You know, it's amazing that these researchers can't see their bias
:...they go out to prove one thing (circ decreases HIV for women for example) and then start a study, then stop the study--not because they find more women being infected by the circumcised partners (which was the case) but because their research not only didn't support their position but refuted it...
Circumcision in men appears to increase HIV transmission from men to women. I dont' think a lot of us women here are surprised about that. Because we know that the foreskin insures that a woman's natural lubrication stays in, and also ensures comfortable and less abrasive intercourse. Circumcision, allowed the natural lubrication to wick out, and decreased sensitivity often leads to men requiring rougher intercourse in order to climax.
The overwhelming majority of women I've talked to IRL and here on MDC agree with those...and scientifically the machanics are correct. If you look at animal studies where circumcision were performed on the males you see those same sort of issues with coitus. I took an animal physiology course in college and they had 'the purpose of the foreskin' on there (of course though I'm sure most of the men in the class wanted to just not consider themselves as having 'animal physiology' though it was indeed applicable to humans.
It's just so plain obvious what the plan here is...
. That is what bugs the *&(^ out of me. It defies logic, and just when I think for once the majority of the population is starting to question this routine genital alteration of boys this kind of stuff happens. Grrr....
And, of course in irony in this article the picture up there is a bunch of condoms. Which of course is the only proven way to prevent HIV transmission.
What are we telling our future generations of men here?
As a parent, logic tells me that I teach my children about safer sex practices. It is about education.
You don't chop off nerve dense tissue from their private parts because you think they might not wear condoms. You teach them to wear condoms, and you give the education to make the right decisions.
This is not sub saharan Africa either...if you look at the Australian PDF which has their stance, it is quite reasonable. The main mode of transmission is receptive anal intercourse--I believe that is the same here in the US. The heterosexual trasmission from a woman to a man is rather low as it is--and I think people forget that and start making blanket statements. I've already heard the US media here using the blanket statement "circumcision reduces the rate of HIV 60%" while in reality they have no clue what their saying and what it implies is completley different than what is accurate. That was one study in AFRICA which only studied heterosexual female to male transmission. That is not a common way for HIV to be transmitted in this country at all. So, no way in heck it would reduce HIV by 60%
...it's such a joke that the media is representing it this way because here we are, with the majority of US men circumcised and we've got the highest HIV rates in the developed world.
I'm trying to not get upset, but it's really difficult not to. Because when you're not biased, and you read the facts and a scientist it's pretty darn obvious this should not be applied to newborn babies in this country!