Something that is bothering me re. the whole HIV and circ argument

[Claire and Boys]

I've been involved in discussions with pro circs a few times and naturally the AIDS and HIV thing always comes up. The discussion always for them seems to boil down to one thing. They are aware that circ is not a complete prevention for HIV, but they are viewing it as an extra layer of protection say if a condom fails, or they say something like everyone has unprotected sex some time and if they have their child circumcised they have extra protection in that case.

What would you say to refute this argument?

[Fi.]

Remind them that those same cells in the foreskin are also lining the urethra including the opening so if there is any kind of fluid contact with the glans at all, the area is covered in the same cells that the foreskin is.

[needhelpplease]

Yeah, I've heard that argument a few times. It's a tough one. I usually try to frame it as "shouldn't the boy have the choice if he wants the extra protection or not?" and say a teenager should be given the information and the ability to choose if they want to have their skin cut off, and wear a condom, or just wear a condom. But then they say "nobody would choose it but getting it done as a baby is easier", so it's never-ending really.

Other possibilities are mentioning how it might give people a false sense of complacency if they misunderstand the protection, or that it's possible cut men are less likely to wear condoms due to less sensation (unfortunately I don't think there are any studies on this). I've also heard people say that when it comes down to practical difference, a 1 in 1000 chance of an infection and a 2 in 1000 chance of infection are basically the same.

[LavenderMae]

I'd point out that circumcision hasn't seemed to keep the rate of HIV/AIDS down here in the US where the majority of adult men have been circumcised (I'd also point out that the HIV/AIDS rate is lower in many intact countries). Circumcision is not proven to cut down the rate of HIV infections in the US and the studies supporting it in other places are so flawed that it's hard to understand why people are using said study (studies) to justify circumcising their sons. If circumcision wasn't the norm here no one would be giving you that excuse. Is circumcision on the rise in intact countries because of the studies? It's just another excuse for circumcision and like all the rest it will be proven wrong or insignificant at the expense of a whole lot of people unfortunately.
I really hope my children use protection/condoms every single time they have sex (when they are not in a commited relationship and wanting to have a child/ren) and that is what I will be teaching them to do and they will know that not using protection will put them at risk. I would be giving them the same information above if they were circumcised (just like I'm giving my daughter).

[Microsoap]

: The fact that the U.S. has the 2nd highest HIV/AIDS infection rate after Africa and the 2nd highest circ rate after Israel (I guess Israel and other Middle Eastern countries). Also the almost non-existent circ rate in Scandinavian countries (besides Europe and Russia) and their always historic low infection rates.

[In Exile]

Just ask back why on earth despite the "extra protection" HIV was able to rise to these high infection rates-virtuallly every guy was circed in the time HIV came around (in the US)- it's pretty obvious that "the extra protection didn't work. Only a condom does, period.

If circumcision was to offer any kind of "protection"-why the heck then did Aids wipe out so many cut men??

[Tinker]

Originally Posted by In Exile

Just ask back why on earth despite the "extra protection" HIV was able to rise to these high infection rates-virtuallly every guy was circed in the time HIV came around (in the US)- it's pretty obvious that "the extra protection didn't work. Only a condom does, period.

If circumcision was to offer any kind of "protection"-why the heck then did Aids wipe out so many cut men??

: Couldn't have said it better myself.

[In Exile]

You know what REALLY always bothered me about the AIDS Argument??

When it was the gay community at first *circed men primarily*, a lot of people frolicked about how they gays are now being "punished" for their "behaviour", "only gays" getting sick, blablabla. (until their daughters started to get sick too)

And now they try to tell us that circ is protection you??? Pleeeeeeeeease, do they think we don't have a brain? According to legend HIV started out among circed men- and now that is "protection"???

I cannot fathom that we are thought to be THAT stupid to believe that- unless something in the initial HIV story is fishy.

[QuietTempest]

Wasn't there another study done on this involving recently amputated foreskins (rather than long dead foreskins) that showed that live Langerhan cells fought off HIV cells?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by QuietTempest

Wasn't there another study done on this involving recently amputated foreskins (rather than long dead foreskins) that showed that live Langerhan cells fought off HIV cells?

