Are you serious? Most of the health taboos stemming from religious dogma spring from ignorance, superstition and the wretched hygiene associated from early human history.

Case in point, this article touches only very lightly on the act that Africans wouldn't need to stoop to circumcisions if the Catholic church would stop blatantly lying about the effectiveness of contraceptives like condoms. A position the church reaches by relying on their outdated bronze age morality and myths. If the church actually preached the truth, that condoms are safe and highly effective at stopping the spread of HIV, then these archaic surgical procedures wouldn't even be necessary.

Actually, the Bible teaches abstinence until married. That would have an effect on the number of aids cases, don't you think ? Not saying anyone has to go along with it just pointing out a biblical fact that seemed to be overlooked.

That was before running water was piped into households. If circumcision's purpose really helped that much with hygiene, how did its benefits escape all other major civilizations for most of time?

The US Jewish population is 600,000 or 0.2%. There are 13 million Jews worldwide, with four million in Israel.

The hell with the shangring that takes 5 minutes, I have some hedge clippers that would do the job in less than 5 seconds.

Do these men realize that they will be losing the proper functioning of their anatomy and also will be losing the most nerve rich area on the body?

Do these men realize that they will be losing the proper functioning of their anatomy and also will be losing the most nerve rich area on the body?

Do you realize that is a myth?

According to what is happening in that entire continent, (new & improved sickness) Sterilization would do better !!!

The reason the bible said not to eat pork or shellfish was probably because of the dreadful illnesses people got from those particular foods (more so than others) due to lack of refrigeration. And the need circumcision either came about as a result of not showering or it was a failed attempt to stop boys from masturbating. . Today we know 1) that a little soap and water daily keeps the nasties away and 2) nothing will stop a boy (or girl!) from masturbating!

As for food, we have refrigeration. And when you consider the nasty crap we put into our bodies (McDonald's, prepackaged foods, alcohol, etc.), pork and shellfish might as well be eaten.

Still, considering it was 4000 yrs ago, medically sound advice, with all this knowledge we have today, you can't overlook it.

And if some of the teachings had been followed, we may not have the diseases we have today.

Before ridiculing my post, take the time to read. And I said that many of the things that are coming to light today have been practiced for many centuries by the Jewish faith. I didn't say you ought to change your habits, merely commenting on an interesting article.

To each his own.

A baby boy is born. Then, his penis is cut up. That's a cowardly thing to do to a helpless infant.

Says you.

It is up to the Africans. Africa for the Africans. They wanted to be free. Now it is up to them, what they want to do. If they want to do it then do it.

If I recall from my own reading of various medical articles regarding circumcision, it also reduces the chances of getting urinary track infections, among other things.

Snip, snip, piss,piss oh what a relief it is!

From common medical summaries, circumcision causes twice the number of problems it is purported to prevent. That is, the complication rate, excluding infections treated with anti-biotics, is 2% while the correction rate is 1% of all circumcisions. For a surgical procedure that is both optional and cosmetic, a 2% complication rate is quite high.

I'm still left wondering why it is legal to cut newborn American boy genitalia but illegal to cut newborn girl genitalia. Either both are legal or both are illegal.

Are you serious? Most of the health taboos stemming from religious dogma spring from ignorance, superstition and the wretched hygiene associated from early human history.

jph - Actually I agree with him; many strictures in the Bible, however inspired, make good sense. In a hot climate such as the Middle East, it makes sense to avoid pork products and the possible infection with Trichinosis. And circumcision does help prevent all types of infections because it removes a safe harboring place for bacteria.

But I can also understand why no adult male wants to let anybody near his most prized possession with a sharp object.

Could this invention be called a "Chinese mohel."

John T.

You would have to be fairly wealthy to get clogged arteries from eating kosher beef or chicken: it ain't cheap!

A very interesting documentary about Aids in Africa is called "The House of Numbers". If Bill and Melinda Gates were to see it they would not be spending $4million circumcising adult males in Africa. I agree with the 2nd post that about the Pope discouraging the use of condoms in Africa or anywhere else. The Papal decree declaring birth control a mortal sin...is a mortal sin. Just ask the overcrowded catholic Haitians with it's high AIDS population.

