HIV argument

[snangel]

Didn't someone post an article that rebuttled the HIV argument...i can't find it. I am having a debate with a g/f of mine, she has no kids yet, but thats when I like to get them. anyhow she keeps coming back to the HIV argument, I have nothing to back this really....anyone?

[Lauren82]

The new issue of Mothering magazine has a great article about Circ NOT preventing HIV. I just wanted to share in case you would like an article on paper to show your friend. It may be a bit more convincing than an article online in some cases.

[Yulia_R]

this is what I have...hope it helps

Worth while mentioning most recent scientists discovery that Langerhans cells that are present in the foreskin are behave as ‘natural barrier’ to HIV.
Bellow are the links.

http://www.womenshealth.gov/news/english/602421.htm
http://body.aol.com/news/articles/_a...28234109990019
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030500357.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=17334373

Another study shows no HIV protection from circumcision
http://www.jaids.org/pt/re/jaids/abs...195628!8091!-1

Outside of Israel, the U.S. is the 2nd highest circumcising country in the world and after Africa, has the 2nd highest infection rate. Plus the fact that more than 80% of the world's men are "uncircumcised" and countries in Europe have an extremely low HIV+ rate.

[asunlitrose]

If the African studies applied to developed countries, then one would assume that Europe would have the highest rate of HIV, since they have the highest rate of intact males. In fact, Europe has quite a low HIV rate.

However, the U.S. has the highest rate of both STDs (including HIV and AIDS) AND circumcision.

Simply looking at that, it doesn't add up.

Have her read some of these studies:

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/fu...469600.2.3.193

While scientists and doctors are still debating the issue of HIV and circumcision, one thing is clear -- all children, male, female, intact or circumcised, need to be taught the value of using condoms and protecting themselves against sexually transmitted diseases. If circumcision is found to reduce the chance of HIV, it still can't and will never be 100%, and sexual education is more important in preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS.

[Fellow Traveler]

Well I haven't seen it yet but that Mothering article is proabably a good place to start. This is another good journal article: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/fi...rcumcision.pdf

The thing is that even if there is a small amount of protection, it not relevant because it wouldn't absolve a man from his obligation to practice safe sex. Meaning that you still have to wear a condom when having sex with a partner whose HIV status is positive or unknown. HIV is an infection that is easily avoided. Circumcised or not his responsibilities don't change.

[perspective]

“Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.”


http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pd...93?cookieSet=1

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by perspective

“Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.”


http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pd...93?cookieSet=1

the link doesn't work for me

[mama41]

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

Outside of Israel, the U.S. is the 2nd highest circumcising country in the world and after Africa, has the 2nd highest infection rate. Plus the fact that more than 80% of the world's men are "uncircumcised" and countries in Europe have an extremely low HIV+ rate.

And Israel has an extremely low rate as well, at 0.02%, plus a very high rate of circumcision and Jewish mothers. I'd pin it on the Jewish mothers.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that circumcision is a great defense against HIV. Might it help a tiny bit? What does it matter? Use a frigging condom and some sense, which includes knowing your lovers and making them get tested, in a reasonable window, before sleeping with them. (You should extend the same courtesy.) That's how you defend against HIV. And yes, you certainly can ask men to do this. I used to. No paper from the clinic, no sex. And yes, I am a Jewish mother.

The issues with circumcision have to do with the likelihood of self-care, father-identification, and religious ritual. That's all. To bring HIV into it is, I think, silly.

[kJad29]

Originally Posted by mama41

I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that circumcision is a great defense against HIV. Might it help a tiny bit? What does it matter? Use a frigging condom and some sense, which includes knowing your lovers and making them get tested, in a reasonable window, before sleeping with them. (You should extend the same courtesy.) That's how you defend against HIV. And yes, you certainly can ask men to do this. I used to. No paper from the clinic, no sex. And yes, I am a Jewish mother.

: Exactly! Why not teach your sons (and daughters in the case of HPV, I know off topic) some sexual responsibility? It's like they're trying to give people a pass on being irresponsible and think that if they come up with enough vaccines and procedures that it will reduce or eliminate STDs. Common sense will tell you that if you are selective of your partners and use a condom you'll be alright. I've never had an STD and that's because I did the above. Why can't parent's teach their children just to do these simple things? :

[A&A]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/74521.php


http://www.poz.com/articles/2023_12145.shtml

[ThingaMaSling]

Ugh!

Why is this "procedure" still LEGAL?!!!!!

[Mama Lisavet]

I just wonder (haven't researched it): do these males actually have much sex after circumcision? I know that the Mothering article pointed out that the study(ies) didn't control for HIV status of partners; but did they even track frequency of sexual contact? I assume the procedure is painful in adult males. Less sex = less opportunity for infection = skewed results on HIV status.