Yes, De Witte in the Netherlands. He found that the Langerhans cells only became infected when they encountered very high viral loads.

Link: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/fi...Witte_2007.pdf

[glongley]

The bottom line is, babies are not sexually active. It is not a decision that needs to be made for a baby.

When a male is old enough to weigh whether he considers circumcision as a preventive for HIV to be a rational or desirable choice, compared to his own estimation of the value of having an intact sex organ, he can make a fully informed decision for himself. Circumcision should only be done when absolutely medically necessary or when an adult gives fully informed consent. Anything else is not ethically justifiable.

And if he wouldn't choose to have it done to himself as an adult, that's all the more reason to respect his right to make his own decisions about his body and which parts of it he would prefer to keep.

Gillian

[Haselnuss]

Originally Posted by needhelpplease

Yeah, I've heard that argument a few times. It's a tough one. I usually try to frame it as "shouldn't the boy have the choice if he wants the extra protection or not?" and say a teenager should be given the information and the ability to choose if they want to have their skin cut off, and wear a condom, or just wear a condom.

:

Originally Posted by needhelpplease

But then they say "nobody would choose it but getting it done as a baby is easier", so it's never-ending really.

That's when you look at them like they're crazy and ask them if they can repeat that...
I mean, seriously, thats the sickest logic ever.

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by Haselnuss

:

That's when you look at them like they're crazy and ask them if they can repeat that...
I mean, seriously, thats the sickest logic ever.

Oh, I agree! and THEN they say.. "Well, it's my right as a parent to make that choice for them since I am responsible for them" blah blah blah. Then if you question that the next is they bring up vaxes and how we make other decisions for them.

If they're really sick then they bring up things like haircuts, dressing our children, and grounding them when they're naughty. because of course circ is just the same. *sigh*

[latinalonestar]

Originally Posted by glongley

The bottom line is, babies are not sexually active. It is not a decision that needs to be made for a baby.

When a male is old enough to weigh whether he considers circumcision as a preventive for HIV to be a rational or desirable choice, compared to his own estimation of the value of having an intact sex organ, he can make a fully informed decision for himself. Circumcision should only be done when absolutely medically necessary or when an adult gives fully informed consent. Anything else is not ethically justifiable.

And if he wouldn't choose to have it done to himself as an adult, that's all the more reason to respect his right to make his own decisions about his body and which parts of it he would prefer to keep.

Gillian

:

[Fyrestorm]

There is a bumper sticker out there that says:

"If circumcision prevents AIDS, why are so many of my friends dead?"

I can tell you that the 3 friends I had that died of complications of HIV/AIDS were all cut. It ha nothing to do with their foreskins, 1 got it from infected blood and 2 got it from sex (they both swore they used condoms all the time) so being cut didn't help them, now did it?

I realize this is anecdotal...but it is what it is!

[robertandenith]

I always respond:


"Well, those with circumcised penises, who wants to volunteer to have unprotected sex with an infected person and see if you are safe? You also need to report and let us know that in fact you are free of infection."

So sad I never see a reply after I make this comment It works like a charm.

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

Oh, I agree! and THEN they say.. "Well, it's my right as a parent to make that choice for them since I am responsible for them" blah blah blah. Then if you question that the next is they bring up vaxes and how we make other decisions for them.

they are just 'finding' excuses to forgive circumcision I see this all the time too...

[Haselnuss]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

Oh, I agree! and THEN they say.. "Well, it's my right as a parent to make that choice for them since I am responsible for them" blah blah blah. Then if you question that the next is they bring up vaxes and how we make other decisions for them.

If they're really sick then they bring up things like haircuts, dressing our children, and grounding them when they're naughty. because of course circ is just the same. *sigh*

Yep. Of course, most of the vaccines are against diseases they're at risk for as children.

[taramoon13]

ummmm, what about just teaching your kids not to engage in high risk behaviors (unprotected sex, drug use)?!??! i think that would be a pretty good protection against HIV alone. that's the thing no one ever addresses, what are the percentages of people that get HIV in this country that are not engaging in these behaviors? i don't have an exact figure, but i can't imagine it's very high.

[Haselnuss]

Yep.
I think I read somewhere that circumcised men are more likely to refuse to wear condoms... which makes sense, doesn't it?