perhaps male circumcision was a good idea afterall?

[antaeus]

it seems that australian scientists have discovered a natural way to prevent most sexually transmitted cases of HIV.

it has been known for a while that the hardening of skin caused as a side effect of male circumcision makes the skin much tougher for the HIV virus to penetrate, but if you add to this, treatment with an oestrogen based cream, it thickens the skin to the point that it is virtually impossible for a man to catch HIV sexually. this over a generation would lead to a drastic reduction of the prevalence of the disease, as the most common form of transmission.. man to man, man to woman etc sexual transmission.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4572404a19716.html

[Pra]

So also making the skin more tough (via the excess keratin) making it harder to 'feel' down there. So it comes at the expense of pleasure

Might as well stop doing it. I think that'd be a great way to prevent HIV spreading.

[saglam2000]

So also making the skin more tough (via the excess keratin) making it harder to 'feel' down there. So it comes at the expense of pleasure

what r u talking about? i've been circumsized and it isn't hard to feel down there. i feel my man part really well (that might have sounded wrong though)

[Pra]

what r u talking about? i've been circumsized and it isn't hard to feel down there. i feel my man part really well (that might have sounded wrong though)

You don't know what it's like to be uncircumcized. It makes the Penis an internal organ (sorta) and the head is more sensitive. Still, the research is claiming that you need to put more keratin on top of your uncircumcized penis. Keratin is the protein in nails and hair (making your penis even less unresponsive; ) basically taking away a lot of the pleasure from sex.

At the end of the day, I find that guys care more about arguing about their peni (pl) than girls really care. Many chicks I know are fine with either cut or uncut. All they want is something that works, and someone who knows how to use it and make her orgasm.

[Ludicus]

Benefits of circumcision:

1- eliminates the risk of phimosis ( affects 1 in 10 older boys)
Phimosis increases the risk of cancer penis; phimosis is cause of forskin problems and catheter problems in nursing houses.
2- 10 fold decrease in the risk of urinary infections in infants: one in 50 uncircuncised will get an urinary infection; one in 500 for a circuncised. Infections of the urinary tract are dangerous in infancy.
3- 20 fold decrease in the risk of invasive penil cancer.
4- minus 1,5-2 times the risk of of prostate cancer.
5-Reduces by 3 fold the risk of HIV infection and also affords substantial protection against other sexual transmitted infections.
6- Reduces 5 time of men´s female partner getting cervical cancer caused by papillomavirus, and ther risk of being infected with chlamydia.Chlamydia can cause infertility, ectopic pregancy, inflamatory pelvic diseases.
7-Reduces by 3 fold the risk of inflamation and the risk of infection of the skin of the penis. The risk in uncircumcised men rises (1 in 3) if the uncircumcised man is diabetic.

...basically taking away a lot of the pleasure from sex.

1- Most studies show no significant difference in sensitivity between the circumcized and uncircumcized penis.
2- Credible research shows that most woman prefer the appearance of the circumcised penis and also prefer it for sexual activity (hygiene reasons)
3-In general, sexual function is the same or better.


Roger Short, from the Royal Women's Hospital obstetrics department and Melbourne University says:

“If we believe in evidence-based medicine, then there can be no debate about male circumcision; it has become a desirable option for the whole world”

[Tiwaz]

Benefits of circumcision:

1- eliminates the risk of phimosis ( affects 1 in 10 older boys)
Phimosis increases the risk of cancer penis; phimosis is cause of forskin problems and catheter problems in nursing houses.
2- 10 fold decrease in the risk of urinary infections in infants: one in 50 uncircuncised will get an urinary infection; one in 500 for a circuncised. Infections of the urinary tract are dangerous in infancy.
3- 20 fold decrease in the risk of invasive penil cancer.
4- minus 1,5-2 times the risk of of prostate cancer.
5-Reduces by 3 fold the risk of HIV infection and also affords substantial protection against other sexual transmitted infections.
6- Reduces 5 time of men´s female partner getting cervical cancer caused by papillomavirus, and ther risk of being infected with chlamydia.Chlamydia can cause infertility, ectopic pregancy, inflamatory pelvic diseases.
7-Reduces by 3 fold the risk of inflamation and the risk of infection of the skin of the penis. The risk in uncircumcised men rises (1 in 3) if the uncircumcised man is diabetic.



1- Most studies show no significant difference in sensitivity between the circumcized and uncircumcized penis.
2- Credible research shows that most woman prefer the appearance of the circumcised penis and also prefer it for sexual activity (hygiene reasons)
3-In general, sexual function is the same or better.


Roger Short, from the Royal Women's Hospital obstetrics department and Melbourne University says:

Got any sources? And are those studies really verifiable? (as in, each person had equal amount of sex with HIV positive female)

Females over here at least prefer uncut penis. Works better.

