Uncirc = HPV (?)

[PatienceAndLove]

I was just talking with a male friend of mine, and he just underwent a circumcision at 29 because his doctor told him that he was a higher risk for carrying HPV as an uncircumcised male.
I had never heard of such a thing! And I find it hard to believe that this would be true...

[Ruthla]

Whatever happened to abstinence and monogomy to prevent HPV? Or condoms for those who choose not to?

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

Whatever happened to abstinence and monogomy to prevent HPV? Or condoms for those who choose not to?

Well, he is monogomous now, and has been married to his wife for 5 years. But he still worries.

I just don't understand the connection of how an uncircumcised male is more likely to carry over a circumcised male. Does it go back to the "cleaner" argument?

[Ruthla]

WTF?? If he's already married, then either he's carrying HPV (and exposing his wife) or he's not.

I can't help but wonder if he had other, more private reasons for wanting the circ and is just using that as an excuse.

[MommytoB]

If it's the wife shallowness or supposed phimosis which many usa doctors diagnose even in adulthood a solution for phimosis =circumcision when he could have did alternative behavior to fix his situation.

Then I suggest you mention to your friend that if he had a diagnosis of phimisos there were many other ways than circumcision to fix it.

If it was his wife shallowness he may soon realize what he lost when it comes time to intimate then maybe his wife may also realize what she lost too .

Because I totally think the HPV is a story because how can you get HPV if your married and if your married have HPV you would still spead it no matter if you were cut or not (right ?)

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

There is no basis in fact for the HPV thing. He was lied to and lost his foreskin for no reason. Seems dr's will do anything to get that $

[BlessedMommy2006]

HPV doesn't come out of thin air. Either he had it already or he didn't. If he didn't have it (and his wife didn't have it eitherr) and he was being monogamous and faithful to his wife, then there is no way that he could give it to her. If he did have it already, then what was circumcision going to fix?

Makes me wonder what other parts of the story there are.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I was thinking the same thing.

[Night_Nurse]

The US has such a high prevalence of hpv and yet we have a very, very high rate of circumcised males. So logic tells me that either circumcised men have just a high of rate of spreading it around, or that the 15% (or whatever low amount of grown, sexually active men who are intact) are responsible for it all and are very busy having sex with every woman in the country. Since I know people in real life who have gotten HPV from circumcised partners, I'll guess the first example is true.
I've read studies throughout the years that say circ equals higher risk for diseases a& b, but lower risk for c &d. I've read intact equals higher risk for a& b diseases, but lower for c&d. My opinion is it's all hogwash. If you sleep with a man or woman with any given std, you are at risk of getting it yourself, regardless of how you or your partners genitals look (or if it's your first time to have sex or 1,000th). Bottom line, wear a condom or don't have sexual contact. Period.

I'm guessing your friend was either just looking for a reason to get circumcised and any excuse would do, or his doctor was very unethical and saw an opportunity to bring in a good chunk of cash from doing surgery on a gullible person. I hope it was the former and not the latter.

[Juvysen]

[Fellow Traveler]

Everyone here is right the foreskin doesn't cause HPV you have to get it frome someone else first. Further in nearly all cases of HPV infection the body clears it in a year or two without any obvious problems. If your friend was married and faithful then he is at no risk of HPV infection and if his wife is too then neither is she. If your friend was infected and it wasn't cleared then considering the efficientcy of HPV to infect, she would have already gotten it. Finally, he also could have opted for the vaccine if he was concerned which is like 95% efficient in men.

Either your friend's doctor lied to him or your friend lied to you and there was some other reason and he is jus rationalizing it. Because e erything he said to you was a crock.

[AllieFaye]

I have a friend who happens to be a retired physician. He was taught many years ago that foreskins caused cervical cancer, and that's why he, as an ob/gyn, needed to perform circs. This was long before HPV was discovered as the primary cause of cervical cancer. I'm suspecting that this has been twisted now to "the foreskins carry the HPV strains," and that's how the doctor came to this bizarre logic. But, I could be wrong. Circumcision is a cure looking for a disease.

