De Cock Says De-Cock: WHO Advises Circumcision To Prevent HIV/AIDS
31 Comments Published by Alex March 28th, 2007 in Milestones, Sex, Survival. Share This
Big news from the World Health Organization: cutting off your foreskin will help prevent the transmission of HIV, particularly in heterosexual relations.
Kevin De Cock, the Director of HIV/AIDS at the WHO, reports,
Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men.
Three African trials indicate evidence that heterosexual men with intact foreskins contract HIV at nearly twice the rate of men who have had theirs removed. Studies have suggested that there are cells in the foreskin which may be particularly susceptible to HIV infection; additionally, the skin under the foreskin becomes tougher due to increased passive friction, and thereby is less prone to bleeding during intercourse, which reduces the risk of exposure to or transmission of the virus which causes AIDS.
While this is the first time the WHO has come forward with conclusive evidence, the suspicion has been in place for years, as an earlier article addresses.
All the officials cited agree that cutting off your turtleneck is no substitute for wearing a rubber. Keep sleeving that fuck stick, gentlemen.
WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan [news.bbc.co.uk]
(Image:Goopy)
It should be noted that circumcision only helps if you’re having unprotected sex. If you practice safe sex, there’s no reason to chop off part of your dick.
Yeah, but circumcised men have a much easier time keeping a rubber on.
@Kat
I never had any problems.
I personally think circumcision is barbaric. There are plenty of other ways to prevent the transmission of HIV that don’t involve genital mutilation.
barbaric? maybe. but definitely more aesthetically pleasing.
Aesthetically Pleasing??? I bet you loved the otter clip!
?
Aethetics aside its much more hygenic, doesn’t smell as much and helps to avoid Penile Cancer, for which I’m afraid there is only one failsafe treatment.
By your logic it would be alright to cut off ears to keep ears cleaner and prevent ear infections, remove 1 breast from all women to reduce their chances of breast cancer, and perform full blown female sew up circumcision to cut down on odur and smegma. Me I think it’s just very impolite to cut on somebodies genitles without asking. If adults want to get it I could care less, it’s inflicting that on children that bother’s me.
If you want to use penis removal as a threat then read the book”As Nature Made him.” to hear the story of a man who had his peener cauterized off in a bothced circumcision. And if you want to see the sad sight of a huge community of men trying to get their foreskins bck by weighing down their weeners for 2 years then check out an orginization called RECAP.
Has the WHO released the actual study yet or just summarized it? I’d be interested to see exactly how they came up with their samples. On a poor continent, something that amounts to a cosmetic procedure might bet something that only the wealthy have done to their children. Generally speaking the wealthier one is, the more exposed they are to education which would also cut down on the risk of HIV. Since this study is basically done by survey there is no direct correlation between intact foreskin and increased likelyhood of contracting HIV. This could easily be accounted for with social differences instead of foreskin differences. Its not like they’re having cut and uncut dudes sleeping with an HIV laden test-hooker and taking note of which unlucky bastards caught it.
On the subject of circumsision, its a purely socially orchestrated movement. When someone confesses to being in tact here in the US they get looked at like they have 3 heads, where its quite normal for non-jews to avoid the clippers all over Europe. If anything its robbing those boys of extra satisfaction down the road. If your junk stinks, you’re just not washing enough, plain and simple.
With that said though, the stigma is large enough, that I’d seriously contemplate having a future son circumsized just to make things a little easier for him.
I don’t believe that I offered anything in the way of “logic”, pal. Not arguing for a world of cut cock here, I’m just reporting the news. Apparently, yes, circumcised dudes contract HIV with less frequency than do uncut dudes. I can’t imagine that this would really bother many folks other than uncut straight dudes who like to fuck around a lot without wearing condoms, AKA virus collectors. To them, perhaps this could be a head’s-up to wear a rubber more often.
I’m cut, I think it looks less silly, and most of the partners I’ve had tend to agree. But then there’s the school of thought (surely pursued by the likes of RECAP), that maintains that we lose up to 30% of our sensation when we have our foreskins removed, due to the resulting friction and toughening on the flesh on the glans. I don’t know how this amount of sensaton was accurately measured, but I’m thinking, it feels so great already, I don’t know what another 30% would do for me except make me ejaculate sooner. (Or possibly harder – Ooo!)
