WHY hasn't this study been made?

[Seie]

I have said this before, but I really gotta put this outthere again.

There is currently a lot of talk about the possibility that circumcision could make it more difficult to get HIV/AIDS.
There is talk about this everywhere I look - and now appearently the WHO recommends countries with high occurence of HIV to consider a circ program?

WHY oh WHY has NOONE made a study of the correlation between use of condoms and circumcision?

In my personal experience circ'ed men are very reluctant to use condoms because it feels very uncomfortable for them, whereas I have never experienced an intact man feeling discomfort using a condom - sure most prefer sex without because there is more sensation - but still that is different from actual discomfort.

If circumcision makes a man less likely to choose to wear a condom, what difference does it make then, that he is less likely to get HIV, cause in the end the difference will more than even out? Could that explain part of the high rate of HIV in the US for instance - that men are less likely to volunteer to wear a condom if circ'ed?

This is all speculation - but what really doesn't make sense is that noone "official" has bothered to look into this - even though the result of such a study could possibly completely devaluate the studies saying that a circ'ed man is less likely to get infected with HIV.

How can we make that study happen? Can we plant some ideas in the right places? Input? Am I completely off or do I possibly have a point?

[tutucrazy]

For the same reason that the studies that confirm female circ reduces the incidence of HIV transmission don't reach our news headlines. They want one thing and one thing alone: To prove circumcision has some kind of merit.

[MeepyCat]

It sounds like what you want researchers to do is ask men whether they're cirumcised, and whether or not they use condoms. The problem is that the answer to one of those questions is checkable, and the other is a subject about which people very often lie to researchers. At best, the results you would get would indicate what percentage of circumcised vs. uncircumcised guys say they use condoms. And that's not a particularly useful data point.

My experience contradicts yours somewhat - I have known plenty of uncircumcised guys who claimed that condoms caused them discomfort.

[benj]

I was left intact as a baby. Sometimes condoms caused discomfort. However, most of the time they reduced the sensitivity, which wasn't such a bad thing.

I think people should make studies about HIV prevention in context with their own countries... That would provide better information and data.

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by benj

I was left intact as a baby. Sometimes condoms caused discomfort. However, most of the time they reduced the sensitivity, which wasn't such a bad thing. .

really? DP is circd and hates condoms b/c of how much they reduce sensitivity.. it slows things down dramatically..or stops them completely. wow that was awkward. my best friend's intact ex bf felt the same way as you do though.. i wonder if there is a correlation between circ and condom use.

notice i have a 16 mos old son and my Best friend is still childless. i wonder which of our boyfriends used condoms more consistently.

[MeepyCat]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

notice i have a 16 mos old son and my Best friend is still childless. i wonder which of our boyfriends used condoms more consistently.

I can identify at least two factors, besides circumcision, potentially affecting condom use in your situation vs. your friend's:

- Your friend may be more adamant about insisting on condoms than you are.
- You may feel differently about having and raising children at this stage in your life than she does.

[benj]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

really? DP is circd and hates condoms b/c of how much they reduce sensitivity.. it slows things down dramatically..or stops them completely. wow that was awkward. my best friend's intact ex bf felt the same way as you do though.. i wonder if there is a correlation between circ and condom use.

notice i have a 16 mos old son and my Best friend is still childless. i wonder which of our boyfriends used condoms more consistently.

i did like the sensitivity but at times, it was TOO much. reducing it a little helps to last longer... of course, circumcised guys have already lost sensitivity so the condom is losing even more. of course, i have two kids---so it's not like the sensitivity bothered me too much.

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

My intact DH also claims condoms reduce sensitivity too much.

[MyBoysBlue]

My Intact DH also doesn't like condoms because of the reduction of sensitivity but it wasn't a problem for him to use them. But I hated them even more as with a condom you don't get the gliding motion of the foreskin and I ended up sore and dried out as if he was circed. It was aweful. Thus DS 1 came along.

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

I can identify at least two factors, besides circumcision, potentially affecting condom use in your situation vs. your friend's:

- Your friend may be more adamant about insisting on condoms than you are.
- You may feel differently about having and raising children at this stage in your life than she does.

well yes of course... especially since there are only two couples in question. i imagine you would have survey a ridiculous amount of sexually active men... and then hope they all told the truth.

but seriously i don't understand why they don't look harder at what kind of effects circumcision can have on men later in life. they look at whether or not circumcision can protect against AIDS, penile cancer etc. but not what problems circumcision may cause.

the reason i think condom use would be worth looking at is because it is a very effective way of protecting both partners from STDs. Even if they could prove that Circumcision offers some small protection from AIDS or STDs it would not be worth it if circumcised men are less likely to use condoms. either because of a sensitivity thing or b/c they are under the impression that they are protected by the circumcision.

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue

My Intact DH also doesn't like condoms because of the reduction of sensitivity but it wasn't a problem for him to use them. But I hated them even more as with a condom you don't get the gliding motion of the foreskin and I ended up sore and dried out as if he was circed. It was aweful. Thus DS 1 came along.

this is another thing that i wonder if pro circ people think about. do they realize how much circumcision changes intercourse? why do people who choose to circ disregard this issue? is it that the people doing studies and making recommendations are the adults who were all circ'd in the 50's so they don't want to believe (or know for sure) there is any truth to this? although i can see why lube companies would be all over circumcision.

[Yulia_R]

DH is circ'd but has no problem wearing a condom .

[1littlebit]

but why don't they study the effects of circ on adults? the foreskin is gone forever therefore the effects last past baby hood.

[perspective]

I dont know. I am circumcised and I dont really have a problem with condoms. Yeah, of course they reduce sensitivity, but I still use them. I think this theory may not be the most sound.

Really I think a better study would be one that takes a deeper look at the real factors why circ makes a difference (if it does at all). Because at this point they have some data, but no explanation for it (making them unable to rule out so many variables). On top of that the conclusions these scientists make from their data dont make any sense when applied to many other populations around the world.


So before we start saying "guys wont use condoms" which is the pr-circ view concerning this issue. (Fits very nicely in with the rest of the pro circ beliefs that can be simplified to: "Men are not responsible individuals, and will not take care of their hygiene or sexual health.") I think we should focus on how solid this information is in the first place.


We should be asking ourselves as a society, if we think the removal of parts of the male genitals will reduce STI infection, then its not a big leap to assume the same when removing parts of the female genitals. It seems the next study would have been researching female circ. (as they say we need every tool we can to fight AIDS!)
The fact that that was not the next step our culture took tells a lot of our value placed on the male vs female body.

Maybe less about the female body, but more that we actually view parts of the male body as disposable. This is the core belief we are fighting against as intactivists.

[1littlebit]

it always seems like people are trying to justify a procedure they have already decided to do. why would someone try to prove circumcision is beneficial?

what you said about assuming men won't use condoms is an interesting point. i was on birth control and we both had been tested for STIs ... now hindsight i realize this was a little naive.. and obviously BC isn't 100% effective. (duh) but if pro circ people assume men are not wearing condoms do they believe that circumcision will prevent STIs completely? i hope not.. and i seriously doubt it. so even if they circumcise everyone you will still be susceptible unless you wear a condom.

so why would you circumcise to protect against STIs, AIDS, or w/e else when they still will not be protected unless they wear a condom? so instead of studying how much protection, if any, circumcision gives someone they should put that time and effort towards educating about proper condom use and making condoms as available as possible.

universities have taken this to heart. our health centers, bathrooms, common rooms etc. all have baskets of free condoms. the other thing to consider is abstinence only education, which, incidentally, is what i had in school. i don't know if this was just my schools program but we were taught that birth control is effective and b/c it is effective it is immoral (wrong.. btw.. it isn't always effective ) and we were taught that you cannot rely on condoms b/c they are very likely to break or be used incorrectly, to have a small hole etc. and that they are immoral. as it turns out i am not real interested in the immoral part but apparently the other stuff stuck.. if only subconsciously.

if you combine abstinence only education or just a lack of sex education with a belief that circumcision protects you from STIs you have a disaster waiting to happen.

i don't understand why people are so into circumcision. i think we might have to figure this one out if we want a ghost of a chance at getting through to some of the really pro circ people. i have family who circumcising and they apparently researched and decided it was for the best.. what would they have researched. i have only really seen nocirc information and neutral information. even before i knew what i know now i didn't find anything particularly convincing.. or anything that tried to be convincing.

[trmpetplaya]

I think they should absolutely do a study on this, but I think that if circumcised men *are* less likely to use condoms that it probably has more to do with the fact that they're more likely to believe that they're protected from STDs (circumcision is not only touted to prevent HIV, but herpes and HPV and possibly others that I don't know about) and therefore they might have less of a reason (in their mind) to use condoms. I think it would have less to do with sensitivity than with the "circumcision prevents STDs" headlines.

[Seie]

I know most men find condoms to reduce sensitivity - but there is a difference between reduced sensitivity and actual discomfort or pain.
I see how such a study could be difficult to make. I dont know much about the actual process of making studies - I know there are a lot of factors to take into consideration - but I still think it would be importent to know whether circumcision influences the likelyhood that a man uses condoms.

Maybe its a silly idea- but I have been wondering about it...

[1littlebit]

see i sort of wonder if circ'd men are more likely to have pain and sensitivity as well. since they do not have the same sliding motion that men with foreskin do. I know when DP uses a condom sex takes a lot longer and he usually stops eventually b/c it hurts. i don't know why this happens but i can see where it might be related to circ. or it could just be him seems like a good thing to study though

[perspective]

Well I can tell you personally for me, condoms never caused me pain! They reduce sensitivity, but they never caused pain or discomfort. Why does that happen with your husband?


Also consider how many men are circumcised in the United States. Considering how many condom companies we have, and its a stable industry in the US, I really dont think you can make the argument that circed men wont wear condoms.


Now say we want to make a study researching if men in Africa circed as part of "fight AIDS" campaign used condoms less.
Because no guy is going to cut off the top of his penis unless there is good reason. At the very least I bet many of these men feel they dont have to be as "worried" about using condoms, all the way to some men thinking they just got the AIDS cure.

What Americans have to realize is how horrified people are of AIDS over there. If a small community finds out you have it, they will want nothing to do with you.

In parts of South Africa a myth developed that if you have sex with a virgin you can cure your AIDS. This started a disturbing new crime of adults stealing and raping babies to cure their AIDS.

Now if something like that can happen, its not hard to believe men will take this as a cure, no matter what they are told, will stop using condoms, will get and spread AIDS, and then his partners will spread it to other men who think they will not get AIDS from the woman they are sleeping with because he is protected from his circumcision!

[1littlebit]

thats what i don't really get... there is no way that circumcising will stop the transmission of aids. if it did no one would is circ'd would have it. woo hoo i studied it.

it seems like it would be incredibly harmful to circumcise for that reason for all the reasons you stated.

either circ protects you so you don't need a condom or it doesn't protect you and condoms are important.

i think it sends a very unclear message if you tell people to get circd b/c it can help protect them from AIDS and then tell them they should still wear condoms. they really need to ditch the circ thing and push the condoms.

if you still need a condom after circing what was the point of the circ? this is a serious question btw... is there a benefit from it that i am missing?