my son done circ.
neither of these preventative measure are 100% .. that is why its a preventative measure

60% and 53 % from 2 differnt studies is hardly something that u can overlook or seem inconclusive..
expecially when both trails where stopped over a year b4 the trail was set to be closed beucase the stats showed that men where at a greater risk for hiv/aids with an uncut penis, that they didn't want to use the men as guinea pigs, and choose to circ the men who wanted it done instead of having them wait till the end of the study!

 

cutting of part of your boob probably would reduce your risk of getting breast cancer, but that doesnt make it a moral thing to do!

 

Kparker - cutting off part of your brain may also cut the risk of brain cancer. Did you have it done?

 

Seems to me you'd have to be a pretty poor parent for your son to catch an STD before the age where he is able to make his own choices about his dick.

 

I wasn't looking for the comparative rate.
Sex with an uncirc man will result in AIDS transmitions x% of the time.
Sex with a cut man will will result in AIDS transmition y% of the time.

Yes, Y=1.6 * X , but what are X and Y?


I'm curious about that. But my main point is that its not your body part. Leave it alone. It is not yours to cut off as you will, even if your goal is to improve either your sons life or society. Its his body part. Leave it alone until he decides to cut it off. (Similarly, but with less heat, leave your infant daughters' ears unpierced.)

P.S. What do you think about prophelatic mastectomys performed on 3 year olds?

 

I'm afraid there's more. A few months ago there was some publicity about a study in New Zealand comparing the rates of venereal disease (not AIDS) among men who were or weren't circumcised. I'm pretty sure this is the project:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/5/1971

What they said was that for those who weren't circumcised, the risk of infection would have been 48% lower if they'd had it done. If the numbers are that clear, it's surprising that there hasn't been anything definitely stated about the topic before, and it's a good question why statistics haven't shown European men, who mostly aren't circumcised, getting VD at a much higher rate than mostly-circumcised American men. But I think if we're honest we have to say there is some protective effect against STD's from circumcision. The question is how much that effect is, and is it a serious enough situation to justify performing surgery, which always has its own risks, on children too young to consent to it? And is Africa, where AIDS is common, a special case? We might say that the risk is so deadly that circumcision in Africa might be a good idea even if it's not necessary elsewhere.

I'm not circumcised myself and I've got plenty of emotional response to the idea, but as far as the medical evidence is concerned I think it's been proved that circumcision can help prevent disease. That still doesn't make it a clear situation, though.

 

most of yall are gettin stuff like it will prevent and it will reduce the risk of mixed up and im with the uncut dudes on this i mean yea it kinda sucks that these studies are like this but its in freakin africa lol and also its in the tribes and shit and like most ppl have said they could have reduced the risk of HIV by 90-100% jus by passin out some condoms n bars of soap for em to wash theyre package with n teachin em to learn their partners background before fuckin em

 

Amontillado - thank you for a scholarly and balanced view of the circumcision and STD and HIV issue. Most guys look between their legs and decide which side of the debate they are on. You are uncut, but see the benefits of circumcision in certain societies and circumstances.

My personal view, as a cut guy, is that in societies with a high or growing HIV rate, circumcision should be strongly encouraged, along with condom use. Anything to prevent the disease from wiping out their entire society, as it may do in certain areas of Africa.

In countries where the HIV rate is much lower, the advantages of circumcision should be publicized, but not made a mandated thing. It should be a matter of personal choice.

One difficult area is for the 15% or so of uncut males who are unable to retract their foreskins because it is too tight or the frenulum is too short. This problem limits the enjoyment of sex as the glans is not exposed to the vaginal walls during intercourse, and the prospect of infection and/or disease occuring under the foreskin is increased. In this case, foreskin stretching exercises, an operation on the frenulum, or circumcision should be done, as the patient wishes.

My nephew's boys (in California) were home birthed and are not circumcised, although circumcision is the usual practice in our family. The parents decided to wait and see how the boys' penises developed, and if they got penile infections or had retraction problems as they grew older, they would have them circumcised. This is a very reasonable approach.

There are also some guys who are uncut who are unhappy with the look or feel of their penises, and decide to get circumcised. They also may want to look "like the other guys" or their girlfriends prefer the cut look. So they have it done, and most report liking it better.

There are also guys who were cut at birth and wished they had some say in the matter, since it is difficult to reverse the process. But this may be more of a "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" feeling than anything else.

A happy middle ground is what I have, a "loose cut", with much of the foreskin still there, but enough cut off so that it sits behind the glans at all times. I can pull my remaining foreskin entirely over the glans when it is soft, and over half way up when erect, so I can masturbate easily without lubrication or direct contact of my hand with the glans.