Leo....Ixor.....Hi

Its funny how the "primitive" Jewish religion once again makes me proud to be Jewish. Let the idiots bash away all they want. Once again our practices are proven effective and worthwhile. And yes, shrimps are the freakin' crap eating cockroaches of the sea. Of course the anti religion freaks are barking away a million reasons why this is untrue, but we all answer to a higher authority anyway, so who are a few mere viners =)

Unlike some fanatic terrorists who want to force their religion on others (the world), the beauty of Judaism shines through in this story. Good luck Africa! And to the idiot who says circumcising an infant is cruel? Get a life. If I have another son, he too will be circumcised. Its a right of passage, and one of the most important thing a Jewish person does. I don't expect his feeble mind to grasp that, but what the heck I had to anyway.

Yup. Keep branding those boys, in infancy.

Wouldn't want to risk giving them a choice, later.

And remember, the real brand is in the brain.

Oddly enough, the US, a highly-circumcised developed country, has a slightly higher incidence of HIV than largely-uncircumcised nation such as the UK or Japan.

Ian,

Maybe Americans, in general, are more dirty than the Japanese or the British. However, some data would be forthcoming on that either way. Or, maybe, the Brits and the Nips are more prone to cleanliness and the use of condoms. There is nothing like a strong condom to protect a man's penis.

Circumcision does not make you immune to AIDS, it makes you less susceptible to it. The article states that very plainly.

Here's a thought. Men who are cicumcised as adults often do report less feeling after being circumcised. Now combine that with the fact that men who use condoms say that condoms dull feeling a little bit. Men who are circ'd are much, much less likely to take their already less sensitive penis and dull their feelings yet more with a condom. I would be willing to bet that men in Europe, who are mostly intact, aren't as bothered by using a condom because of their already more sensitive penises.

Since circ'ing only cuts down on the chance of AIDS, I think leaving men intact and putting condoms on them would be more likely to work.

Who's going to volunteer to put the condoms on them?

rattus68 wrote "There is nothing like a strong condom to protect a man's penis."
Most do not understand that the leading transmission paths for HIV are 1) anally-receptive sex 2) intravenous drugs. A healthy vagina is generally excellent for killing fungus, bacteria and even virii. That is why HIV does not infect heterosexual USA.
Condoms generally protect women, not men. Male genitalia, including testicles, are coated with female secretions after sex. STDs from women often find their way up the male urethra, but the reliable male ejaculation will cleanse the tunnel. A post-coital urination and pubic wash will also help.

A healthy vagina is generally excellent for killing fungus, bacteria and even virii. That is why HIV does not infect heterosexual USA.

yes, even healthy people can and do get infected with HIV. Don't count on a healthy vagina USE A CONDOM EVERY TIME KIDS.

Most do not understand that the leading transmission paths for HIV are 1) anally-receptive sex 2) intravenous drugs. A healthy vagina is generally excellent for killing fungus, bacteria, and even virii. That is why HIV does not infect heterosexual USA.

You are right and wrong about this. Yes, anally-receptive sex and IV drug use are some of the highest rates of infection. Yes, a healthy vagina is fairly defensive. However, male-to-female sexual contact is currently the highest mode of transmission in young, heterosexual women - who also happen to be the group with the fastest up swing in positive tests. Now, the upswing in positive tests, in general, could be more people being tested - not necessarily due to a true increase in infection rates.

Condoms generally protect women, not men. Male genitalia, including testicles, are coated with female secretions after sex. STDs from women often find their way up the male urethra, but the reliable male ejaculation will cleanse the tunnel. A post-coital urination and pubic wash will also help.

Again, you are right and wrong (sort of). You are right that condoms only protect the portions covered and you are right that female secretions can end up on testicles, etc. You are also right to suggest urination and cleaning post-coitus. However, your statement implies that men or more susceptible to STD's that women - when studies have actually shown the exact opposite. Women are much more likely to be infected with HIV and other STDs from an infected man than a man is to be infected by an infected woman. This has to do with anatomy.

Regardless - wrap it up and be safer.

I did not mean to allow for those implications, but thanks for your additional comments.

My comments are directed on the misinformation that men are safe from STD transmission when they use a condom. I did mean to write that women benefit more from the use of condoms. The chances of a man getting HIV from an infected woman in the USA is exceedingly rare.

Ian - I didn't think you meant for those implication, but since I wasn't sure, I wanted to give you a chance to address them. Thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean the implications. You are absolutely right that both men and women benefit from condoms - and addressing the misconceptions surrounding STDs (whether HIV or others) is very important for the health of individuals overall. I can see what you were meaning by women benefit more from the use of a condom than men do.