Then again, we here try to maintain good personal hygiene. Along with good infant hygiene. Result? Practically no kid is cut in childhood and problems listed are nonexistent.


But sex... That is good...


Oh yes, regarding faulty condom. Do not forget that in basic situation male has far lower chance of getting HIV from intercourse with HIV positive female compared to opposite situation. Thus, even slightly defective condom acts well to prevent infection in that direction.

No matter how much you cut (well, ok more extensive circumcision has great odds of reducing sex and thus STD) you still are nowhere near immune. Those odds are just wild russian roulette.

80% reduction? Ok, but that does leave FAR higher odds of getting disease compared to condom. After all, we have to remember that not every man ever gets HIV even if they have sex with HIV positive female. Neither does every female get HIV despite having sex with positive male.


So what we have in the end? Possibly lower chance of getting disease you could completely avoid just by using rubber.

And possibility of having your little dude damaged in operation (I hear USA has lawyers who specialise in handling cases where circumcised person sues people due to damage caused by operation. Be it minor which leads to reduced functionality or total amputation)

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Yes, just stop screwing other men and HIV will start to die out...

[Da Skinna]

Yes, just stop screwing other men and HIV will start to die out...

And one slips by....

[Heinz Guderian]

Yes, just stop screwing other men and HIV will start to die out...

You can get it from heterosexual intercourse. I dont think anyone thinks its soley a gay problem. And if you think its a punishment from God for homosexuality, well then good day.

[Pontifex Maximus]

And because you lose feel and lubrication along with rolling of foreskin your penetration becomes more rough.

Woman might not like that. You might cause injury to her.

And all this circumcision is idiotic.

Worried of HIV? Foolproof solution without need to cut stuff has been invented...

All hail...

CONDOM!

Condoms are not a sure bet for protecting against STD's. The only 100% sure way to protect against STD's is chastity, and well... let's just say we are all at risk for it, whether or not a condom diminishes the chances, I'm not sure, but I know for a fact that it doesn't make it 100% safe.

You can get it from heterosexual intercourse. I dont think anyone thinks its soley a gay problem.

But does it protect against Man to Panzer intercourse?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Condoms are not a sure bet for protecting against STD's. The only 100% sure way to protect against STD's is chastity, and well... let's just say we are all at risk for it, whether or not a condom diminishes the chances, I'm not sure, but I know for a fact that it doesn't make it 100% safe.

You should know by now, Ponti, that you should source claims like these.

[KoS]

Condoms are not a sure bet for protecting against STD's. The only 100% sure way to protect against STD's is chastity, and well... let's just say we are all at risk for it, whether or not a condom diminishes the chances, I'm not sure, but I know for a fact that it doesn't make it 100% safe.

That's a risk I'm willing to take. I mean, I underwent circumcision within the first week of my life, so whether that's a good or bad thing, I can't really go back to the uncircumcised state of being. But even if a condom IS defective, the chances of it malfunctioning are miniscule (if I were the CEO of a major condom producer, I'd damn well do my best to ensure a quality product was coming out of my factories, or else I'd likely face at least a few dozen lawsuits from people who got HIV through a faulty condom). Plus, in ANY situation where you cannot be one hundred percent certain that your partner is infected (which is true in most circumstances), is it not a far wiser decision to wear a condom as opposed to no protection whatsoever?

(As far as the 'abstinence is the only way' bit goes, I doubt that everybody would follow the middle school abstinence-only method of STD prevention. But public school morality is not what I am discussing here, nor do I wish to ignite further debate.)

Also, I believe I heard somewhere that the foreskin can add two inches to a full erection. If this is true, I'm suing my parents.

But does it protect against Man to Panzer intercourse?

Sorry, no. In that case, you are at 100% chance of contracting PanzerAIDS. (Wow, what an awesome word. PanzerAIDS.)

[Pontifex Maximus]

That's a risk I'm willing to take. I mean, I underwent circumcision within the first week of my life, so whether that's a good or bad thing, I can't really go back to the uncircumcised state of being. Plus, in ANY situation where you cannot be one hundred percent certain that your partner is infected (which is true in most circumstances), is it not a far wiser decision to wear a condom as opposed to no protection whatsoever?

It's all personal choice I guess, but protection is better than none, that's a given. If I hadn't been circumcised, I'm sure I would think that remaining uncircumcised is the best way to go and vice versa. If uncircumcised people can prevent themselves from getting STDs simply by cleaning themselves, more power to them. I think that's great. Personally I have to believe circumcision is the foolproof methos though.

(As far as the 'abstinence is the only way' bit goes, I doubt that everybody would follow the middle school abstinence-only method of STD prevention. But public school morality is not what I am discussing here, nor do I wish to ignite further debate.)

