Circumcision protects against AIDS-HIV infection?

Question

Now that health authorities have confirmed after several research studies that circumcision indeed protects against AIDS-HIV infection and lowers the riks of contraction up to 70%, what do you think will be the future of those groups and lobbies that irrationally and fanatically oppose the procedure without any realistic or logical reason?

(See http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html and

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/health/main2263235.shtml )

Please READ the question. I'm not asking if it protects or not. I already know IT DOES. I'm asking what you think will happen with those groups I mention.

Answer 1

Interesting question.

I think it will depend upon how these groups, and their members, react. If they react rationally, accept the science but maintain their position for other reasons, then they will survive. On the other hand, if they react irrationally, as seems probable, they will find that they lose what little credibility they have. People have little tolerance for those who are obviously fanatical. Back in August, an article appeared in Slate and the Washington Post, ridiculing the anti-circumcision activists' stance.

Reading through other (anti-circumcision) answers to this question, the answer seems fairly clear.

Two simply deny the findings.
One makes an absurd comparison to mastectomy.
One rather pointlessly calls circumcision 'genital mutilation,' as if that answered the question.
One has apparently been out of touch with findings since the late 1980s.
One makes an intelligent comment about concentrating on other issues.

Finally, one declares that the HIV research isn't relevant, makes a ludicrous comparison between Europe and the US, completely ignoring the fact that there are multiple risk factors which differ between the two, and leaves us with this gem:

"If you actually look at the study you'll most likely see that the numbers are skewed, the research is questionable, and the study is biased."

Impressive. Until one remembers that neither study has actually been published yet! But why should that prevent detailed criticism - there's no need for critics to actually have a clue what they're talking about, is there?

Answer 2

I think if there are radical people, they will always be so, but I don't believe that everyone who is against circumcision will have their opinion changed by this. I'm not against circumcision for other people, but I will not have it done for my son, even in light of reading this. I think the study is fascinating and important, but we've know since the jews first invented circumcision that it cuts down on the incidence of disease and illness. Circumscising men in Africa may be the best defense IN AFRICA for cutting down on AIDS (like the ancient jews, they don't have a lot of clean wash water), but here in the states we can protect against HIV and infections with proper cleaning, use of condoms, and smart sexual and lifestyle choices, and that is what I will teach my uncircumcised son. Hopefully, the fanatics out there will read about this study and realize that not everything is black and white, and that what is good for some isn't necessarily good for everyone, and choose to tone down the fanaticism a bit.

Answer 3

I have 2 boys, one who is circ'd the other is not. I am pregnant with baby #3 and we are still having the discussion to cut or not to cut (we do not know the sex of baby). I read about this shortly after I had my second son (this had been brought up about 4 years ago but I guess now they have the research to prove it better). I have often second-guessed my choice to not have him circ'd.
I think this is relevant to any country where people are having unprotected sex (of course they SHOULD be using protection). Just take a looksee on here and see how many 14yr olds are getting pregnant. We have all seen 'spring break' flings, mardi gras etc.. I am sure we have all at one time or another wiped the sweat off our brow after being worried about something only to find out it was okay after all.
Under the foreskin is a perfect breeding ground for the virus to survive until it can find a way in to a new host whether it is another partner or into the man carrying the infection under his foreskin.
These groups will continue to carry on their way and try to tell people what to do. I can teach my sons everything they need to know but if they lack good judgement one wrong time it could cost them their life? By snipping off a piece of skin at a time they don't remember - I could possibly prevent that?
Human beings have not really been around that long to have evolved too much. Something had to protect the tip of the penis when our ancestors were out hunting in the wild. Men also had to be able to penetrate their women quickly. Sex was probably not as recreational then as it is now. The foreskin allowed for easier insertion since, I imagine, there was not alot of foreplay to allow for a woman to get turned on to become lubricated. Of course it was put there for a reason, but are these reasons still valid? It takes years for things to change (eg. evolution) perhaps this is why some men's foreskin is longer than others? Maybe it will eventually it will be gone?

No hate responses please. Remember I have one son done and one not.. I just wanted to show there are other sides to all this. Logical sides, not emotional.