Speaking of misconceptions about STDs/sex that I have heard from young people:

1) There is a cure for HIV, so they don't need to use condoms.

2) They can't get pregnant unless both the man and the woman "cums" at the same time.

3) They can't get STD's from oral sex.

4) They can't get pregnant for the first year they are sexually active.

Those are just a few. I know, none have to do with the topic of the thread - circumcision, but misconceptions that need clarified.

Again, thanks for the simple clarification :)

Let's all remember that the HIV virus is contagious as a BLOOD BORNE PATHOGEN and viral load must be fairly high in order to cause clinical DZ. If this were not true - mosquito bites and other arthropod borne modes of transmission would be adequate to infect us with HIV. Obviously this does NOT occur.

Blood borne pathogen most similar to HIV is Hepatitis B. IF you share needles used in IVDU, IF you have unprotected sex which exposes you to the bodily fluids of your partner (ALL bodily fluids meaning semen, menstrual blood, anal and vaginal secretions, oral fluids (especially when there are ulcers in the mouth) and/or other contacts when blood cells either gross or microscopic are present must be avoided. This is simple advice but not often adhered to because in the so called 'heat of the moment" AND WHEN HIV status is not known, all caveats seem to go by the wayside. Let us not forget rape and other violent sexual activity, also sex workers who are pimped by those who care nothing for their safety and travel to third world countries for sex where life is cheap and five dollars will feed a sex worker's family for three months. None of this is simple. Modes of transmission are known, but cultural beliefs along with simple ignorance is our worst enemy when it comes to stemming the tide of infection and death. It's a terrible death, those who specialize i infectious disease are doing a very good job and funding in this country is good. In Africa - the nonsurgical circ is a fabulous idea. I don't buy this 'diminished enjoyment of the circumcised male." Sorry - just no real science to back up the subjective claim. Too many thrilled, ecstatic and ebullient circumcised men post coitus for that boat to float. More a personal take by those opposed to the practice itself. Most importantly, circumcision will make men LESS susceptible to infection, hence will prevent additional rates of contagion and transmission. A goal worth advocating.

Most American men are circumcised, but it didn't seem to prevent so many of them from contracting HIV before HIV had been documented.

During the worst early days of the HIV epidemic here, most transmission was through homosexual men having unprotected anal sex or through intravenous drug use.

I wonder if the HIV rate among heterosexual males is any higher here than in Great Britain or the other countries you name.

dMan - you neglected to mention the risk which existed back in those days via pooled blood products and simple transfusion. Anyone who was transfused prior to the mid 80s was potentially afflicted. With HIV status now easy to test, there is little confusion and most in this country are aware of their own HIV negativity or positiveity and are receiving services. It's a known ICD-9/10 diagnosis with ancillary coding to support billing and insurance. With regard to the early days of HIV I worked in pediatric at that time and the number of babies born with and who later died from AIDS-related complications was heartbreaking. So in addition to the transfusion being a mode of transmission, the maternal-fetal route was yet another source of new cases. There has been tremendous enhancement of identification of patients and likewise effective leaps in the medical management of this DZ process as well. In other nations (3rd world most specifically, and in poor/disenfranchised and underserved patient populations, Not so good.

Again, the gay community itself turned the situation around when they realized that THEY ALONE could change their 'behavior' regarding sexual practices. They have saved themselves and have had great success in aiding their own members to live a more proactice life in decreasing risk factors.

And with circumcision one loses a lot of sensitivity and erotic feeling.

And with circumcision one loses a lot of sensitivity and erotic feeling.

Completely false.

"And with circumcision one loses a lot of sensitivity and erotic feeling"

Yes, this is sad by-product of circumcision.

In the 40 men tested in Kenya, 90 percent said they were satisfied with the procedure.

They don't seem particularly sad...

That's tough myke103 it's a scientific fact that feeling and sensitivity is lost so get over it and quit saying not true and false when it is a proven fact.

Tom474e, you are really stuck on erotic feelings. I am really not trying to be offensive, but, have you, like, completely lost yours or something?

That's tough myke103 it's a scientific fact that feeling and sensitivity is lost so get over it and quit saying not true and false when it is a proven fact.

