Is it true?

[Dera]

First, let me say that I am an intactivist. I have 2 boys, both intact. I just had a quick question.

That horrible woman on The Doctors show repeatedly mentions that circumsicion reduces the risk of spreading STDs. I searched around and it's easy to find information about HIV specifically, and how flawed the small study was that made this claim but what about other STDs? Is this actually true?

Even if it is, I am firmly against RIC obviously. I was just wondering where the info was regarding this claim. Is she getting this info from the one study done in Africa? I just get so riled up every time she mentions this, I feel like writing them to try and debunk this statement she keeps making.

[robertandenith]

well, if you put it that way... it is also true to cut baby girls breasts to prevent breast cancer

[Sailor]

I think these studies are silly.

If you're practicing safe sex, testing your partners prior to sexual activity (this is becoming very normal now), then you're not going to wind up with an STD.

If you're not doing this, and having random sex without condoms with random strangers, then - intact or not - you'll wind up with an STD. Or a baby. Or both.

The heart of the matter is safe sexual practices, not circumcision. These studies bother me so much because it seems like they're done by doctors who want circumcision to continue to be the "norm." When it shouldn't be.

[Dera]

You know you're right. It doesn't even matter if it is true or not! I don't know why I wanted to know so much.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by Dera

You know you're right. It doesn't even matter if it is true or not! I don't know why I wanted to know so much.

You should want to know, and NEVER that. Its always important to know the facts.

There are a number of studies that show that STD rates have no relation to circ status. And beyond studies, if you look at the raw data, countries that have low to zero circ rates do not have higher STD rates.

Actually many "no circ" countries have MUCH MUCH lower STD rates then America and that has nothing to do with circumcision, but more to do with proper sexual health classes in schools.


Circ is always the easy way out. "Why clean, cut it off" "Why worry about teaching our kids anything, cut it off" "Why wear condoms, or try fighting global AIDS, just cut it off" The worst part is that this "easy way out" does not even work.

[Claire and Boys]

some links:

No link found with circumcision and prevention of STDs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;16925903
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/dave1/

[Dera]

Thank you so much!

[tennisdude23]

You know the studies go back and forth. There is no clear consensus on STDs. Some studies show that circumcision provides a mild prophylactic effect for certain STDs. Others show the exact opposite or that there is no effect at all. Given that the science is so unclear, the truth may be that if even there is a minor prophylactic effect against some diseases, it is so small that it would be ridiculous to even consider surgical amputation as a means of prevention. A good analogy is the breast argument. Nobody is going to perform a mastectomy on a baby girl to prevent breast cancer in the future.

[Greg B]

It is important to remember that while circ may provide a benefit, that benefit must be weighed against the down side to it. The problem with these reports is they never aknowledge the downside. It is like saying, well, if you just stop having sex, you won't get STDs. Who wants to give up sex?

So you have to consider that yes, by getting a circ you get a small benefit in reducing, or delaying, getting STDs. Doesn't prevent it, so you will still have to do everything a person with a foreskin has to do to protect yourself. And to top it off, sex will be more difficult for both you and your partner, and will feel much less satisfying for you.

I think most people would choose to keep their foreskin if they new both sides.

[SleeplessMommy]

The studies allege that circumcised men will be less likely to get HIV infection. No benefit to women, who are MORE likely to be infected by serodiscordant intercourse (one partner infected). In fact women may be at more risk of small internal tears with the circed male. (bang head against wall here)

One study of serodiscordant married couples showed that 30% of newly circed males had intercourse before they were "certified to be healed"... that actually ADDS another pathway for HIV infection. (bang head against wall again)

The question should not be: "Does circ reduce male's risk of HIV infection?" but rather "Is circ or condoms a more effective HIV prevention strategy?"

Condoms are a barrier method and will also reduce risk of unintended pregnancy.