I do know one British dude who married a Jewess and converted; as part of his conversion he agreed to get circumcised. He was 29 at the time. He maintains that there was little if any noticeable change in the sensation or performance during sex.
I remember one lover telling me that when the guy’s hard there’s not a hell of a lot of difference between cut and uncut cock.
JOBAfunky, actually, if you take my logic, which only applied to the reality of circumcisions in terms of medical science, and apply the ad-absurdum slant that you are using then we might as well sew up all non-essential orifices and reproduce using cloning technology, but since we’re not being absurd here lets just stick with the medical facts thanks.
Sorry Alex I was replying to Rye. My beef is doing it to people that are too small to stop you. Over and over as soon as a child is old enough to be asked if they want the procedure done a huge majority say no. This carries on into adulthood where their wishes are respected. But for some reason we feel like we need to sneek it in before they can have a say. How would you feel if you woke up and sombody had cut off some parts of your body that they decided you didn’t need witout your permission? Most likely outraged. But since it’s a part of our culture we don’t notice. Just like people in Africa find it normal to scarpe of a girl’s outer sex organ with a rusty can lid.
The truth about circumcision is it doesn’t have a major affect in most people’s lives, but for a significant minority it has negative effects that run from minor to suicide inducing, and there’s no good reason to do it to a baby. It is simply and absolutely ethically wrong. You end up causing needless pain and suffering for no good reason.
Danny as far as your child… I have a 2 year old intact son and it has yet to cause any problems or require any extra work. And cutting your son just to satisfy the status quo simply reinforces an old stupid status quo put in place to prevent wanking. But if you are going to do it, then you need to:
1. research the different kinds of procedures, some are better than others.
2. be there for him while it is being done, as you would comfort any family member who is in pain.
3. Try to wait untill he is older. You can always get circ’d later but you can never really undo the process. Also the forskin is still attached for the first couple of years and must be torn free of the glans to be removed. The procedure is much less traumatic after the forskin has come loose on its own.
4. and if you do have to have it done right away(hospitals will try and preassure you into this sometimes) then for goodness sake get your baby on some pain pills as it will be painful for at least a couple of days and can interfere with the inital breastfeeding bond.
On a side note it should be becoming less of a common procedure as insurance company’s are considering it elective and not covering it. Also sucessful lawsuits are cropping up where men who have recently turned 18 are sueing the doctors who performed the procedure on them originally. I imagine the suing will change practices more than any other reason, but that’s just how america works.
Rye. Cutting off parts of other people for a possible future smell is absurd. Cutting off parts of other people without their consent to insignificantly reduce the chance of an uncommon cancer is absurd. Cutting off a kid’s foreskin so that is easier to clean is just as absurd as cutting off your kids ears so he won’t have to clean behind them. It just doesn’t seem like it due to our cultural bias. The absurd examples were just to give an example outside of our cultural bias to make it easier to relate. How is removing one breast at birth more absurd than cutting off part of a penis. Both people will still be technically fully functional, both will have a reduced chance of cancer, and breast cancer is so much a larger killer. But removing a breast seems barbaric to us. The idea is absurd. Now tell me why is circumcision any less absurd.
JOBA, I was strictly speaking in theoretical terms, I’m an uncut guy who is far away from having kids. I’m sure at 2 there are little to no problems with your son. As a male with proper hygiene, who practices safe (and selective) sex I see no physical/medical shortcomings in remaining as such. However, bucking the status quo does lead to a couple odd moments in little Johnny’s life when he realizes that most people will claim to a have a preference that doesn’t include him. It certainly isn’t the worst thing in the world, but I could see it just being another point of insecurities in the right kid. None of the women I’ve been with have ever complained, and I cant think of anyone who cut short the relations because of a little extra skin (which ultimately doesnt even come in to play once aroused). Provided the theoretical child already has a strong sense of self and a good self image, it wouldnt be a problem, but with kids these days, you never know.
