"What do I tell my son?" (circumcision)
John A. Erickson
of a circumcised son, in response to her visit to my
website, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child.
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who cares to share
any thoughts about how they would respond to her
questions, had they received such a letter.
John Erickson
*****
I'm reeling, my mind is heaving and my heart is breaking. I was
determined this evening to complete my tour of your site in one
sitting because I didn't think I could go back. I think now perhaps I
will with the hope of finding some help with the agony I'm feeling
and the strong suspicion that I will wake tomorrow the same way.
I didn't know. God help me, I had a moment of doubt, I didn't
understand why we routinely do this. I didn't question it enough. My
son's father reiterated what I've always heard, that removing the
foreskin is for cleanliness and societal acceptance.
I feel traumatized by guilt, loss and shame right now, but I'm also
looking into the very near future of discussing this with my young
teenage son. What do I tell him? How can I look into his beautiful
eyes and tell him I allowed this to happen? He knows me as his mother
who loves him tenderly and deeply, and also as the same person who
would smile with her last breath to save him from harm.
Can you help me find a resource to help me deal with my feelings? I
have to be as strong and supportive of my son as possible.
Most importantly, can you tell me where I can find materials to
educate myself on how to approach the subject, some ideas of what to
say and what not to say to my child?
If I were ever given the responsibility of raising another boy, I
would leave him intact as he was born. I will discuss MGM and
encourage people to research the facts and rethink the idea that this
is a normal, practical thing to do. I was researching information on
FGM when I found you.
There is a tear in my heart that will never heal. The realization that
I have mutilated my own child is hardly bearable. They told me it
wouldn't hurt him, but I too remember hearing him scream. I started
for him, but was told I could not go into the room to get him once
the procedure had started (I was too cowardly to go in). A moment
later, a nurse said he was probably crying from being strapped to the
table or the cold. I jumped up and said then it's not done yet, but
by then the door opened and I cradled my baby in my arms, close to my
pounding heart. I felt guilty, confused, and weak then as I do now,
but can add ashamed.
Sorry this is so long. This is my first expression. If you finished
reading it, thanks for listening. If you know where I might find some
healing insight, thanks for sharing it.
*****
John A. Erickson
In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org
Tarkaan
>
> I just received this heart-rending letter from the mother
> of a circumcised son, in response to her visit to my
> website, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child.
alt.circumcision might be a better place for you to discuss
circumcision.
-- Jack Tarkaan Kalamazoo, Michigan
Thomas and Nancy Jones
isn't pleasant, and can save your child from a disease he almost certainly
wouldn't be exposed to anyway--yet you'd do it even if it weren't required
to get into school. Polio is, for all practical purposes, eliminated, at
least here in the states, and yet I bet every one of your children was
immunized against it. The shot site (they almost never give oral polio
here anymore) was sore for a day or so, and then that protection, from an
eliminated disease, or at least from a disease that poses so small a risk
as to be considered eliminated, is in place.
My son is circumcised. I won't apologize to him for having done it, and
later, I'm pretty sure that he won't hold it against me. However, if I
had decided against it, and he, as an adult, decided to have it done, I'm
pretty sure he'd be mad at me then. From men who have had it done as
adults (three different men) I've heard that their doctors told them that
it would take much longer for them to heal than had it been done in
infancy--approximately two or three weeks, as opposed to three days to be
completely healed for my son.
My child is not sexually mutilated. He's protected from some of those
discomforts that have been linked to uncircumcised men, however seemingly
insignificant to you.
John A. Erickson wrote:
> I just received this heart-rending letter from the mother
> of a circumcised son, in response to her visit to my
> website, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child.
>
> In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child
> http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org
Doug
I know you won't agree with this, but I'd just tell her to "get over it". I
really don't think it's that big a deal. I doubt if her son is still in
pain. We all go through things in life that are less than pleasant - ever
had a tooth pulled? Do you think kids enjoy getting all those vaccination
shots? Sure they hurt, but would you deny your kids the protection they
offer? I could go on... but I won't.
Doug
(been there done that...)
"John A. Erickson" <qs...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:86spo8$m9m$2...@news.datasync.com...
Sue
little boys who were circumscribed still remember what they went through at
age 2-3 days. This is a heated topic too and I know that my thoughts on it
are not popular, but I see no harm in circumscribing a boy. There are many
medical reasons that are in favor of circumcision. And personally, I like it
better. I think that, that woman is beating herself up for nothing. My
thoughts only, so don't flame me.
Sue B.
Thomas and Nancy Jones <tommy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3891F4AA...@earthlink.net...
