Please help me figure this out

[mysweetw&e]

I am new to anti-circ stuff, but what I have read really upsets me, obviously. But I don't totally know all the facts so I'd appreicate some help!

We were having a discussion on another board about the Africa study, WHO recommendations, etc. I mentioned the fact that the US has one of the highest circumcision rates and still has one of the highest HIV rates- which doesn't make sense if circumcision prevents HIV. I cited this chart-

Table 1. First world countries: circumcision rates, AIDS prevalence, and population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Population in
Circumcision AIDS prevalence thousands
Country rate(%) per 100,000 (1990)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan 1 0.2 123,638
Finland 1 0.9 4,984
Norway 1 1.5 4,247
Sweden 1 2.0 8,527
Germany 1 2.2 63,237
France 1 3.5 56,367
Mexico 1 4.2 88,598
Denmark 1.6 4.4 5,135
Italy 1 8.9 57,664
Spain 1 14.2 39,405
UK 7 2.4 57,410
Canada 30 3.8 26,560
New Zealand 40 1.2 3,296
Australia 40 4.5 17,083
USA 85 16.0 251,398
Israel 95 0.5 4,586

from http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Someone mentioned that maybe those rates were so high because of all the IV drug users in our country. So I started looking around for statistics that said the breakdown of where people got HIV. I found this:

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

The info that pertains to men getting it from women is that 77% of HIV positive people in the US are men, and 11% of them got it from women. Most got it from other men (59%).

So I wondered about other countries where they are typically not circumcised, like in Europe. I found this site- http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm It said that the majority of HIV cases in Europe are probably from heterosexual contact- 58%.

Now I don't believe that circ prevents HIV rates. BUT if the majority of new cases in uncirced places are from heterosexual contact, and the majority of cases in circed US is because of homosexual contact. . . makes it hard to make an argument. Or maybe what I was saying isn't agood argument at all?

So someone knowledgable please help me out with this!

[ChristaN]

I can't imagine that the US has a greater % of homosexual men than do European countries. So, we've got a higher circ rate and most of the new HIV cases are dx in circed men, while in Europe they have a low circ rate and most new cases of HIV are dx in heterosexual men. I'd read that to indicate that homosexual men who are intact are less likely to contract HIV -- perhaps being intact is protective against HIV for homosexual men.

We would, of course, need to compare condom usage rates for intact homosexual men vs. circed homosexual men to confirm that. It would be a hypothesis at this point, but the correlation does not point toward having a foreskin increasing the risk of HIV transmission among gay men who, I believe most researchers will agree, are at a much higher risk of contracting HIV than are straight men.

[Sopranos]

Originally Posted by ChristaN

I can't imagine that the US has a greater % of homosexual men than do European countries.

I think they do. Don't see nearly as much in European countries. It's not quite as acceptable as it is in America.

[Papai]

Even if the data suggests that the majority of transmissions from HIV in Europe are from heterosexual sex, that still doesn't prove circ has a preventative benefit as the overall rates in Europe are still lower than the US.

So if the foreskin were such a health risk, the rates would be sky high in Europe. But they're not. In fact, they're lower than the US.

Even if we accepted that circ provided somewhat of a protective benefit, it is nowhere near 100 percent and condom usage trumps it easily.

[mysweetw&e]

Mulling things around in my brain, this is what I ended up posting-

I was wondering about that too, and I found this- http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm


Quote
Around 47% of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 17% of the total. Since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of heterosexual infections has increased dramatically. According to CDC estimates, heterosexual contact led to about one third of new AIDS diagnoses and one third of new HIV diagnoses in 2005.

