Uncirc = HPV (?) - Page 2

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would say "incomplete" information is more accurate than "false" information. There are studies that do show that the partners of intact men have a higher prevalence of HPV and that HPV infections are more prevalent in intact men than in circumcised men. There are also studies that do not show this correlation.

[PatienceAndLove]

I will pass that idea on to him.
Thanks for your help, y'all!

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by Pirogi

I would say "incomplete" information is more accurate than "false" information. There are studies that do show that the partners of intact men have a higher prevalence of HPV and that HPV infections are more prevalent in intact men than in circumcised men. There are also studies that do not show this correlation.

But really the usefulness of that fact (whether it is true or not) is deprecated by the availability of a vaccine which is over 95% effective in both men and women.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

But really the usefulness of that fact (whether it is true or not) is deprecated by the availability of a vaccine which is over 95% effective in both men and women.

I thought the vaccine hadn't been cleared for men.
And it only protects against 3 strains of HPV, if I remember correctly.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove

I thought the vaccine hadn't been cleared for men.
And it only protects against 3 strains of HPV, if I remember correctly.

It was approved for use in men (meaning they said yes it does indeed work very well and if you wanted it you can have it) in September or October. However, and this is the interesting part with regard to circumcision, they decided that there wasn't sufficient justification to actually recommend it for routine use. So a vaccine which is 95% efficient is not pushed for routine use in men for HPV prevention but one would consider circumcision which (if you believe the studies that show the most benefit) demonstrated about 33% effectiveness.

It has only been formally tested and developed for 4 strains, the ones that are responsible for an estimated 75% of the cancers. It was later shown to be effective (about 40-50% effective) against another 10 strains which make up a bulk of the rest. Though this later part is less clear.

[Oubliette8]

This is probably TMI, but I contracted HPV and have only had circumcised partners.

I would believe that the doctor told him that though. The strain I got caused genital warts, my doctor offered 3 or 4 different invasive treatment options (burning, freezing, and a cream with the possibility of severe side effects). I believed them at got VERY worried, trying to choose the best treatment option. After canceling and rescheduling a few times they even sent me a letter basically saying "We are aware you have not gotten the treatment you need, please call". well, after looking at my options, and doing more research, it turns out that they GO AWAY ON THEIR OWN in most cases. I started taking a multi vitamin to help my immune system and sure enough, in a few months they were gone. In my case they were very small and caused me no pain, I just got freaked out because, omg, an STD. Because I have personal history that makes the doctor highly stressful for me, they recommended the cream as a first line of treatment, which has more serious side effects than the other possible treatments. Even freezing or burning them off seems extreme to me when they are likely to go away on their own. I'm shocked that my doctor didn't tell me that waiting and seeing was a viable option and that in all likelihood, my health was not in terrible danger. So, I'm not at all surprised that they told him to get cut either.

[Pirogi]

Personally I am against circumcision for all people, although if an adult makes that decision for himself, he is certainly entitled. I am also wary of the HPV vaccine. I am a natural sort of girl, and I believe that a strong, healthy immune system is the best defense against most disease, especially when the disease is caused by a (usually) slow-acting virus like HPV.

I also was diagnosed with HPV in college, and before they had the test for the virus, with dysplasia of cervical cells. It took my body around 5 years to fully clear the virus, or at least for my cervix to not show unfavorable cellular changes any longer. I had a LEEP performed as well, after 3 years of continuing, worsening cervical changes and cryotherapy. I was in a place in my life with lots of upheaval, stress, and poor nutrition, and I think my body just couldn't fight it off. Like many diseases with new vaccines, I think that HPV has been hyped, since the vaccine was developed, to be scarier than it really is. Most women who contract HPV, even the nastier strains, will clear the virus with time and will not develop cervical cancer. Pap smears are a good tool to monitor a woman who is showing cervical cellular changes, and there are more invasive measures (that will still allow a woman to conceive and carry a child) like cryotherapy, LEEP, and cone biopsy that can be performed for persistent cellular changes before cancer develops. Vaccines and certainly circumcision are overreactions to HPV IMO. YMMV.

In addition to all the usual foreskin-phobic sentiments that usually surround the circumcision debate, I personally feel like circumcision is being hyped for HPV prevention in a tit for tat sort of way. It seems like the social attitude is, thus far all the treatments and preventatives are performed on women only, and it's time for the men to take some of the responsibility. Ridiculous, but consistent with our social tendency to demand accountability for natural events that cannot be predicted or controlled.

[Fellow Traveler]

I understand your concern I think the difference is that in the case of the vaccine an informed decision can be made by the individual, in most cases.

[Avocado]

My 21 yr old brother just got circ'd last week for this reason. He got HPV from his ex-girlfriend years ago and gave it to his current girlfriend and he blames being intact on it. I have no idea if it's true or not, but I'm still not circ'ing my son, due in June.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by Avocado

My 21 yr old brother just got circ'd last week for this reason. He got HPV from his ex-girlfriend years ago and gave it to his current girlfriend and he blames being intact on it. I have no idea if it's true or not, but I'm still not circ'ing my son, due in June.

Getting circumcised does not cure HPV. If you got HPV from someone and gave it to someone else, it's not because you have a foreskin. I'm pretty sure that HPV rates might be higher here than in other western industrialized countries where circumcision is not common. The link between HPV and circumcision is dubious at best.