[Crunchy Frog]

No, pretty much being sexually active with an infected partner = HPV. Mostly HPV is asymptomatic in males, so he was never at risk for anything that would really affect him anyway. If he is a normal sexually active 29 year old, he has probably been exposed multiple times, and will continue to be no matter what his status is. If he's monogomous, he's not at risk for infection unless his wife is up to something. He's very unlikely to ever have symptoms from it even if he gets it though. If he's getting some on the side and worrying about spreading it to his wife, circ will do nothing for him.

If he wanted a real protection against the strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in a female partner, he should have gotten himself the vaccine.

Sounds like he got sold a bill of goods and somebody made a nice profit off of his naivete.

I hope he ends up being happy with how things turn out. If he is unhappy, he might want to consider a lawsuit.

[brant31]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove

I was just talking with a male friend of mine, and he just underwent a circumcision at 29 because his doctor told him that he was a higher risk for carrying HPV as an uncircumcised male.

Your friend may have been influenced by one of the scare-mongering articles to appear in the US media earlier this year. I know several of my friends became very concerned after it was "proven" that circumcision cuts HPV risk by 35%. Of course, this overlooks that fact that 3/4 of adult Americans have already been exposed to HPV and circumcision has been an epidemic fad here for a century.

The study linked above was conducted by Johns Hopkins, which has staked out a singular reputation for itself as the ivory tower of pro-circumcision. One can dismiss Quinn, Gray and Wawer as obsessed nuts, but it's really annoying that Anthony Fauci would come out with a statement saying doctors need to be more aggressive about making every new parent aware of the benefits of circumcision and also that just because your ancestors failed to practice circumcision, maybe even on you, doesn't mean that you shouldn't get on the bandwagon now. In other words, these "leaders" are insisting on the establishment of a withering circumcision "gantlet" that every American parent will have to suffer through before they earn the right to say "no" -- which might force them to go through the gantlet, round 2.

[PatienceAndLove]

I agree with the PP. It all just seemed very strange that foreskin = HPV.
I am just very confused that foreskin = HPV.

[ursaminor]

Wow, your friend was had...or he really wanted to get circumcised. I do not know a single intact male in my life who would want to get circumcised, or who wouldnt research it and get the facts straight. Maybe he just wanted it done for other reasons?
That doc should lose is license.

[Lula's Mom]

I sorta wish there was truth to it (no I don't). At least then I wouldn't have gotten it from my circumcised boyfriend almost 20 years ago.

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove

I was just talking with a male friend of mine, and he just underwent a circumcision at 29 because his doctor told him that he was a higher risk for carrying HPV as an uncircumcised male.
I had never heard of such a thing! And I find it hard to believe that this would be true...

Carrying and acquiring are two different things. Yes, you must have contact with a source of the virus (an infected partner, for example) in order for the virus to become established in your body. But the next question is: Is it more likely that the foreskin of an intact man will be conducive to viral persistence than a man without a normal foreskin? Some studies say yes. Are they correct? Hard to say, especially since circumcision is such an emotionally complex issue with so many other social factors involved. If they are correct and the presence of an intact foreskin does increase the chance of carrying and transmitting HPV to a partner, can one then make the leap of logic that it is acceptable to cut off the foreskin of an infant? Absolutely, unequivocally, no. Your friend is an adult and made the decision that he thought best based on the information he had. I hope he is happy with his choice.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Pirogi

Carrying and acquiring are two different things. Yes, you must have contact with a source of the virus (an infected partner, for example) in order for the virus to become established in your body. But the next question is: Is it more likely that the foreskin of an intact man will be conducive to viral persistence than a man without a normal foreskin? Some studies say yes. Are they correct? Hard to say, especially since circumcision is such an emotionally complex issue with so many other social factors involved. If they are correct and the presence of an intact foreskin does increase the chance of carrying and transmitting HPV to a partner, can one then make the leap of logic that it is acceptable to cut off the foreskin of an infant? Absolutely, unequivocally, no. Your friend is an adult and made the decision that he thought best based on the information he had. I hope he is happy with his choice.

Unfortunately, no. And it weirds me out that I know that.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Encourage him to at least write a letter of complaint to his Dr. for giving him false information and telling them how unhappy he is.