I would also be curious to see where the line breaks on early ear piercing for girls. It is something that is entirely arbitrary, but still can cause a bit of trauma in the newborn.
Hmm. Would love to know where you gathered the idea that “the forskin is still attached for the first couple of years and must be torn free of the glans to be removed.” Documentation, please? I’m not saying you’re full of shit here, I just never heard that before. Can you back it up?
Circumcision, as I understand it, removes the foreskin immediately – that’s kind of the whole point. And while it has been proven to cut down on penile cancer, it became common practice more for cutting down (tremendously) on urinary tract infections and other such ailments due to the bacteria and the like that are well-harbored under foreskins. Of course practicing good hygiene will suffice almost as well.
I gotta confess, I’ve never thought so much about foreskins in my life before today. I keep wondering what I’d do with mine if I had one. How far could it stretch, how sensitive would the tissue be, that sort of thing.
I’m also finding myself wondering how I could trick mine out. Maybe tattoo flames underneath! Piercings and such, all the jazzy little barbells and so forth that could be placed through my imaginary foreskin, or a funky pattern I could cut into it. Maybe I could do a ring of points, kind of like Kermit the Frog’s collar, or Jughead Jones’ hat. Might be like a built-in french tickler, woo-hoo!
Alas, I’m already cut…oh well.
JOBA, Circumcision is a practice that has existed since before history has a memory of it. The reason that circumcision was practiced is because significant portions of the male population died due to infections and other conditions associated with the foreskin. This practice was taken on by religion and other tribal governances in order to make sure that their constituencies didn’t up and die on them. Circumcision is done at an early age, typically at birth, because it is a less traumatic even for infants and there is a smaller window of time where diseases may occur.
These complications that result in not circumcising occur at a much higher rate than Breast Cancer or Otits which is very rare in humans to begin with, that is why it is not absurd to practice circumcision, its a question of probability.
Also, do you really trust the majority of today’s male youth to adequately clean themselves? I can tell you right now I don’t. The absurdity lies in bucking the status quo for the reason that it is the status quo.
everyone do this:
1. apply lotion to your elbow
2. straighten arm
3. play with loose elbow skin
4. you now realize the added benefit of foreskin in its entirety
Thad Jr. has had some interesting times with the fairer sex being uncut ..but mostly it’s due to a lack of exposure to anything but the status quo. i certainly don’t remember any locker room ridicule growing up or insecurities … my $.02
You can thank Dr. Harvey Kellog for popularizing circumcision in this country. I can’t find much that’s not biased one way or the other, but here’s an article on salon.com. There are plenty more out there if you’re so inclined:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/10/26feature2.html
Also, fwiw, any guy i’ve been in the shower with has spent the majority of the time washing his privates, so i’m inclined not to buy the cleanliness argument…
uncut=stinky, bloody mess….Civilization = circumcision
Bridgitte, I’m just echoing what modern medicine shows as being true, having a foreskin is less hygenic and you are more likely to contract an illness associated with it, whether you want to buy the argument the numbers are there to substantiate it. And I’m not disputing your prowess, but unless you’re Bambi Woods then your gentlemen exemplars don’t represent a significant sample size of males, cut or un-cut.
That was a shot at levity that apparently didn’t translate, Rye.
Ahh, then you will forgive my ignorance.
Rye:
The attached foreskin idea came from my pediatrician, and numerious parenting books(eg I’m sure Dr. Sears has some info on it in his book) that you should never retract an infants foreskin because it is attached. This was also obvious when cleaning my son’s penis several times a day for 2 years.
As far as there having been helpful in times past, that is true. But most of us don’t go swimming in the Nile anymore where there are a plethora of parasites to pick up.
As for it being less traumatic at birth and less chance of infection? At birth a child has an undeveloped immune system relying a lot on the colosterum from it’s mother. It only has this if it is breast fed. Bottle fed babies will be even more suseptable to infection. And then there’s the idea of rubbing an open wound in a babies poopy diaper, which essentially is what happens with a circumcision. And then there’s the whole tearing a layer of skin off the glans that I would think makes the whole process more traumatic. So the only drawback of waiting untill the process is actually much less traumatic is that you’ll have to explain what you’re doing to him and he might remember it. Like I said not being circed can always be remedied later but circuncision cannot ever be fully remidied.