[catemom]

I'm sorry, but I didn't even read these articles about whether or not circ lowers HIV risk because the argument doesn't make much sense. Other posters have mentioned and I agree that the way to prevent HIV infection is to EDUCATE your children about SEX, and teach them to respect themselves and others. Anyway, my DS is uncirc'd, and DH and I are both really glad that we opted out.

[mommieTX]

You know what? HIV would not have to be a problem if people would learn to have self control, self respect, and respect for their future family and spouse by a simple thing called ABSTAINENCE. And then monogamy AFTER marriage. The cure for HIV is to SAVE SEX until marriage. This is the only way. Free sex is not free, hence all of these STD's that are destroying lives. Condoms do not prevent STD's as much as you would want to believe it. They do not cover all of the body parts that come in contact during sex. If condoms are effective against pregnancy only 3 out of 4 times, and we all know that fertilization can happen only a few days out of the month, then why would anyone think that condoms prevent an STD that can be contracted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Not to mention that sperm are huge compared to a virus. And I don't buy it that people are going to do it anyway because they just can't help themselves. Come on people. We are higher thinking human beings who must take responsibility for their actions. We need to teach our children and young adults to keep their freaking pants on and to stay out of the bedroom and the back seat of a car. The best thing that you can wear to proctect yourself IS YOUR PANTS!

[mommieTX]

You know what? HIV would not have to be a problem if people would learn to have self control, self respect, and respect for their future family and spouse by a simple thing called ABSTAINENCE. And then monogamy AFTER marriage. The cure for HIV is to SAVE SEX until marriage. This is the only way. Free sex is not free, hence all of these STD's that are destroying lives. Condoms do not prevent STD's as much as you would want to believe it. They do not cover all of the body parts that come in contact during sex. If condoms are effective against pregnancy only 3 out of 4 times, and we all know that fertilization can happen only a few days out of the month, then why would anyone think that condoms prevent an STD that can be contracted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Not to mention that sperm are huge compared to a virus. And I don't buy it that people are going to do it anyway because they just can't help themselves. Come on people. We are higher thinking human beings who must take responsibility for their actions. We need to teach our children and young adults to keep their freaking pants on and to stay out of the bedroom and the back seat of a car. The best thing that you can wear to proctect yourself IS YOUR PANTS!

[DocsNemesis]

Even IF BIGGGGGG IF the African studies were correct, this doesnt apply to the US. The type of HIV is different. The primary mode of infection is vaginal intercourse in Africa. The type of HIV here, however, is primarily contracted through anal contact. So unless she is absolutely sure that her son will be having anal sex and refusing to wear a condom...yeah....

Regardless, it doesnt prevent it. Again, even if it were true that it helped reduce the risk, the risk is still there. You still have to use condoms. If you think because you are circ'd you wont get infected, and therefore dont use a condom, you'll still catch it eventually. It might take 3 times instead of 2, but is that worth having an infant circumcised? And again, I highly doubt the protection exists at ALL.

Here's how I feel about it. My ds isnt circumcised. Even if he were, this wouldnt change how I feel. If my ds contracted HIV because he was being an idiot and not using condoms and sleeping with random people, would I be sad? Of course. Id be horribly upset. I dont want my son dying! However, I would not blame myself, nor his penile status. Id blame his stupid behavoir. We are not shy in this house, my kids know what sex is from early on, we have talked with them about a lot of stuff. Now, granted, we havent gone into safe sex practices to protect from STDs yet-my ds is only 8-but my dh has told them that they better be using protection because if they get pregnant or get someone else pregnant, they're taking care of the child whether they want to or not (lol my dh is a nut...). As they get older they'll be told more about STDs, using protection, etc. This is something that they WILL know about. So if he opts to ignore everything he has been taught and does stupid things, well, he is going to deal with the concequences.

Its just like smoking-they've heard more about how gross and bad for you smoking is than any other kids I know (even their smoking grandma tells them its nasty and wont smoke around them-and points out how annoying it is to have to go outside to smoke). So if they chose to smoke, I'm just going to shake my head and wont feel one bit guilty making them go outside to smoke. We cant control everything they do, the best we can do is try to teach them the right things, raise them well, and hope that they make the best decisions they can.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by mommieTX

You know what? HIV would not have to be a problem if people would learn to have self control, self respect, and respect for their future family and spouse by a simple thing called ABSTAINENCE. And then monogamy AFTER marriage. The cure for HIV is to SAVE SEX until marriage. This is the only way. Free sex is not free, hence all of these STD's that are destroying lives. Condoms do not prevent STD's as much as you would want to believe it. They do not cover all of the body parts that come in contact during sex. If condoms are effective against pregnancy only 3 out of 4 times, and we all know that fertilization can happen only a few days out of the month, then why would anyone think that condoms prevent an STD that can be contracted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Not to mention that sperm are huge compared to a virus. And I don't buy it that people are going to do it anyway because they just can't help themselves. Come on people. We are higher thinking human beings who must take responsibility for their actions. We need to teach our children and young adults to keep their freaking pants on and to stay out of the bedroom and the back seat of a car. The best thing that you can wear to proctect yourself IS YOUR PANTS!

