Why do some insist Circumcision reduces the risk of STDs when research indicates otherwise?
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Why do some insist Circumcision reduces the risk of STDs when research indicates otherwise?”.
Tagged with: aafp • circumcised men • circumcision status • consistent trend • cross sectional studies • developed nations • genital ulcer disease • genital warts • google • herpesvirus infections • hiv transmission • human immunodeficiency virus • human immunodeficiency virus infection • human papillomavirus • immunodeficiency virus infection • medical literature • neonatal circumcision • script type • sexual attitudes • uncircumcised males
Filed under: Candida
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Exactly it is well weird that loas of Americans get this done. Why on earth would you? There are mo benefits and everyone just does it cause everyone else is. I could never do thsis to my son as it is totally pointless and why would you want to cause them needless pain?
Man Ameircans get it done as they think it is cleaner (which it isnt). Its funny that I saw a programme on female circumscion and the women in Africa were doing it cause they thought it was cleaner on the girls! Even though we know thats ridiculous so whats the difference? Both lots of people have been brainwashed.
Man, you sure do have a fetish about the shape of a mans cock
I think it is because it is their personal choice, and they just say it reduces the risk of STDs to back up why they believe men should be circumcised.
Because back in biblical times disease ran rampant so they realized the an circumcised penis is usually easier to clean
For religion, and personal beliefs.
I think circumcision is barbaric and cruel.
I refused it for my three boys.
They’re all fine.
Many parents refuse this these days.
I believe that Circumcision reduces the risk of STD’s
and is cleaner than non-circumcision..
I don’t believe everything I read or hear …
Some who push it are the ones that make money from it
They think men have better hygiene with a circumcision
It probably fairer to say that all the evidence isn’t in yet.
WHO and UNAIDS are currently citing ‘strong evidence’ from several ‘randomised controlled’ trials "that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%".
They further say that this supports previous anecdotal ‘evidence’ of correlation between lower AIDs levels in areas where male circumcision is typically practiced.
Whether this information (links below) is being confused with some idea of a kind of ‘magical’ protection from all STIs through circumcision I can’t say.
Certainly, I’ve not heard that circumcision offers protection against infections such as syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes or chlamydia. I think if people believe circumcision can ‘protect’ them from these diseases, they are being foolish in the absence of very compelling medical and scientific evidence.
Even in the case of AIDs transmission, WHO and UNAIDS are careful to warn that "male circumcision is only partially protective and therefore should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use".
As to why some would insist, perhaps they are convinced of the rightness of their position. There is so much information available to ordinary people, often in the form of breathless reports from newspapers eager to sell advertising space by promoting exciting stories of ‘cures’, that it is difficult to find a reputable and reliable source which brings a number of reference points together.
Best wishes
Feminists promote MGM as a way to cut down infections – clearly this is a myth which is used by feminists to justify MGM while condemning FGM.
I would assume that reducing sexual pleasure would reduce sex and likely STI. The arguments made to support male circumcision are often the same used to support female circumcision, although the comparison to loss of function would be akin to the removal of the clitoral hood instead of large sections of the labia and clitoris as I understand is performed.
Because apparently there is research indicating both sides. In an ideal world, the research would be consistent and the people would be knowledgable and aware of the facts, which would be clear as a bell.
It is not an ideal world. I quite imagine that when something has potential to reduce HIV, there is some clamour.
"Early this year, three trials in which Kenyan and Ugandan men were randomly selected to receive circumcision were halted when it became clear that circumcision helped prevent transmission of HIV. Men who got it were about half as likely to get infected. “A 50% reduction is about the same as some vaccines,” says Schoen. Final vindication came in March of this year when the United Nations World Health Organization announced that male circumcision should be added to the list of interventions that can help prevent the disease.
It appears that circumcision helps fight AIDS because the foreskin is particularly susceptible to attack by HIV. It often develops cracks or tears that can be infected by viruses. And diseases such as syphilis and chancroid, a bacterial infection more common in uncircumcised men, can provide a gateway for HIV.
The AAP is now finalizing a new statement on circumcision and expects to release it in 2008 or 2009."
I had never heard that circumcision prevents stds or helps prevent them in some way. I think it is a matter of personal opinion whether or not the surgery is performed.
The only thing that I can think of is that it is to help keep it cleaner. And for aesthetic reasons.
I think it’s just because circumcision is something that is conventional so most people go along with it.
Because it rocks the boat… wouldn’t wanna do that!
No idea. It clearly doesn’t.
Mostly it’s people who want to circumcise anyway (social, religious or cultural pressure) and need an excuse to convince themselves its beneficial.
Harriet
Since research results are mixed, people are free to project their personal wishes and biases that say whatever they prefer, or however they are, is healthier. And they have research articles somewhere to support them either way.
I think it’s either to feel better about themselves or to feel superior to others.
That doesn’t make any sense, what would a flap of skin or lack of it mak any different to STDs
Why do some insist Circumcision reduces the risk of STDs when research indicates otherwise?
Because they are sheep and are too lazy to actually do some research for themselves and instead rely on myths.
Too many people believe what they read first time around, without thinking about the other side of the coin.
If you compare the prevalence of all the common STDs in two regions of opposite views on circumcision (i.e. USA 80% circumcised vs. Europe 80% uncircumcised) it is virtually identical!