“These complications that result in not circumcising occur at a much higher rate than Breast Cancer”
I call BS. Find me some evidence that circed men are dieing as fast as women are of breast cancer. Heck I doubt the rate of serious complications doesn’t even compare to the mortality rate of breast cancer.
“The absurdity lies in bucking the status quo for the reason that it is the status quo.” You’re just spouting BS here, totally ignoring the numerious reasons I have posted for not doing it. I said nothing about bucking the status quo for the sake of bucking the status quo. I said the status quo is why we do it and that’s not necessarily a good reason.
Can we all at least agree that it’s unethical to circumcise a grown man against his wishes without him needing it to save his life? Despite all of the supposed benifits?
Joba, the American Cancer Society lists the chance of a woman who has been diagnosed as having Breast Cancer actually dying as a result of that Breast Cancer to be 3%. They further list the incidence of Breast Cancer to be 100 in 100,000 which is 1/10th of 1% making the mortality rate for Cancer 3/1000ths of 1%. This makes the total incidence of Breast Cancer in the US, as an example, to be around 3000 with the incidence of death being 90, given the current population of approximately 3 Million. The mortality rate of Breast Cancer is very low, it is simply so hyped as a media interest that people don’t realize it.
Infectious Diseases and Skin diseases kill far more people each year, just like Bee Stings. And you aren’t going to see statistically significant incidences of serious penile infections in the US because the vast majority of males in the US are circumcised and thus do not experience this problem.
Obviously I agree that you shouldn’t circumcise a grown man if he doesn’t want it. Adults have more rights than infants in terms of determining their own medical care, that shouldn’t even be a question.
Rye, The ACS also states that about 40,000 women will die in the US from breast cancer this year, that’s off from the 90 you stated by a factor of 500. Now penis cancer on the other hand kills about 280 men per year… That’s one man dieing for every 140 women dieing of breast cancer.
And as far as circumcision preventing penis cancer the ACS would disagree with you on that:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Misleading_Information.asp
“The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis.”
So my absurd idea of removing one breast would actually prevent around 20,000 death’s per year. Whereas your idea of circumcising babies prevents no cancer deaths at all. Now tell me how your stance is less absurd.
OK, we can agree that it is unethical to circumcise an adult against his will. What about a minor around 16. Is it ethical to force a 16 year old, against his will, to get what is in essecne cosmetic surgery? If no, then how would you have felt if at 16 your parents decided that you needed a nose job. Would they have the right to make you get one?
My reasoning behind circumcision as a preventative measure has very little to do with Cancer and is aimed much more at preventing Infections which are much more likely to kill you than Cancer. I’m afraid that we are shooting past each other in respect to that argument. Your absurd idea about removing one breast per female baby remains absurd, especially if you choose the wrong one.
In regards to the ethics of circumcising an adult, I think that circumcision should be performed at the hospital or as soon as is humanly possible after birth. After that I don’t feel that circumcision is a viable option.
You just don’t have any good reasons to believe so. Except for the infection angle, But don’t worry I’ll shoot that one down:
…infection rate amounts to 6000 cases per year, and a 4% overall rate of complications requiring treatment represents 48,000 patients experiencing avoidable morbidity. – Schwartz, et al. “Pediatric Primary Care: A Problem-solving Approach” pp 861-862
here’s what the American Academy of Pediatrics has to say:
“The notion that circumcision is a useful prophylactic against disease has been laid to rest by the 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision.52 Instead, healthy, natural alternatives such as breastfeeding and rooming-in must be given favour. Breastfeeding offers a wide range of benefits for both mother and baby. Circumcision is surgery, and as such it has attendant risks. Furthermore, circumcision causes a great deal of pain, entails permanent loss of sexual function and sensation, which raises serious ethical questions concerning informed consent.31 Circumcision is not an operation to be performed lightly.”
48,000 infected or damaged babies a year for the circumcised, a death or 2 thrown in for good measure, leaves you with nothing. Come back when you can bring something to the table. I’m tired of beating this very dead horse.
