this is because people think the foreskin irritates the cervic' or brings germs or what ever into the body (dumb argument at any rate), but then I was remember something someone had posted about the foreskin retracting during intercourse. So wouldnt by the time the penis was, hmm how do I word this.. well all the way in, the tip would be fully exposed, and that particular argument should be rendered even more completely useless.
Im basically just trying to organize my thoughts, and would like to hear what others think on the matter.
If an intact virgin man marries a virgin woman the foreskin would not in anyway cause cervical cancer.
HPV is transmitted sexually. Just like any other STD. It is a very common one. I've heard some stats say as many as 1 in 4 carry this. So if you have unprotected sex with more than 4 people you have a greater risk of contracting this... female, intact or circ'd.
So it's really about sexual activity and not about the foreskin. The foreskin does not make cervical cancer. Or penile cancer for that matter. HPV(genital warts) does.
All statements above are factually true, but I don't think it is a valid argument for circumcision. I think it is a valid argument for using protection when having sex and for being careful when choosing sex partners.
I have never had sex with an uncircumcised man and I have cervical cancer (in remission). Circumcising your son will not ensure that he won't get or give HPV or that his partners will not develop cervical cancer.
here is the first link that popped up when I googled circumcision and hpv:
Circumcision and HPV
What I found funny about the article was that only 95% of the men in the story reported their intactness or lack thereof accurately. So 5% were wrong about whether they were circumcised or not. Bet those were some sharp cookies!
Here are a couple of more articles about it,
On a personal note, I know two women, one who is my sister who have had part of their cervixes removed as early cancer(abnormal cells)treatment. Both had HPV that caused their cancers. Both got HPV from having unprotected sex with circumcised men.
P.S. to the OP, we are also in Ontario, Niagara region. I always think its neat to see someone from the same area as us
A little explanation . . . HPV is an easily transmittable disease. It can be transmitted sexually or as easily as shaking hands. It can be present on any part of the body, even hands, face and hair and touching any of these infected areas can transmit the disease. The good part of this story is that most people develop an immunity to the disease. However, that being said, the disease leaves it's tracks. If a person has ever had the disease, it will show up in DNA testing and thus, how these girls had the evidence of the infection. They were for the most part, infected as they passed through their mother's birth canal.
Now, as far as intact men giving their wives/girlfriends/one-night-stands HPV and cervical cancer . . . . The progression of HPV to cervical cancer takes approximately two decades. That means that if you have cervical cancer, the person who infected you did it approximately 15-20 years ago. Who did it????????
A little reason and logic can tell you that it is extremely difficult to lay blame on any one individual and therefore almost impossible to lay it at the doorstep of an intact man. Another of the many myths of circumcision falls victim to knowledge, reason and logic.
(Resources: American Medical Association, National Campaign for HPV and Cervical Cancer, American Cancer Society)
|... by suspenseful
... This myth was also prepetuated by a study that showed a lower incidence of cervical cancer among observant Jewish women, and thus a big leap in logic led some to draw a causal relationship between foreskin and cervical cancer.
The lower incidence of cervical cancer is more correctly attributed to the observant woman's abstention from sexual relations during her period and for one week afterwards.
I had always assumed that the "observant" clause of the study had to do with the fact that the observant women were married to observant men and both were virgins when they were married- hence, exposure to certain STDs were not an issue within their adult sexual experiences.
A concept so obvious that the cervical cancer conclusions of those scientists should have been thrown out based on sheer stupidity.
|Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
Now, as far as intact men giving their wives/girlfriends/one-night-stands HPV and cervical cancer . . . . The progression of HPV to cervical cancer takes approximately two decades. That means that if you have cervical cancer, the person who infected you did it approximately 15-20 years ago. Who did it
Not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV.
Circumcision is wrong, regardless of gender
Circumcision is wrong, regardless of gender
I also think Frank's timetable is off....
Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!
|Originally posted by MelKnee
Not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV.
“Combining the data from this and the previous study and excluding inadequate specimens, the worldwide HPV prevalence in cervical carcinomas is 99.7 per cent.”
“the HPV genotypes in the men did not match those in their partners. This finding strongly suggests that the relation between HPV in men and that in their partners was not one of simple transmission.”
“Recent studies show that condoms ("rubbers") cannot completely protect against HPV infection. This is because HPV can be passed from person to person by skin-to-skin contact with any HPV-infected area of the body, such as skin of the genital or anal area not covered by the condom.”
“Recent studies suggest that women whose mother or sisters have had cervical cancer are more likely to develop the disease” (Transmission from mother?)
|Originally posted by laralou
I know, but he was specifically talking about how long it takes for HPV to cause cervical ca and all the people I am talking about have HPV and developed cervical ca within a few years (me- it took 6 months).
Circumcision is wrong, regardless of gender
|... by Sarah
[B]merpk... you have any info on your idea that having sex before, during, or after, your period causes cervical cancer... I had not heard this one. (!!!)
I had always assumed that the "observant" clause of the study had to do with the fact that the observant women were married to observant men and both were virgins when they were married- hence, exposure to certain STDs were not an issue within their adult sexual experiences ...
Fascinated by your assumptions about virginity. But that's another topic.
