The United States has one of the highest rates of infant male circumcision http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006GR-PrevalenceMap_en.pdf in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is having exactly the opposite effect. Conversely, Finland and Japan http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#lies have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS.
2007-04-14 11:32:36 · 9 answers · asked by Murry 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
There are so very many factors in the battle against STIs that it's disingenuous for anyone to suggest that any one approach is the miracle cure we've been looking for.
Besides, it's hard enough getting men to wear condoms at the best of times. If they start thinking that they're immune to the HIV virus because they've been snipped, things are only going to get worse!
I'd say that the difference lies much more in the fact that child sex education in the US is patchy, at best, whereas other countries (Finland in particular, now you mention it) they take an all-inclusive, down-to-earth and no nonsense approach to sex ed, and start them young, too.
2007-04-14 11:38:53 · answer #1 · answered by dorothea_swann 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The notion that circumcision will help prevent the spread of HIV is only obvious to people like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates and others from the USA. It is not a notion that has illuminated the rest of the world. Why? Because it is a falacy. Even in their tirade promoting the "quick fix" they fail to describe in even the most basic terms how mutilation of the human male will fix a problem that is only caused by people who engage in sexual intercourse (generally speaking) with another. Surely a more effective and simpler soultion would be to work on education and supply of condoms! I am appalled that the review quotes staggering numbers of men being circumcised in an 12 month period. It would seem that this is some kind of trophy hunt. There is certainly no medical evidence that what they are doing is helping to solve the problem. What you need to know about circumcision is that is it a terrible mutilation of the human body. No civilised person could ever allow this to happen to someone they claim to love. Circumcision is the removal of the (male) foreskin. Uncut or uncircumcised refer to the natural state of the penis where the whole of the sexual organs are intact. About 90% of the males on Earth are not circumcised, but it is still practiced as a routine in Israel and in the USA. Circumcision of a boy if as painful as circumcision of a girl - that means cutting of the clitoris and labia of a girl! I cannot imagine why anyone would want to inflict significant injury and permanent damage on a child or any other human. It is as good to be circumcised as it is to cut off your eyelid so your eye no longer has the protection and lubrication it was designed to have. A male was born with a foreskin for a reason, and it was not so it could be cut off! Circumcised penises are no cleaner than a natural one - any one who says so obviously has no idea what they are talking about. It is said "World Health Organization and the Center [American spelling] of Disease Control want all males circumcised", but that is not true. The benefits of a foreskin far outweigh the benefits of circumcision. Only a fool would want to inflict such terrible carnage on another human. WHO and CDC do support circumcision, but only because American doctors and pharmaceutical companies make huge dollars out of the cruel process. They are willing to sacrifice human health and wellbeing on the altar of monetary greed. Circumcision of the male is just as barbaric and cruel as circumcision of the female. Most people would not even consider inflicting such damage on a girl, yet some still consider it an acceptable practice to perform on a boy.
2016-04-01 01:52:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your beginning question is the opposite of commentary underneath. So which foolish statement are you asking?
Jewish males are always circumcised. Did you check what Israel's HIV rate is?
Besides, don't you know that white bread is the root of all evils in the Western world?
2007-04-17 18:29:29 · answer #3 · answered by Mira N 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Circumcision has nothing to do at all with the spread of AIDS. AIDS is spread through bodily fluids, blood, semen and saliva. Abstinence, Monogamy, condoms and education are the best preventers of AIDS.
2007-04-14 11:43:54 · answer #4 · answered by Julie A 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I was never a fan of circumcision. Nature made males with the extra skin for a reason.
You have to realize that people from Finland and Japan have very small schlongs.
2007-04-14 11:37:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
There is no connection between AIDS and male circumcision.
2007-04-14 13:23:58 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NOT! HIV/Aids is prevented IN ALL CASES..... By Abstinence!
Thanks, RR
2007-04-14 11:36:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
circumcision has nothing to do with aids
2007-04-14 11:37:16 · answer #8 · answered by Lee 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's what I'm hearing. I guess that extra skin acts as a vaccum and sucks in all kinda of crap.
2007-04-14 12:40:06 · answer #9 · answered by RoxanneZG 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