Sorry, but abstinence is a unrealistic solution. And honestly there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, its something that can be a lot of fun, BUT people need to be educated properly and practice safe sex. Just in the same way people should learn how to drive before they drive a car. Another big reason I have a problem with abstinence education is it often comes along with incorrect sexual health facts. For example, the idea that condoms fail 1 out of 4 times they are used. Completely wrong. Condoms provide protection from STD's and pregnancy nearly 99% of the time, and the percent it fails, is almost solely based on calculating in human error.

We must teach children and young adults proper sexual health not because people cant restrain themselves, but because they want to have sex, and they are going to do it even if they are taught ways of staying responsible and educated or not.

This kind of information is especially lacking in part of Africa, and condoms need to be the first line of defense against HIV there, and here. Anything else, is just taking too much of a risk, and that goes for circumcision as well as abstinence.

[Mana Mamma]

As a Mother to a new baby boy.....I was dismayed to find such incredible polarization on this issue. I have an eight year old daughter that I am constantly working on with regards to simple, basic heigene. I wanted some true dialog and simple facts in order to make an informed decision about circumcision. It is so hard to find this without the intense emotional convictions that seem to supress information on each side of the issue.

For example, I have enough knowledge of intact grown men (2 that I know) who have had adult infections resulting in adult circumcisons....but am thinking that many, many more statistically do not. STD's aside, is it possible that an intact man can give his wife more simple vaginal/bladder infections? Do most adolesent boys take the cleaning seriously? Where is the voice of the Moms who weren't convinced one way or another and have grappled with this choice? What are their thoughts now, after their choice?

This procedure is not something to take lightly and something to which I wanted intelligent input.....but found two answers: You MUST do this procedure and You MUST NOT do this procedure. All the links I found were designed to convince the reader of the author's position. Has anyone else had this experience and wished for a pro/con conversation and not a sermon?

[asunlitrose]

Originally Posted by Mana Mamma

Where is the voice of the Moms who weren't convinced one way or another and have grappled with this choice? What are their thoughts now, after their choice?

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=112410

I know what you mean, but here's my thought. If you circumcise, you can't take that back. You can't reattach your son's foreskin and you can't predict how he'll feel without one. If you leave his body alone, he can make the decision himself when he's old enough.

Regardless of the zealousness of both sides, no national or international medical organization supports it.

Your son can always say later, "mom you should have circumcised me. I'm going to have it done because it will make me happy." It's a lot harder to deal with a son who is unhappy because a piece of him is missing.

You have intact genitals. Say you wanted to reduce the size of your inner labia because they got in your way, or you didn't like how they looked. Wouldn't you want that to be your decision to make? Or would you rather your parents had made the decision for you? How would they know you would be unhappy with your genitals?

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by Mana Mamma

As a Mother to a new baby boy.....I was dismayed to find such incredible polarization on this issue. I have an eight year old daughter that I am constantly working on with regards to simple, basic heigene. I wanted some true dialog and simple facts in order to make an informed decision about circumcision. It is so hard to find this without the intense emotional convictions that seem to supress information on each side of the issue.

For example, I have enough knowledge of intact grown men (2 that I know) who have had adult infections resulting in adult circumcisons....but am thinking that many, many more statistically do not. STD's aside, is it possible that an intact man can give his wife more simple vaginal/bladder infections? Do most adolesent boys take the cleaning seriously? Where is the voice of the Moms who weren't convinced one way or another and have grappled with this choice? What are their thoughts now, after their choice?

This procedure is not something to take lightly and something to which I wanted intelligent input.....but found two answers: You MUST do this procedure and You MUST NOT do this procedure. All the links I found were designed to convince the reader of the author's position. Has anyone else had this experience and wished for a pro/con conversation and not a sermon?

One simple question, and I ask this in all seriousness -- did you do your research on the pros and cons of female circumcision? Did you consider whether the health benefits of female circumcision might outweigh the risks? If not, why not? Why would you consider circumcising your son and not your daughter? The genital structures originate from the same embryonic tissues, have many analogous functions, and are more similar than they are different.

Have you researched the structure and function of the foreskin? Do you know what happens to the penis and to normal sexual functioning when you cut the foreskin off?

There's a fallacy that the circumcision issue for males has pros and cons, a balance on each side. Because the simple fact is, all human beings, regardless of gender, have the basic human right to have an intact body.

If we want to discuss pros and cons, then we should be discussing the pros and cons of female circumcision, too.

ETA: and particularly in the context of HIV, because there is research demonstrating that independent of all other factors, female circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of HIV infection.