Overall levels of sexual satisfaction of circumcised and uncircumcised men are the same. That is a proven fact.

Most men circumcised as an adult do not report decreased levels of sexual pleasure. That too is a proven fact.

Galaxy,

What percentage of your 'erotic feeling' are you willing to give up?

"And with circumcision one loses a lot of sensitivity and erotic feeling"

Yes, this is sad by-product of circumcision.

Says who?

How has this been proved?

Was there some type of study conducted?

Sounds like one of those rumors that everybody repeats but nobody can prove.

'loss of sensation' cannot be measured. While the claim is a randomly reported, It's certainly not made uniformly in all men circumcised in adulthood. In fact, some adult circumcised men report the OPPOSITE effect. Therefore, NO SCIENCE can be brought to bear whereby this claim could ever be validated. It remains strictly anecdotal and therefore not supported in the literature as a bonafide 'finding'.

PS - the meatal orifice exists in the same form whether foreskin is present or not. Any infectious organism gaining entry to the male urinary system does so via this pathway. Cutaneous surfaces, when intact, are excellent barriers to outside pathogens. ANY break in the integument however, (penile ulcer, surface laceration, B9 or not), renders skin less effective in host protection. And once more viral load is a function of virulence. The higher the CD4 count - the sicker the patient and the more likely he is to transmit the virus.

Pooled blood products, (Factor 8, WinRho, RhoGham, etc) requiring multiple donors are therefore harder to control for contagion, yet given this risk, laboratory techniques used in their preparation are correspondingly more fastidious.

Nothing is 100 percent and given that the human race is intrinsically 'social', the position that abstinence, avoidance of other humans, etc., have proven ineffective. EDUCATION (real education based in science and not religion/shamanism/cultural traditions), is always the best path to manage and control infectious disease.

Couple of things - loss of sensation can be measured - to some degree. Simply because how much of a signal can be transmitted (less nerve ends, less of a single) - the foreskin happens to have a lot of nerve endings, removing those nerve endings would cause less signal transmission, and thus, less sensation. That said - how much pleasure you get out of any level of sensation is purely subjective.

While you are right that intact skin is an excellent barrier, what you are missing is that the epitheal cells in the foreskin as more easily infected by HIV than other cells. Also - CD4 is a type of T-cell, it's not the viral load. So, the higher the CD4 count, the less sick the patient. It is not considered AIDS until the CD4 levels fall below 200. The higher the viral load, the more likely the person is to transmit the virus.

You're absolutely right about pooled blood products. Finally, and most important, I absolutely agree that real education based in science and not religions/shamanism/cultural tradition is the best path to managing and controlling infectious diseases.

Oh this loss of sensitivity crap. I never heard of cut men complaining. All my friends are married to Jewish men and they both seem pleased.

Science has proven circumcision time and again to be a positive thing, but some will stop at nothing to try and discredit that.

And in a perfect world everyone would.

But all know that even in developed countries that isn't the case.

Andrea, while your statement IS true - cultural norms often make men much less likely to wear condoms in Africa as well as other nations.

Andrea M wrote "There is a much simpler way of preventing AIDS - wear a condom."

In Africa, yes. In the US, the advice would be : 1) avoid anally-receptive ejaculates 2) intra-venous illicit drugs 3) avoid prostitutes

The chances of a heterosexual American male contracting HIV are nearly zero.

So how should we go about making using condoms more popular?

"There is a much simpler way of preventing AIDS - wear a condom."

In Africa, yes. In the US, the advice would be : 1) avoid anally-receptive ejaculates 2) intra-venous illicit drugs 3) avoid prostitutes

The chances of a heterosexual American male contracting HIV are nearly zero.
.

There are more cases of heterosexual transmission in the US than by intravenous drug use.

"cultural norms often make men much less likely to wear condoms in Africa as well as other nations."

While I agree, if they are willing to get circumcized (culturally not the norm), they could be taught to use condoms. In point of fact, they STILL SHOULD!

sunnybunny - education is key. These people simply need to be educated. It would go a long way in preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Andrea M. While I absolutely agree with you that there is a more simple way to prevent HIV and other STD's (wear a condom) - I wouldn't go as far as to compare circumcision to genital mutilation. Here's why: genital mutilation specifically refers to procedures in which the entire clitoris is removed from the female - in come cases even labia major and minor are removed and the vagina is stitched closed almost entirely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying circumcision is a must or even the right thing to do. But, there is a big difference from removing the foreskin, even with it's sensory nerves, and the entire clitoris.

mykel03 wrote "There are more cases of heterosexual transmission in the US than by intravenous drug use."

