Circumcision 'helps to halt HIV'
HIV cells
Foreskin cells are thought to be more susceptible to HIV
New research suggests circumcision could be effective in preventing the spread of HIV among men.
The study of more than 3,000 men in South Africa was done by the French agency for Aids and Viral Hepatitis.
The data, outlined at a conference in Brazil, shows male circumcision prevented about seven of 10 infections.
UN health agencies have cautioned that more trials are necessary before they will recommend this as a method to protect against Aids.
Previous studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection.
It is thought that the cells of the foreskin are much more susceptible to HIV than cells on other parts of the penis, so by removing the foreskin, the likelihood of infection drops.
Further trials are being carried out in Uganda and Kenya to measure the effect of circumcision on other populations.
If similar results are found, then circumcision could be used alongside condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, the BBC's Ania Lichtarowicz reports from the conference in Rio de Janeiro.
But implementing this measure on a large scale will be complicated, our correspondent says.
She says that ensuring safe techniques and changing cultural and social attitudes towards male circumcision will prove challenging.
*very hard to do controlled clinical studies on circumcision. Many figures are gleaned from epidemiological data, with all sorts of confounds. Not saying this one was, but it's important to keep that in mind.
*even if circumcision does protect against HIV to an extent - and I wouldn't be surprised if it does - it does not in anyway justify routine neonatal circumcision.
Circumcision should be a choice made by someone who is informed on all the science around the issue.
I would much rather that at the age of 16 or so, I was told the following:
"You have the option of removing your foreskin. You will lose a massive amount of erogenous tissue, and there may be complications, however it is relatively safe otherwise. You may also be less at risk from contracting HIV, should you choose to engage in irresponsible sexual behaviours".
Now there may or may not be a case for routine neonatal circumcision in countries that suffer AIDS epidemics - but that would be an exception. If removing parts of the female genitilia rendered the female less likely to contract HIV, then one would have to support the same procedure in the female (of course, it would only be excision of labia, not of clitoris, nor would infibulation be necessary).
It's also important to understand that the medical rationale for circumcision have evolved in order to justify a fundamentally harmful procedure.
All the girls I've ever talked to about it are completely turned off by an uncircumcized penis. I think that would have more influence on my decision to do it or not.
A cut foreskin just looks sexier - gets the women feeling RANDY!
R00k wrote:All the girls I've ever talked to about it are completely turned off by an uncircumcized penis. I think that would have more influence on my decision to do it or not.
A cut foreskin just looks sexier - gets the women feeling RANDY!
there are millions of somali and egyptian men and women who feel the exact same way about the intact female genitilia :icon26:
R00k wrote:All the girls I've ever talked to about it are completely turned off by an uncircumcized penis. I think that would have more influence on my decision to do it or not.
A cut foreskin just looks sexier - gets the women feeling RANDY!
there are millions of somali and egyptian men and women who feel the exact same way about the intact female genitilia :icon26:
Yea, I don't mean to say that the perception justifies the use or anything -- just stating my own selfish reasons for being happy that I'm circumcized. :icon32:
:lol: