New HIV study.

[tireesix]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8154134.stm

Felt pretty sick when reading this.

So, for some reason, they thought that circumcising men with HIV would protect their partners . The obvious result, it doesn't.

However, due to their possibly being stigmatism of men with HIV if people see their non circ status, they recommend they get circumcised anyway and wear condom.

Why not just say 'wear a condom'. Thats it, full stop, no surgery, no nothing, just wear a condom?

But then it gets even worse, apparently, the best course of action would be to just circumcise all males in infancy and childhood before they start sexual relationships but apparently, this would require careful consideration of parental consent and minors consent.

Whether circumcised or not, these guys should be wearing condoms so I don't get why so much money is being poured into these studies, why not just pour it into education, information condoms (and maybe a whole lot of education for circ happy doctors). That way you can avoid the whole 'stigmatism' issue, the whole surgery issue etc etc etc etc.

And I thought the HIV studies were questionable anyway? So why the hell does everyone keep pointing back to them?

Why is the west so obsessed with removing a functional piece of anatomy from African men?

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by tireesix

Why is the west so obsessed with removing a functional piece of anatomy from African men?

To be fair, it is mostly an American obsession. The rest of the western world have largely discontinued the practice, and European doctors have recently been critical of the American "obsession" with circumcision as the answer to medical problems like AIDS.

"The best way to guard against HIV is by always using a condom, so more work is needed to ensure adequate protection is available for those who need it the most."

Maybe diverting all the money used to circ little boys in Africa toward providing condoms which we already know work better? Just a crazy thought. :

[Dave2GA]

Why are we so intent on circumcising Africa? And for that matter India and China? I think the short answer is twofold: "to make the world safe for circumcision and the circumcised" and "because I am, everyone else should be" (e.g. The Fox Who Lost His Tail in Aesop's Fables).

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by tireesix

Why is the west so obsessed with removing a functional piece of anatomy from African men?

I hope it is not too creepy to mention this, but the U.S. also has a history of messing compulsively with black men's reproductive organs. I was just reading about this; circ in the U.S. was at first promoted for African-Americans only, in an effort to "protect white women" and "solve the Negro rape problem" and to prevent the spread of disease which was largely associated with the black population. Several medical journals of the late nineteenth century promoted the idea. Maybe the medical profession is simply returning to its established course after an unavoidable hiatus.

[perspective]

But they added: "It's inevitable that men who are infected with HIV will also require to be circumcised, partly to avoid stigmatisation.

Where in their scientific study did they suddenly leap into making socialogical conclusions? It does not seem they even researched this. To be be honest it seems incredibly obvious they just want to circumcise as many males as possible.

I am shocked they had a study where they just circumcised HIV positive men and had them couple with women just to "see what happens". It seems a lack of care about the health of any of the subjects involved.

I am surprised BBC would have such an article up on their site at all. There obviously seems like there is some small movement of influencial people who are pushing what really is an anti-male, and anti-non western cultures.

[umsami]

I just saw this. It's an offshoot of the WHO study that showed circ'ing did help prevent HIV transmission in Africa. To me, this might add an additional shadow of doubt to the original study. If circ'ing does prevent HIV transmission truly... then one would think it would always prevent transmission. When it was done, shouldn't matter. :

I think the study in and of itself is a little questionable ethically... because they were risking transmission to their wives/partners. They should have been told, wear a condom. Period.

As for the cultural significance of circumcision in Africa, I believe it is more of a "becoming a man/puberty" ritual than anything else. Changing that mindset will take a lot longer IMHO.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by umsami

I just saw this. It's an offshoot of the WHO study that showed circ'ing did help prevent HIV transmission in Africa. To me, this might add an additional shadow of doubt to the original study. If circ'ing does prevent HIV transmission truly... then one would think it would always prevent transmission. When it was done, shouldn't matter. :

This is right. They've been reporting incremental data from this study for a while now. Clearly the numbers haven't changed.

Originally Posted by umsami

I think the study in and of itself is a little questionable ethically... because they were risking transmission to their wives/partners. They should have been told, wear a condom. Period.

I have to wonder about this too. They knew them men were HIV positive. It seems unethical to sit back and watch as they infect their wives. In that situation the men should be treated and told: condoms, condoms condoms.


I want to add a comment unrelated to umsami's post. Generally, those who become HIV positive do so because they are risk takers; that is high risk sexual activity is involved, typically. Don't shoot : me I know there are some "innocent" victims too such as victims of rape, women who can't say no, ect. And sometimes it just happens to people like other bad things. But HIV is largely associated with high risk sexual activity, behavior, thus risk takers.