Answer 4

I think the original purpose of circumcision was to inhibit bacterial or fungal infection from thriving in this area.It only stands to reason how having this done would reduce the possibility of transmission through an open sore.I think it might give certain people a false sense of security if a person is circumcised.To me this is like saying they wouldn't have to use condoms either.I think promiscuity, prostitution and rape are still the most foremost ways of spreading it.I think this only leads to more confusion and misconceptions. Even if only non-infected men were to be circumcised I hardly think it will make much difference when it is so prevalent in places like Africa. You may as well try to bribe them by offering rewards for staying negative. As far as circumcision they need to find a way without causing any pain or distortions as with the ring they used to use.

Answer 5

I think those groups will, in the future, focus on something else instead of saying it can't lower the risk of HIV.

Such as possible pain felt, other similar procedures that we could do but don't (like mastectomy, but that's more radical), etc.

Also possibly the fact that you could avoid the risks of wound infection, skin tags, scarring, unevenness, etc (which are all possibilities) by offering safe sex as an alternative to avoid contracting HIV.

As well as predicting that men who believe circumcision will protect them from HIV may practice unsafe sex because of it, causing them to contract other STDs.

I think that's what'll happen.

Answer 6

Circumcision can save over two million in the next 15 years. This is very serious and should not be taken as a joke.

All these studies have been carried out by prestigious and respectable research institutions and universities, and are back in many cases by official organisations such as the US National Institutions of Health or the World Health Organisation.

Why uncircumcised men are more prone to STD’s?

Scientist have discovered that the skin covering the inner side of the foreskin is by its nature (has a very low amount of a protein called ‘keratin’ which stops viruses entering into the body, plus some other factors) acts as an ‘open door’ to STD’s. Circumcision, by removing the foreskin, ‘closes’ this ‘door’.

Circumcision rates are increasing nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

The sites below have very interesting information related to this topic. Please have a look.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1928973§ionid=5054

Answer 7

I think this study isn't relevent to developed countries like the USA.

I think that AIDS is in epidemic proportions in Africa. I think that there is a social stigma in that country that comes with using a condom and YEARS of attempts to get men to use condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV have failed because of it. "Real men don't use condoms" is what many of them believe, even with YEARS of attempts to educate otherwise. It is culturally normal there for males to be promiscuous. In areas of civil unrest, the rates of rape are truely ASTRONOMICAL.

Condoms are easily available in the USA. There is no cultural objection to safe sex practices here. We have access to protection and we are able to teach our children safe sex practices and abstinance.

We're discussing TRANSMISSION RATES. In order for transmission to take place, you have to have sexual intercourse with someone who has the virus and usually this is UNPROTECTED sex with someone whose VIRAL LOAD IS ELEVATED. While a single act of unprotected sex is can be enough, other studies suggest that in many situations, repeated acts of sexual intercourse with someone who has an elevated viral load is necessary for transmission to occur. Even if the man is circumcised, HE STILL NEEDS TO USE A CONDOM TO PREVENT TRANSMISSION OF THE DISEASE! The point is that these uncirc'd men were having UNPROTECTED SEX.

Not to mention that, if this information is accurate, the rate of HIV should be considerably higher in Europe than it is in the USA because Europeans do not circumcise routinely.

If you actually look at the study you'll most likely see that the numbers are skewed, the research is questionable, and the study is biased.

I don't see this as a good reason to recommend that we start cutting off body parts on all male children.

Answer 8

I know I saw that on the news this morning. I know my uncle had bad problems in his 40's, he was not circumcised. It was awful he had to get it done at that age. This is what happened to him
The foreskin forms a tight tourniquet around the glans, causing severe pain. The condition can sometimes be treated by firmly but gently squeezing the trapped glans until the foreskin can slip over it again.

If this is not possible, the paraphimosis needs to be reduced under a general anaesthetic. Circumcision is only very rarely necessary.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm

Answer 9

Sorry - NO.

Circumcision may help against certain SKIN infections (Like if it isn't cleaned well enough) But this has NOTHING to do with AIDS/HIV.

Totally different virus.

(Would trimming your lips keep you from catching a flu? I don't think so . . . )

Answer 10

Circumcision is genital mutilation. Would you cut the labia off of a baby girl if it meant the same thing??? God put the foreskin there for a reason.