I couldn't find a breakdown like this for 1990, which is where the #s for the chart came from. But even if you divide the 16 per 100,000 by the 17% that is heterosexual in 2005, you get 2.72, which is still higher than many of the other countries- and all of their sources are combined. Higher than even Germany, whose largest group is also homosexual. http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm Not saying it definately proves anything, but enough to make you pause and say hmm, and wonder why that # isn't lower if circ really does reduce rates so much.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by mysweetw&e

Mulling things around in my brain, this is what I ended up posting-

I was wondering about that too, and I found this- http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm


Quote
Around 47% of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 17% of the total. Since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of heterosexual infections has increased dramatically. According to CDC estimates, heterosexual contact led to about one third of new AIDS diagnoses and one third of new HIV diagnoses in 2005.

I couldn't find a breakdown like this for 1990, which is where the #s for the chart came from. But even if you divide the 16 per 100,000 by the 17% that is heterosexual in 2005, you get 2.72, which is still higher than many of the other countries- and all of their sources are combined. Higher than even Germany, whose largest group is also homosexual. http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm Not saying it definately proves anything, but enough to make you pause and say hmm, and wonder why that # isn't lower if circ really does reduce rates so much.

Whew! You're good with numbers!

[ChristaN]

Originally Posted by Sopranos

I think they do. Don't see nearly as much in European countries. It's not quite as acceptable as it is in America.

Having lived in various places in the US, I'd have to say that homosexuality is not acceptable in many parts of America, either. When I was in the SF Bay Area, a gay man would be just fine. Colorado, not so much so.

Even if being gay is unacceptable, I don't think that would change one's underlying orientation. It would likely just cause an individual to go underground and hide it from others. That also doesn't mean that he's not being true to his true orientation in secret.

Back to topic, good job with the #s OP!

[SleeplessMommy]

In Europe, sex education is about is about using condoms. In some places, there are even needle exchange programs, to reduce the rick of HIV transmission among IV drug users.

In USA, sex education is about "moral values" and abstinence (these days). Abstinence-based education has been shown to "delay" sex before marriage, but not "prevent" it. IV drug users have difficulty getting treatment programs.

The teenage pregnancy rate in the USA is much higher - due to more sex or less protection? You decide:

http://www.condomdepot.com/learn/siecus-teenpreg.cfm

In 1996, the pregnancy rate for females 15 to 19 years of age in the United States was 83.6 per 1,000 compared to:

1995-France 20.2 per 1,000
1996-Sweden 25.0 per 1,000
1995-Canada 45.7 per 1,000
1995-Great Britain 46.7 per 1,000

Also some numbers on pregnancy (and other) rates for USA, Europe, etc here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/3/gr030303.html

I do not think the "head in the sand" approach is useful, with respect to HIV. Intact or not, people need to use condoms.

Here is what Planned parenthood has to say: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/new...nancy-6239.htm

Reasons for the lower rates of teenage childbearing in these countries [European] include

* mandatory, medically accurate sexuality education programs that provide comprehensive information and encourage teens to make responsible choices
* easy access to contraception and other forms of reproductive health care, including abortion
* social acceptance of adolescent sexual expression as normal and healthy
* straightforward public health media campaigns
* government support for the right of teens to accurate information and confidential services (Berne & Huberman, 1999)

[bluetoes]

In 1990 AIDS was only beginning to enter into the heterosexual population of the US through sex. Heterosexuals weren't getting tested and weren't too worried. It was only 92 or so in the US when Magic Johnson made his annoncement that it really clicked with people.

In 2004 between needle exchange programs and safe sex practices for homosexuals it makes perfect sense that the stats would change. Show me a 2004 chart compared to a 2004 chart and we'll see.

And I don't think homosexuality is less accepted in Europe. I never saw a marriage = woman stick figure + man stick figure bumper sticker when I lived in the UK and Ireland and there wasn't any of that constitutional amendment defining marriage BS to get social conservatives out to vote like you get in the US. On the whole it's a much more agnostic society, just look at regular church attendance stats. And you know even if it was less accepted that doesn't mean people aren't still doing it! Homophobia in the certain communities actually helps AIDS spread in the heterosexual population because guys live secret lives and then come home and give it to their wives and girlfriends.