My information comes purely from the cervical cancer studies I referred to. Among American Jewish women as a whole, who early in the 20th century were much more observant of Jewish laws of family relations (abstaining during and immediately following menstruation), cervical cancer rates were lower than the rest of the population by a wide margin.
As the 20th century marched on and assimilation expanded and observance of the laws of family relations waned, Jewish women's cervical cancer rates went up to match the rest of the population.
I just happened to come accross this while I was looking for more information on cervical cancer and HPV. It appears to contradict what you have said.
"Levels of HPV-fighting antibodies fluctuated substantially in the cervical tissue of the non-pill users, reaching their lowest point around ovulation, the researchers report Tuesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”
But seriously, I'm not talking about HPV, either. My comments were directed specifically at the diagnosis of cervical cancer.
And whatever you've got there, the studies I referred to are: Jewish women had substantially lower rates of cervical cancer when abstention from relations during &immediately following menstruation was a more widespread observance. When following the laws became less common, cervical cancer became more common.
You have not provided any refrence for your belief that the coincidence of these rules about menstruation and the incidence of cervical cancer are in any way CAUSITIVELY linked... how do we know that it's not any other of the hundereds of rules which could be randomly pegged for the reason why observant Jewish women hav a lower rate of cervical cancer?
State your source- because you have not come any where close to mentioning how sex during menstruation could be the cause of cervical cancer.
And yet the most obvious... my presumption that observant men and women might not be slutting around before marriage is being met by you with mocking big eyes? Because I presumed that every unmarried observant Jew was not clambering to squeeze through legalistic loopholes of only abstaining from adulturous involvment with married people? Of excuse me for giving them the benefit of the doubt!
I still think that presuming that the observant Jews observing at the time the original cervical cancer info was noticed were not engaging in premarital sex and thusly were less likely to have been exposed to HPV and less likely to develop cervical cancer is the most reasonable explanation for any of this.
Instead of mocking my theory... explain to me how your works.
My source is from a book called "American Orthodoxy," forgive me for not knowing the author at the moment off the top of my head, read it a long time ago, and found the statistic about Jewish women's cancer rates startling, particularly because I was just starting to observe the laws myself.
And I can't give you any further sources than that. I read about the statistic in a book. Sue me.
I'm not talking about menstruation and cancer rates, only about observance of Taharat haMishpakha and cancer rates.
The statistics include previously married Jewish women, remarried Jewish women, etc.
And your remarks about "jumping through legalistic loopholes" tells me you've got some issues with Jewishly observant people. Well, work 'em out elsewhere, please, and don't jump on me.
I only entered this thread because of a previous post trying to link the known statistic about Jewish women's one-time low cervical cancer rates with circumcision, which is erroneous. I added my view, which makes sense, considering that assimilation through the middle of the 20th century made the laws of T.h'M not so widely practiced, ie., not so many very observant people around. And Jewish women's rates went up.
I wish I knew why you were so intent on attacking this and me.
Then again, no, I don't care. Never mind.
Only one: Taharat ha'Mishpakha, which requires no sexual contact during menstruation or for one week immediately following.
Have I said this enough?
Really, I don't know why this is becoming such an ordeal on this thread. I was agreeing with you all, that I couldn't imagine how circumcision could effect cancer rates.
Or maybe I misread, and you were all excited to see a connection?
Either way, never mind. You all just like arguing with me, I think.
I didn't intend to attack you or really be argumentative. I just happened to find that report of research that was just released this week. I was simply adding more information to the discussion. You said:
“The lower incidence of cervical cancer is more correctly attributed to the observant woman's abstention from sexual relations during her period and for one week afterwards.”
“My information comes purely from the cervical cancer studies I referred to. Among American Jewish women as a whole, who early in the 20th century were much more observant of Jewish laws of family relations (abstaining during and immediately following menstruation), cervical cancer rates were lower than the rest of the population by a wide margin.”
I suspect that the studies you refer to are observational studies and assume a link and this week's study seems to say that is probably not true. This week's study said that there are more antibodies present during menustration and fewer during ovulation. This would make the time that Jewish women refrained from sexual relations the time least likely to acquire HPV. What this really tells us that Jewish women's lower HPV probably had to do with some other influence other than refraining from sex during menses.
There are probably a thousand things that would have to be studied to nail it down to one particular thing. It could be that Jewish women have a genetically higher immunity to HPV and inter-faith marriages have weakened that immunity. I don't know and I don't think anyone knows the real reason. However, it is natural for people to "suppose" and theorize. I think that may be what has happened.
|39 members and 17,554 guests|
|a-sorta-fairytale , AllTomorrowsParties , babydoulajo , Bow , Deborah , Dovenoir , emmy526 , esg , girlspn , gzornblat , harrietsmama , hillymum , katelove , kathymuggle , lisak1234 , mama24-7 , manyhatsmom , Michele123 , Mirzam , moominmamma , MylittleTiger , oaksie68 , philomom , pulcetti , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , samaxtics , samylonly , scheelimama , sciencemum , shantimama , Skippy918 , Socks , sren , stephalittle , TealCandy , xthoney , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 01:21 PM.|