[Avocado]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

Getting circumcised does not cure HPV. If you got HPV from someone and gave it to someone else, it's not because you have a foreskin. I'm pretty sure that HPV rates might be higher here than in other western industrialized countries where circumcision is not common. The link between HPV and circumcision is dubious at best.

I should have clarified that he doesn't think it will cure the HPV, he just thinks it will be "cleaner". He blames not being circ'ed on getting it and giving it in the first place. I don't agree, but since I actually didn't have this conversation with him directly, I couldn't question him about it too thoroughly. I know soooo may people who have gotten HPV from circ'ed people, I don't think it has anything to do with it, but he was pretty convinced. I'll bet his girlfriend was pretty persuasive about getting circ'ed as well.

[lawmama1984]

I am constantly amazed, now that I have become interested and impassioned about the topic, about how circumcision seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

Safe sex prevents STDs, not being circ'd or not. Bottom line. Perhaps his doc told him that being circ'd *may* have prevented, or lessened the likelihood, of him contracting HPV, but the truth of the matter is that safe sex practices prevent STDs, not whether a man is circ'd or not. I am baffled by the fact that people can believe that a piece of skin, which is designed to protect the glans of the penis amongst other functions, can somehow be responsible for all these rampant STDs. I just don't get it!

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Me either. If circ prevented so much then why does the USA have such a high STD rate along with such a high circ rate

[Avocado]

Argh. he tried to convince me last night to circ our upcoming little boy. I said that it wasn't my choice to make, it's his body. He then said that he wishes our parents had decided to get him circ'ed when he was a baby so he wouldn't have remembered it because "it sucked" and was "very painful". I then reminded him that he had anesthesia and was actually put out for the procedure (I didn't even get into the whole glans already separated conversation) and babies don't have that luxury. I also said that there are a lot of things you can do to a baby that they won't remember, but genital mutilation seems to be acceptable for some reason. He just shrugged and said that he thinks we should just get it over with for his (the baby's) sake. Oh, and he added that it lowers the chances of getting STD's. I told him that pretty much every friend I have has had some STD or another, mostly HPV, but others too. And they all were with uncirc'ed guys (girls talk about this stuff ). He just shrugged again and that was that.

[brant31]

This just sounds so much like another American guy who wanted to be like the other guys -- or what he perceives the other guys to be like. Sometimes we just *assume* everyone else is cut.

And now that he's had himself circumcised, he has to become an ambassador for the procedure, or the condition. As someone once said, the worst thing for society about circumcision is that it creates circumcisers (anyone who advocates for the procedure). Circ would be a lot easier to stomach if people had it done, it was over with, and they kept quiet about it. Instead, for complex psychological and sociological reasons it seems to create missionaries. I'll never understand why so many people seem utterly determined to deny nature's design.

[unschoolinmom]

I have heard this. I'm getting my Masters in Psychology and sex therapy and we had to review studies done from different parts of the world about STD links and circumcision. There has been some studies showing that for example in Africa where HIV/AIDS is rampant, uncircumcised males had a greater risk of spreading than circumcised. This was primarily because the underskin of the foreskin and it's arrangement over the head of the penis is perfect grounds for viral strains and bacteria but only IF there is no hygiene involved with that area.

A lot of doctors however get more money from insurance companies when they perform them. That being said, HPV though primarily sexually transmitted, can also not be sexually transmitted. Children are capable of getting HPV as it is the same virus that causes warts on fingers, hands, feet. If they rub their eye, touch their genitals, etc. the virus mutates as most do causing the child to carry HPV without even knowing it into adulthood.

The lesson here is though the doctor was not wrong, per se, he was not right either. As long as the area of the foreskin is kept clean and taken care of and there is no cheating or at risk behavior involved, the chances of contracting HPV or any other STD is slim to none.

Hopefully my post doesn't upset anyone. Just using what I wrote in one of my many study papers for Human Sexuality class.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by unschoolinmom

I have heard this. I'm getting my Masters in Psychology and sex therapy and we had to review studies done from different parts of the world about STD links and circumcision. There has been some studies showing that for example in Africa where HIV/AIDS is rampant, uncircumcised males had a greater risk of spreading than circumcised. This was primarily because the underskin of the foreskin and it's arrangement over the head of the penis is perfect grounds for viral strains and bacteria but only IF there is no hygiene involved with that area.

A lot of doctors however get more money from insurance companies when they perform them. That being said, HPV though primarily sexually transmitted, can also not be sexually transmitted. Children are capable of getting HPV as it is the same virus that causes warts on fingers, hands, feet. If they rub their eye, touch their genitals, etc. the virus mutates as most do causing the child to carry HPV without even knowing it into adulthood.

The lesson here is though the doctor was not wrong, per se, he was not right either. As long as the area of the foreskin is kept clean and taken care of and there is no cheating or at risk behavior involved, the chances of contracting HPV or any other STD is slim to none.

Hopefully my post doesn't upset anyone. Just using what I wrote in one of my many study papers for Human Sexuality class.

I would agree with this as well. Certainly, in the industrialized world, circumcision seems to have no effect on STD rates. In the developing world, where resources are scarce, it may have a slight influence on viral loads of HIV, but the studies have been unclear to say the least, not to mention that the viral strains and acquisition methods differ greatly between the industrialized world and the third world. In either case, circumcision as a preventive measure is ludicrous. Condoms and clean water are far superior and much cheaper. Furthermore, the same cells that line the inside of the foreskin are found in the vulva as well. Logically then, if you would want to cut off the foreskin, you should also remove parts of the female genitalia.