After going back over my stats, I must bow to your research. Good show.
My God! If your statistics about complications related to uncircumcised men were true,there woudl be a plethora of serious complicatons documentented in countries that do not mutilate infant males, i.e Europe, Asia, South America. Do you really think that countires with socialized medice would allow the avoidance of a procedure if it meant the savings of medical costs in the future? Of course not. Men were born with foreskins; with proper hygene they will die with foreskins. Incidentally, proper hygene consists of washing that part of your body just as you would any other. I takes about five seconds. Even if there was more risk for STD’s being contracted by uncut males; do you think that, maybe, that male shoud not have been inserting his uncut penis indiecriminately? Leave what Gpd (or nature) created alone. There is no need to mutialte invant males.
People are constantly arguing that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin with little sensation. If the foreskin was such a problem then most of the world’s male population would be circumcised. The only reason why circumcisions are performed in infancy is because that’s the only chance that you would be able to have it done. An intact adult male with a normal functioning foreskin would not want to part with something so enjoyable. People would argue that males circumcised as infants don’t know what they are missing so it doesn’t really matter. This is a lie, you know that little string of skin you have on the underside of your penis? This is called the frenulum or rather frenulum remnant. The frenulum is made up of the same nerves that are found at the tip of the foreskin. When retracted these nerve endings now make up a good portion of the shaft skin. Imagine not just having this little remnant that has been severed but the whole thing that is being supplied with blood. Every circumcision is different and it it hard to control what is cut with a small infant penis. The foreskin is fused to the head because the head is not yet done developing. Is the clitoris accessable in infancy in females? No. Why do people try to separate the two. The penis starts out much like a vagina when the fetus is in the womb. When a baby is circumcised the doctor has to rip the skin from the gland and in doing so takes away the top layer of skin and exposes the gland to bacteria found in the feces. There is nothing wrong with circumsision but there is something wrong with doing it to babies. Circumcsion is a choice that should be made by the person who has to live with it the rest of their lives. Since small breast run in my family im going to give my newborn daugter implants. This way it will be less painfull now and she wont have to remember the trauma. Better yet, we are going to have her hymen removed that way she doesn’t have to worry about the pain of having it broken when she begins to have intercourse. I’m thinking of having her clitoral hood removed since I think its more attractive. I might as well remove the lips because can you belive she’ll actually have to spread her lips to clean. Her mother and I are too lazy to teach her. When we are done with that we can have her eggs frozen and then have her ovaries removed. we all know how messy menstration is. I’m not serious about any of this. I want to make a point that nature was right on and we want to play God. Leave your baby alone and he can remove what he wants. Why is it that people think a penis only consit of a shaft and a head? There’s much more to it and all these parts together make a penis. Is the vagina just a hole between the legs? Every part is important and I don’t want to compare male circumsiion to female but I do have this to say. The same arguments for male circumsion in America are used for female circumsion in Africa, go figure. Its cleaner, they will fit it, it will reduce the chances of infection. Do you know there are many men who won’t sleep with an uncircumcised woman in Africa stating that it it unclean, much the same way a women might refuse a man in this country. We need to educate ourselves. You might agree with me or you might not but you cant argue with nature! Circumcsiion would end if the law required that the mother had to have her clitoral hood removed along with her lips at the same time that she had her son circumcised. No women would consent to that. What you would do to your own son you wold not have done to you!
Cut vs uncut
its all about peer pressure and whats around you.me i was UC with a CUT older brother.
Psychologically felt need to be cut and was cut at age 26
i was a med intern at time and on the floor out of 6 guys only 2 of us were UC and i WANTED to be like the other CUT guys. i found CUT a turn on.
thought it rocked for many years.
Today UC is fashionable.
i find myself in Dublin rep of Ireland today where most are UC
although i love my cut cock, boys here prefer UC
i prefer (used to prefer Cut) what im trying top say is, i wish i was in USA where more men are CUT then id feel regular..feeling regulr depends on wether yr peers are cut or UNCUT and being the same.
Deep down i yearn for some horny cut wankers to have fun with.although skins can be interesting and sexy also.