The Circumcision Song

I know it sounds bad, but they do look alike.

how does circumcision reduce the likelihood of contracting HIV... sounds to me like Jewish propaganda in Uganda!

I was wondering that myself. The article said that circumcision may reduce the risk of infection by 60% but they don't have any sources so I'm still skeptical.

How can I put this.... I think it has to do with an uncircumsized penis 'holding in' sexual fluids close to the urethra.

It's possible to have unprotected sex with someone wth HIV and not contract it. (although that is clearly a *very bad idea*).

I think the circumcision part comes into play (if you'll excuse the pun) in this case... WIthout circumcision, the tip of the penis can act like a little 'protection pocket' for the virus, allowing it to stay infective for longer.

I've heard this before. If it came down to losing a little bit of skin or getting HIV... I think I'd say "bring on the scalpel"!

I've also heard that uncircumcised penises can harbor HPV. Wash well, guys... wash well.

There are varying studies on the amount of reduction in HIV transfer with circumcised males. Even if it is significant, I'd be worried about potential misinformation creating false confidence in those who have undergone the procedure. If these people were to feel as if they could now have sex with reduced chances of getting HIV, how would that impact on potential spreading of the disease?

To think, the solution lies in education and providing protection, and yet we see circumcision, preaching of abstinence and pseudoscience being offered instead. *sigh*

Athon

Let's see, "they" say that circumcised men feel less pleasure than un-cut men. So, maybe they figure by removing some of the appeal of sex, it'll drop the HIV rate? Who knows, it's so bad I guess anything at this point is worth a shot.

Wouldn't it be easier to just give out condoms?

Circumcision does not in any way significantly reduce chances of contracting HIV. It's part of the education track that says that if you screw virgins you'll be immune from disease. This is ridiculous Neatorama, with articles like these maybe you should post some health info as well?

@ Peeves:

According to the World Health Organization and the National Institute of Health it does. I would call a documented (in the journal of medicine) 53% reduction of the chance of contracting HIV significant.

What happens is that the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse allowing these cells to enter the blood stream.

Sorry to confuse you with the facts, Peeves.

This is bullshit. From a recent study, a lifetimes supply of condoms is 95 times cheaper than circumcision. And more effective. But of course since it's American's pushing this, as in right wing fucktards, they can't possibly teach birth control. No, far better to mutilate them. White mans burden and all that.

The WHO has been snowed with all this. One study does NOT mean anything. Especially as the original study was so flawed. (Seriously, you're gonna bust out the study, you might want to research what went into the study ITSELF.)

You're so called "facts" are questionable. I mean I can pull up studies that show global warming is both happening and not happening. So I'd get down off that penis mutilating high horse of yours before you fall off.

Neatoramawontsendmeapassword, HPV can be contracted by touch.

Penn & Teller had a show about Circumcision. Well worth a look.

Well, if god wouldn't want us to have foreskins he probably would have made us without it.

Gimmie the rubbers and leave me willie be.

It's already been mentioned in this thread, but I just want to confirm/agree a little.

1) Circumcision in no way helps the body fight STD's. We were taught that in grade 7 health class, back in 1992! We know better, and its simply propoganda that ties into the next point...

2) Why not simply advocate condom use? Answer: Uganda (as well as Nigeria) has been falling under the sway of a particular group of Catholic extremists who preach that condoms are the tools designed by the west that actually INFECT people with HIV! Why? In order to sell more pharmaceuticals and keep African countries poor and subservient to America's wishes.

And so the fear-mongering goes on, and is literally killing people.

Man the stupid things people do.

These numpties would rahter have their pricks peeled than put on a condom.

HAving your genitals mutilated as a new born is one thing,one totally awful thing, but having it done as an adult is APPALLINGLY PAINFUL.

Why are so many people gung ho for putting the scalpel, or rusty pen knife in sub-saharan africa, to their genitals?

Absolutely mad.

I would be worried some of the places conducting the circumcisions won't be fully sterile, thereby increasing the chance for the people to get AIDs. It's called a condom. If you use one, you don't need to slice of your most precious nerve endings.

@mokuwai

Sorry to point out facts but you're the only person who seems to think statistics like that actually exist. Would you like to cite to them? And make sure they aren't from right wing think tanks who advocate abstinence only sex ed? Or should I keep thinking that no, circumcized men are NOT 53% less likely to contract HIV and you're part of the problem. 53%??? That's a perfect example of retarded science.

Penn and Teller's show on this is entertaining. Sadly Africa as a whole is waaaaaay more religious than America is. And condom hatred, while loony in the west, is a viable political position due to the Idiotic religious beliefs about the west. As always, I say, the Skeptical libertarian west is the solution, not the problem.

Yes, it SEEMS the Catholic Church has much to blame for the condom fear in Africa but I would like to see someone call them out on this or find some well documented evidence of this. Links anyone?

Here you go... Gee that took all of about one search in the Lancet Journal of Medicine to find results. The Lancet is considered to be one of the "core" general medical journals. Which is where this was published. Hardly a "right wing think tank who advocates abstinence only sex-ed"

I have no dog in the fight here I just choose to look at all of the facts and not have a knee-jerk reaction based on whatever preconceived ideas I might have.

If someone wants to be circumcised as an adult that's their choice. No one is making them do it. Just like no one is making them have unprotected sex. I very much support the use of condoms or even (Gasp!) monogamy.

Obviously this is not a magic bullet cure for aids and no one is claiming that it is. I'm amazed that people who argue so angrily and ask me to post proof don't show me the same. I'm more than willing to maintain a civil discourse. But you have to first be intellectually honest. My sources are a reputable journal of medicine, the World Health Organization, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on Hiv/Aids. What's yours?

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Circumcision-Found-To-Prevent-HIV-Spread-2463-1/

http://www.thelancet.com/

Aaaargh! To all those kneejerk responses to this being propaganda or bad science - I'd like to point out that as reported in the New Lancet and Nature Medicine and other highly reputable medical journals as well as in the mainstream media, there have been THREE DIFFERENT very well documented, scientifically scrutinised and peer reviewed studies in three different countries; Uganda, Kenya and South Africa (with between 2000-4000 people involved in each) all of which showed such dramatically positive and totally conclusive results in reducing HIV infection IN MEN that they were brought to a halt early.

The 60% protection rate beats out any of the hopeful predictions for an AIDS vaccine, which is still 7-10 years away, after the last batch of vaccines failed.

Sure, condoms are a much better prevention strategy (particularly when circumcision doesn't affect transmission - so they can still pass it on), but snipping off the foreskin could be the kindest cut in an epidemic that is absolutely destroying Africa, particularly when we've just seen dramatic horrific failures in the trials of microbicides based on nonoxynol-9 (ie. a vaginal jelly shield) and the most recent batch of vaccines.

While scientists are working on new strategies, circumcision in the meantime could well help save the continent (ideally as part of a strategy that involves condoms and other preventative measures).

We're talking about people's lives here.

Hmmmmm no comments back from all the deniers?

Don't confuse them with the facts.

people should also cut off their lips, it might prevent gingivitis.