You already know that they are male->female. I hope you're not trying to say that the HIV transmission path of female->male or male-> female is more successful than either intravenous drug use/sharing needles with infected blood or than anally-receptive sex. Even a source such as easy to find as Wikipedia "HIV infection" will show that female->male HIV transmission is very rare in vaginal sex.

Always use the idiot test. If heterosexual sex were to reliable at HIV transmission, the entire population would be at risk. Instead, only certain behaviors cause HIV transmission in the US.

Summer-1597193 wrote "But, there is a big difference from removing the foreskin, even with it's sensory nerves, and the entire clitoris."

True. But culturally, the analogy is the most accurate. African cultures perform female circumcision to enhance the marriage/attraction value of the woman for their own cultural reasons. Americans demand male-only circumcision for aesthetic/attraction reasons, but the hygiene/disease prevention/conformity justifications change every few years. Since Jews are only 0.2% of the population, almost all of the circumcisions are performed for non-religious reasons.

There are always a few people that get hyped up about HIV prevention, but for heterosexual males, the infection rate is so rare that it is effectively zero in developed nations, regardless of their high or low circumcision rates.

Ian: Actually, culturally it's not the same thing - the reasoning behind genital mutilation in females is to discourage sex by making the woman have no sensation (which it actually hinders female sensation more than male circumcision hinders male sensation because the entire organ is removed). It has been shown repetitively that female circumcision is actually more about controlling of the women - not about making them more "attractive". Again, not that I'm saying male circumcision is ok - just saying that it's a stretch to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation.

Agreed. Americans can not condemn Africans for child genital surgery when a similar attitude and practice is rampant in the USA. The male circumcision movement in the USA grew from the anti-masturbation movement in the late 1800's. So, in the US, it was about control of the male libido.

Female circumcision in Africa is not always about clitoral removal. I'm not in anyway condoning the practice. The equivalent of the new American male circumcision would be the amputation of of the clitoral hood. Should that be acceptible in the US?

Ian: Yes, what is termed genital mutilation refers specifically to removal of the clitoris, and often part of the labia minora. Sometimes it goes as far as to remove all the clitoris, all the labia minor and all the labia majora - in those cases, it is sewn shut to only allow passing of urine and menses. The result is extremely painful and even dangerous sex the first time a woman does have sex. It is not just removing the clitoral hood. Which, yes, removing just the clitoral hood would be similar to male circumcision. However, since genital mutilation doesn't refer to only removing the clitoral hood, then to compare female genital mutilation to male circumcision is flat out wrong. More times than not male circumcision is done under local anesthetic when its an infant and under sterile conditions, at least in the US (still not condoning it here) - more times than not female genital mutilation isn't done until the girl is between 8 and 12 (just before puberty), done without any anesthesia and in highly unsterile environments (often with tin, dull knives or glass). The procedures are so vastly different. Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation downplays female genital mutilation to the point that it's sickening.

Historically, male circumcision in the US may have been in reference to controlling masturbation - however those that still do this haven't done it for this reason in a long time. There has been a cultural shift if the reason behind male circumcision - it is no longer done to control the male libido. When I say female genital mutilation is about control - it's not only about controlling her libido, it's about controlling her.

Like I said - I'm not saying male circumcision is ok. I'm simply saying it's insulting to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation. It takes something that is a relatively safe, simple, though unnecessary procedure (male circumcision) and calls it the same as a procedure that is unsafe, not simple and down right abusive (female genital mutilation). Now you might debate saying that male circumcision is abusive - and it could be considered that. However, you have to admit there is a vast difference in the procedures that certainly would make female genital mutilation much worse - physically, psychologically and sexually.

Summer - your sage insights are much appreciated here. I suspect you work in the sciences on some level given your degree of familiarity with the laboratory side of things as well as the anatomic specifics and thanks for standing up for science. Always gratifying to see respect for science on NV where misinformation and hyperbole too often reigns supreme.