The truth of it is indesputable, but it isn't practical. People are going to have sex. It's just how well we can protect ourselves that matters.

Also, I believe I heard somewhere that the foreskin can add two inches to a full erection. If this is true, I'm suing my parents.

I've never heard of that before.

Sorry, no. In that case, you are at 100% chance of contracting PanzerAIDS. (Wow, what an awesome word. PanzerAIDS.)

I believe the medical term is PAIDS

[Ludicus]

Also, I believe I heard somewhere that the foreskin can add two inches to a full erection. If this is true, I'm suing my parents.

Not true.

Individual hygiene is a standard today

Regarding AIDS infection, individual hygiene is important, but it´s not the key factor. It is the inner aspect of the foreskin, which is poorly keratinised but well supplied with Langerhans' cells, that is likely to be one of the principal sites of HIV entry into the penis.

there is no official medical guidance which justifies the male circumcision

On the contrary, please reread my last post, and the professional opinions expressed in the post.
Again, (summarizing):
On 28 March 2007 the World Health Organization and UNAIDS endorsed circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention.
Later in 2007 a further statement was produced that listed the vast array of benefits as well as issues concerning the ‘roll-out’ of circumcision, particularly to places and people at high risk of HIV infection
Recent studies have prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics to review its policy on circumcision, with a decision expected within the next several months on whether changes need to be made.
According to the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics,Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, these studies (read my post) are just the latest to point to circumcision’s potential health benefits.

From UNAIDS, March 28, 2007:

"The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention"

United Sates:
Excerpt from:
"Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV Transmission: What the New Data Mean for HIV Prevention in the United States":
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040223

"Based on the data from the three African clinical trials, it is likely that circumcision will decrease the probability of a man acquiring HIV via penile–vaginal sex with an HIV-infected woman in the US. Until public health recommendations are available for the US, some sexually active men may consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure......To consider the possible impact of public health recommendations for male circumcision, we must also take into account HIV incidence in high-risk groups, as well as adoption of other protective behaviors, such as condom use.....Currently available data on disparities in rates of prevalent HIV infection and AIDS and the prevalence of circumcision among US men suggest that black and Hispanic men may have particular opportunities for reduction of risk of HIV acquisition through circumcision".

[Tiwaz]

it seems that australian scientists have discovered a natural way to prevent most sexually transmitted cases of HIV.

it has been known for a while that the hardening of skin caused as a side effect of male circumcision makes the skin much tougher for the HIV virus to penetrate, but if you add to this, treatment with an oestrogen based cream, it thickens the skin to the point that it is virtually impossible for a man to catch HIV sexually. this over a generation would lead to a drastic reduction of the prevalence of the disease, as the most common form of transmission.. man to man, man to woman etc sexual transmission.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4572404a19716.html

And because you lose feel and lubrication along with rolling of foreskin your penetration becomes more rough.

Woman might not like that. You might cause injury to her.

And all this circumcision is idiotic.

Worried of HIV? Foolproof solution without need to cut stuff has been invented...

All hail...

CONDOM!

[C.M.]

Dr. Pask is either an idiot, dishonest or trying to sell a new product. The studies he most likely used to determine that circumcision offers up to 80% protection from HIV were from Africa. The results of those studies cannot be generalized to anything else than the situation in Africa. The nature of the study can only determine the marginal increase in protection that circumcision offers in a particular region, if a similar study were done in say Europe the conclusions would likely be that the marginal protection offered by circumcision would be minimal to insignificant.

While the studies say that circumcision in that region can offer up to an 80% increase in protection, the lower bracket is at 40%. I would certainly not call it a miracle cure especially when condoms are efficient at 80-98% and not to mention that they protect against other infections as well as unwanted pregnancies which circumcision does not.

Although the cream does seem like an interesting breakthrough i fail to see how it justifies circumcision.

[Da Skinna]

I only like peaches and cream. Not corticrap.

[Pontifex Maximus]

You're right.

Here's a source

Condoms make sex *safer* -- they do not make it absolutely safe. They cannot prevent infection 100 percent of the time. sometimes they break, and some infections -- such as genital warts -- can be transmitted if the condom does not completely cover a lesion.
The only surefire way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is to avoid sex.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Kind of misleading. The bad STDs (chlymidia, syphillis and of course HIV) are covered when, ironically, your penis is.

[Pontifex Maximus]

what r u talking about? i've been circumsized and it isn't hard to feel down there. i feel my man part really well (that might have sounded wrong though)

Let's not delve too deeply into that.

Kind of misleading. The bad STDs (chlymidia, syphillis and of course HIV) are covered when, ironically, your penis is.

Well yeah, but I don't really want warts either. I have yet to find a source that says that wearing a condom protects a person 100% from any of the mentioned diseases though.