With that in mind it occurs to me that risk takers, those more likely to be infected, are also those who are less likely to use condoms. I could see that these men would be more likely to ignore the fact that they still need condoms possibly increasing their exposure. Even is we assume there is overall less risk for these men, increasing their exposure leads to increasing the exposure to women. That is to say the 'risk taking' man who has been ignoring the condom advice may now infect more females (once he does become infected) since he is using a condom less and the chances of him infecting women in the first place are now higher. Make sense?

[tireesix]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

To be fair, it is mostly an American obsession. The rest of the western world have largely discontinued the practice, and European doctors have recently been critical of the American "obsession" with circumcision as the answer to medical problems like AIDS.
Maybe diverting all the money used to circ little boys in Africa toward providing condoms which we already know work better? Just a crazy thought. :

Yes, you are right, mainly an American thing. I remember there was a BBC article not so long ago where American Doctors were trying to get British Doctors to start up circumcising to help with our STD thing in this country.

Thankfully, the British Docs said 'ummmmm, don't think so'. Nobody was entirely sold on the issue.

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by tireesix

Yes, you are right, mainly an American thing. I remember there was a BBC article not so long ago where American Doctors were trying to get British Doctors to start up circumcising to help with our STD thing in this country.

Thankfully, the British Docs said 'ummmmm, don't think so'. Nobody was entirely sold on the issue.

I remember this too. If we're thinking of the same article, the British culture sort'of mocked Americans "haveing a circumcision obsession". Well, the circ'd jounalist trying their best to promote it certaintly do.

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by umsami

I think the study in and of itself is a little questionable ethically... because they were risking transmission to their wives/partners. They should have been told, wear a condom. Period.

They are a LOT ethically questionable. Among other things informed consent is not obtained from the partner. These studies would never be approved by any USA ethics board ... and could not ever be done in the USA. But being done in African countries, they get USA funding and are required to meet "local ethics standards". Of course they are published by USA medical journals.

At least one of the Africa circ studies has documented increased transmission risk to wife during the "healing period" (men were told not to have sex until "certified healed" but some did anyway.)

There is no funding in southern african countries for routine infant circ ... so USA babies are the only one who will be affected.

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

I hope it is not too creepy to mention this, but the U.S. also has a history of messing compulsively with black men's reproductive organs. I was just reading about this; circ in the U.S. was at first promoted for African-Americans only, in an effort to "protect white women" and "solve the Negro rape problem" ...

Yes, I don't remember where, but I do remember reading that same thing also. Circ was extolled as the "cure-all" for preventing AA men from raping Caucasian women and when I read that my jaw hit the floor. How incredibly offensive that the medical community would promote that and how sad society in general bought that line.

[MyBoysBlue]

It keeps comming back to the fact that circumcision was first promoted as a way to decrease sexual pleasure. How sick.

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

it occurs to me that risk takers, those more likely to be infected, are also those who are less likely to use condoms. I could see that these men would be more likely to ignore the fact that they still need condoms possibly increasing their exposure.

Makes sense, but THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Then cut men who infected their partners more, ALSO USED CONDOMS MORE, by their own reporting and the partners' reporting.

The text of the study was available as a pdf at CircumcisionAndHIV.com. They asked if condoms had been used Never, Inconsistently, or Consistently. With the cut men "Consistently" was reported about 7% more of the time.

Cheers,

[Fellow Traveler]

That would have been I. The oriinal studies with the HIV neg men. Which might mean they were more careful than most. It will probably be diferent n the general population

[umsami]

Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue

It keeps comming back to the fact that circumcision was first promoted as a way to decrease sexual pleasure. How sick.

Circumcision was first a religious or puberty ritual... it had nothing to do with reducing sexual pleasure with regards to Jewish or Muslim beliefs. I can't speak regarding Jewish theology, but in Muslim circles sex is good and meant to be enjoyed. :

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by umsami

Circumcision was first a religious or puberty ritual... it had nothing to do with reducing sexual pleasure with regards to Jewish or Muslim beliefs. I can't speak regarding Jewish theology, but in Muslim circles sex is good and meant to be enjoyed. :

In the U.S., non-religious circ was promoted to reduce pleasure (ie: self-pleasure/masturbation) and to "cure what ails ya" - seizures, bedwetting, all sorts of medical problems not related to genitals. I think that is what was meant.
I don't think the poster was implying anything about religious circ as we are not allowed to discuss that here.

[MyBoysBlue]

Originally Posted by Night_Nurse

In the U.S., non-religious circ was promoted to reduce pleasure (ie: self-pleasure/masturbation) and to "cure what ails ya" - seizures, bedwetting, all sorts of medical problems not related to genitals. I think that is what was meant.
I don't think the poster was implying anything about religious circ as we are not allowed to discuss that here.

Yup exactly what I meant.