Having worked with these patients in a variety of contexts over the last three decades and have rarely seen or heard such blatant pseudoscience from the anti-circ league as I have here. Almost as sad and devoid of real science as the anti-vaccine league. Frightening to realize how poorly scientific facts are disseminated in this country and how rabid the refusers and deniers have become as they bathe in their paranoia and hatred of legitimate public health efforts. As you've undoubtedly heard time and again from your ID colleagues, ".........in the end, infectious DZ will get us all......."

buche de noel: Thank you and you're welcome. My undergrad degree is in Biology w/ and emphasis in health sciences, I worked in a microbiology and in a cell biology lab during undergrad (both research related and non-research related work), and now I'm in medical school. So, I guess you can say I've been in the sciences for a few years.

Summer - glad to hear it. Your reasoned approach is much needed in medicine today. As I grow ever closer to retirement and emeriti status - I grow increasingly impatient and angry with younger patients who should be benefiting from the advances made in medicine but choose instead to return to prehistoric times (in a public health/medical sense).

If not being circumcised promotes AIDS, why doesn't most of the men in the world have it since most of the men in the world in not circumcised?

Seriously?

Being uncircumcised does not guarantee you will get AIDS, even in Africa. Really, use some logic.

Yes, and being circumcised does not ensure you will NOT get AIDS. In fact, as I already stated above, circ'd men are less likely to use condoms, which dull feelings.

concentrate on condoms - that's the only REAL way to cut down on AIDS, outside of abstinence.

US - your condemnation of the RC Church is correct. However I do think that these popes condemn condoms because they interfere with fertility and not for their value as an STD deterrent. PS - religious leaders have no place in the prevention of dz. Medicine and religion make very poor allies since their goals (as seen here) are often diametrically opposed.

circ'd men are less likely to use condoms

You have any evidence of that, or is that just a guess?

AIDS is an epidemic is Africa. You expect the medical community to just ignore it?

Florida: The ever multiplying number of mother and fatherless children in Africa created by parental death 2ndary to AIDS-related death matters to many people. It certainly matters to member of the health care community; especially those of us who do pro bono work in the third world and SEE this carnage up close. We will advance this cause by putting forward efforts which will slow the rate of dissemination of this life threatening STD.

Albert - most men in the US are circumcised if they were born here and the gay community LONG AGO took up the cause by educating their members on how to stay safe. Gay men in the US might be HIV positive but they're not dying like in the early/mid 80s. They do wear condoms and know that condom free sex is deadly sex. Moreover our anti-retrovirals, reverse transcriptase inhibitors and ability to monitor CD4 counts are routine care here. Native Africans have NOTHING to rival our level of care and most who contract the HIV virus DIE from their opportunistic infections.

Millions of kids are growing up ALONE.

Many (not all) African males are now pen to this now and after witnessing for themselves the death and devastation of their people from intractible diarrheal illnesses, Mycobacterium avium intracellulare, cryptosporidium just to name a few. They are finally at the point where they're ready to do what is necessary to help contain this blood borne pathogen. Circumcision will decrease their susceptibility. The numbers and the jury HAS been in on that issue for many years now.

The REAL problem with HIV is CHINA, where we KNOW it's growing exponentially, but real data re: numbers is hard to come by due to their tendency to be a 'closed' society. Like Africa, then their population tanks (even more likely since their little girls were all sent here or killed in utero during their 'one child only' regime.) So in China, the net effects of long term HIV is bound to wake them up.

Stop circumcision, it doesn't stop HIV, wear condoms instead! Most of american men are circumcised and there is even higher HIV infections in America than in countrys where men are not circumcised in mass like Europe.

It does help prevent HIV infection. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Your dogmatic and anti-scientific stance is essentially a prescription for more death.

mykel03, Have you considered HIV transmission paths? The overwhelming majority of infections in the USA are from anally-receptive sex and intravenous drug use. Circumcision does not help prevention in these cases at all.

Of course it does, at least in the case of anal sex. Why would it not?

In theory, it could. But comparison of HIV infection rates from countries with similar environments (US vs. UK) but dissimilar circumcision rates demonstrates that it does not.

But comparison of HIV infection rates from countries with similar environments (US vs. UK) but dissimilar circumcision rates demonstrates that it does not.

Logic fail. There are many different factors that can influence HIV infection rates.

"The scientific evidence is overwhelming."

No, the evidence is so weak, it's frightening. There are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised. The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised. There is better evidence in the real world that female circumcision prevents HIV than male circumcision.

We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

This isn't about science any more. The people behind this aren't primarily interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives not save them.

mykel03 wrote "Logic fail. There are many different factors that can influence HIV infection rates."

Don't overlook the sum of the factors. It's like worrying about sleeping under mosquito nets in the US to avoid malaria transmission.

How can that be addressed?

We may see the opposite conclusion about HIV in Africa within ten years. Circumcised men think they are safe even though the circumcision merely cuts their chances of contraction in half in the conditions provided by Africa, which are characterized by a culture of frequent sex with prostitutes.

If more than 63% of potential HIV infections are stopped by the widespread adoption of male circumcision -- a rate consistent with that seen in the first randomised controlled study presented last year -- then there would be a net positive effect on HIV incidence in the population even if a 50% rate of consistent condom use went down to zero. This, at least, would be the situation in Soweto, South Africa, as predicted by mathematical modelling done by Kyeen Mesesan of the Yale University department of Public Health in data presented to the Sixteenth International AIDS Conference in Toronto.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/62B0B005-7FCC-4515-848E-8FF8EAF78951.asp

The problem is that the initial assumption just isn't true. Otherwise, there wouldn't be six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised.

There's stronger evidence in the real world that female circumcision stops HIV rather than male circumcision. I don't see anyone rushing to start randomized controlled trials for cutting women though.

Condoms people, condoms.

Really, Rhonda? Testosterone in men is a good thing, not a "problem that needs to be adressed". These men simply need to be educated in the benefits of condom use.

"dark skinned peoples (black) have an extremely high circulating testerone level.."

Is that what gives them such a good sense of rhythm? ;}

(Really, do literate people still believe such stupid racist nonsense today?)

Rhonda - absolutely false and racist comment. Please cite your source(s) re: higher circulating testosterone?????

Again - NV is NOT a medical/scientific blog and frequently contains misinformation. DO NOT take any info posted here as a substitute for a personal visit with your health care provider.

To impress women is a lousy reason to mutilate yourself or a child.You use money for that.

Only American women will reject men due to genital appearance. Since the current US circumcision rate is below 50%, down from 90% in the 1960's, the women born from 1960-1980 will have a short-lived influence on male genital mutilation.

Although I am circumcised, I will say that I did reject every girlfriend that was adamant about circumcising their future sons, though that was merely a tell-tale sign of a larger cultural problem.

"Only American women will reject men due to...."

That's painting with a ridiculously broad brush, even with your 1960-1980 qualification. I think the actual number of mature women who would do this is small.

Uh, sorry, BLS, but as a woman I can assure you that most of us have nothing against an uncircumcised penis. In fact, most women I know prefer it. It is simply unnatural and wrong to mutilate a healthy organ just for the sake of asthetics.

Judging by the rapid from in the circumcision rate from 90% in the 1960's to below 50% today, American mothers are educating themselves about circumcision and deciding against it for their sons.

I agree and find the movement to circumcize Africans dangerous to their health. The story even points out how some say they simply don't need condoms now in order to avoid AIDS.

That's completely false; furthermore, we should be afraid that our own children will also hear about this and starting thinking it....

ic - don't you think you and I are the best sources of intelligent discourse for our own children? I certainly explain to my son AND daughter the science of transmission modes for contagious dz. They are not getting their scientific education of NV, THAT is for certain. Parents must be the first source of facts and be willing to seize all teachable moments. Every time they ask me, I give them unfettered science with no mumbo jumbo. When a child has heard all he or she can digest, she/he will change the subject or walk away.

From time to time in the nursery a baby is born with an accessory digit without skeletal tissue or blood supply. The standard treatment is to ligate this useless bit of flesh. The ligature initiates necrosis and the supernumary digit eventually falls off, not unlike the umbilical stump. This is the same mechanism which functions in the outpatient circ described in this thread. Again, it's not mandatory and no one is being forced to undergo the procedure. The outcry which is espoused by the same anti circ league here continues to imply that it has something to do with them. It does not. It is a choice for men who desire it. It is available for those men who desire it. For these zealots to insinuate themselves into a health issue which DOES NOT CONCERN THEM is misplaced hubris. Desirous of retaining their foreskins, no one is holding a gun to their head to change. These African men are LINING UP for this service which is offered in most cases pro bono by surgeons from volunteer nations professional surgeons. We neither consult or consider the personal views of these anti=circ naysayers, preferring instead to work with the medical professionals indigineous to these nations who request and WELCOME the help.

@bûche de noël:
"From time to time in the nursery a baby is born with an accessory digit without skeletal tissue or blood supply. The standard treatment is to ligate this useless bit of flesh."
If the "finger" is not functioning, there is an ethical issue, but not a grave one. If it does have bone and muscle however there is a major ethical issue and at least one famous guitarist had six fingers.

"The ligature initiates necrosis and the supernumary digit eventually falls off, not unlike the umbilical stump. This is the same mechanism which functions in the outpatient circ described in this thread." (It's also not unlike the method used for docking lambs' tails and castrating them.) The umbilical cord will fall off without help - as it did for millions of years.

"Again, it's not mandatory and no one is being forced to undergo the procedure. The outcry which is espoused by the same anti circ league here continues to imply that it has something to do with them. It does not. It is a choice for men who desire it. It is available for those men who desire it."

Except that they are promoting it for neonates as well. They certainly don't "desire it". And the men are being sold, and being allowed to sell themselves, a bill of goods about the amount of protection it will give them.

HUGH - If you did not understand my instructions to you from a prior thread on this issue, let me make it clear now: I am obligated to ignore any attempt on your part to directly communicate with me on this topic. As a licensed provider of medical services I am bound by my association's credo NOT to engage you or your entreaties. Any and all posts I make here here on an this open, lay forum are my professional impressions having almost three decades of clinical experience as a practitioner in urologic surgical procedures. You may not interpret my comments as a substitute for a consultation with your own medical doctor. Please see your personal physician/urologist for specific questions on matters of cirumcision. My presence here in no way constitutes a physician/patient relationship you or any member of the NV community. Thank you.

My answers to buche de noel in no way imply acceptance of his/her claims to be a medical professional of any kind.

Circumcision in the United States does not work: our HIV infection rates are triple the United Kingdom's infection rates.

The United states has a higher HIV rate than the UK according to the CIA world factbook. The US is number 68 in highest HIV rate with .6%, the UK is 95 with .2%. The US actually has a higher HIV rate than nearly all western European nations.

And will you then ask 20 Sierra Leonean men if they prefer circumcised women, and count their opinion as a reason for doing it?

What would you recommend for female circumcision - just that little piece of skin that covers the clitoris? I'm sure women wouldn't miss it, and it would help with clealiness.

Ask any man how long a "zipper injury" hurts. There is no way a topical anaesthetic will last for a week.

"Slick, bloodless, quick."

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#ringinjury
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html#blocked

I had my son cut while he was in the hospital after birth. He was swollen, red, and looked just plain nasty. I would NEVER do it again. I was naive, and honestly didn't realize what it WAS. Really, don't laugh, after doing homework, most women do not even know what circumcision IS. By the time that boy reaches maturity, the skin removed would be 4 square inches if laid out.

wow. That is alot of 'stuff'. Nerve damage, scars, skin tags, infection... plus the FACT that the dr is permanently altering someone's body without their permission, and it is ELECTIVE.

I think more mothers should be better informed of what it is and the risks. I was told NOTHING< just handed a paper to sign along with a stack of other papers for shots, insurance, ect ect.

It is a terrible cruel procedure, and painful, and totally medically unnecessary.

The biggest lie here is that being cut will lower your chances of AIDS. Ridiculous. You lower your chance of AIDS by not sleeping with someone with AIDS. Being cut has not got one iota to do with it.

Carmen, I'm sorry you regret that, and I'm sorry you were uninformed. However, circumcision is a practice done for religious purposes, and has MANY benefits, all scientifically proven. You may not agree with it, fine, but other moms do. I had my son circumcised 8 days after his birth by a Mohel. Is it red and nasty at first? Yes. But that goes away very fast and I'm super happy I did it. Would I do it again? In a flash. And people in Africa do not have neither the knowledge necessary nor the proper protection to keep safe. Getting aids when many people around you have it is easier than you think. No one has a badge on their shirt there that says HIV POSITIVE, so there is no way of knowing if you are sleeping with someone infected. If there is something that can greatly reduce the risk of contraction, I say do it! I'm sure they won't miss their foreskin if they do, but will regret getting a deadly virus if they don't.

Could you provide a reliable source for this comment, please?

Of course, Rick Warren and his associates in The Family support this legislation.