> Do you have the same pain from having your child innoculated? That shot
> isn't pleasant, and can save your child from a disease he almost certainly
> wouldn't be exposed to anyway--yet you'd do it even if it weren't required
> to get into school. Polio is, for all practical purposes, eliminated, at
> least here in the states, and yet I bet every one of your children was
> immunized against it. The shot site (they almost never give oral polio
> here anymore) was sore for a day or so, and then that protection, from an
> eliminated disease, or at least from a disease that poses so small a risk
> as to be considered eliminated, is in place.
>
> My son is circumcised. I won't apologize to him for having done it, and
> later, I'm pretty sure that he won't hold it against me. However, if I
> had decided against it, and he, as an adult, decided to have it done, I'm
> pretty sure he'd be mad at me then. From men who have had it done as
> adults (three different men) I've heard that their doctors told them that
> it would take much longer for them to heal than had it been done in
> infancy--approximately two or three weeks, as opposed to three days to be
> completely healed for my son.
>
> My child is not sexually mutilated. He's protected from some of those
> discomforts that have been linked to uncircumcised men, however seemingly
> insignificant to you.
>
> John A. Erickson wrote:
>
Frank Blackfire
room."
I also checked out his page. It is a distortion of the truth. It would
seem to me that a if he wanted to truly discuss the topic, he should present
all sides.
Doug <Doug...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lumk4.35$TW....@news7.onvoy.net...
> Wow - I was amazed to see so much information on the subject on your
sight.
> I know you won't agree with this, but I'd just tell her to "get over it".
I
> really don't think it's that big a deal. I doubt if her son is still in
> pain. We all go through things in life that are less than pleasant - ever
> had a tooth pulled? Do you think kids enjoy getting all those vaccination
> shots? Sure they hurt, but would you deny your kids the protection they
> offer? I could go on... but I won't.
> Doug
> (been there done that...)
>
> "John A. Erickson" <qs...@datasync.com> wrote in message
> news:86spo8$m9m$2...@news.datasync.com...
mom of rugrats
the foreskin kept getting infected. He is a very clean man so I know it
wasn't because of lack of being clean. I think that it was because when
the skin retracted it stretched and made him very uncomfortable. (More
than what I wanted to know.) Anyway he had it done at the age of 60 and
told me to make sure that I had the boys done when they were little so
they wouldn't have the same problems. I did and have never felt sorry
about it or have they ever asked about it.
Tampamom
8th day of life. The only time my son cried was when his legs were
immobilized. As soon as he was released from the restraint, he stopped
crying. He was not in pain afterward (no whining, whimpering, crying,
fever, restlessness etc), slept normally and was healed in a few days. My
husband does not have any memory of his circumcision, he certainly doesn't
believe he is lacking any "pleasure" and I'm sure my son will be the same.
I have nothing to apologize for.
Marion-----Tampamom to Louis(6) and Erica(2)
"Keep your chin up...it gives the rest of your body a better chance at
fighting gravity"
mom of rugrats wrote in message <389203C4...@home.com>...
wadi
> of a circumcised son, in response to her visit to my
> website, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child.
The chances are excellent that this "letter" is a fabrication.
Such is the nature of the deceit perpetuated by those with a peculiar
interest in the foreskin.
The message to parents from the foreskincentric tends to focus deceitfully
on the emotionally charged "pain" issue.
The AAP recommends the use of pain relief and declares it to be "safe and
effective".
I would indeed insist upon its use.
Where pain relief is used the greatest discomfort and stress experienced by
the child (as measured by increases in heart rate) is when he placed in the
restraint and not at any other stage of the procedure.
So the pain issue is really dead but dedicated foreskin obsessed true
believers are not about to let their precious scare tactic fall into disuse.
While on the subject of circumcision the following recent study is of
interest.
==========================
UCSF NEWS SERVICES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
7 PM (EST), Thursday, November 18, 1999
TO COINCIDE WITH PUBLICATION IN THE LANCET
JOINT RELEASE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO AND
THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
MALE CIRCUMCISION COULD PREVENT MILLIONS OF HIV INFECTIONS
A simple, outpatient procedure could potentially save millions of
men and their partners from becoming infected with HIV, but
health professionals have been reluctant to provide the needed
information and resources, say the authors of a Lancet editorial
review.
The procedure is circumcision, a practice widely accepted in the
United States but less common in many other parts of the world.
Despite numerous epidemiological studies showing an association
between lack of male circumcision and HIV transmission, training
and resources for the procedure are lacking in the countries hit
hardest by the AIDS pandemic, the authors said.
Daniel Halperin, PhD, UCSF assistant adjunct professor of
community health systems and medical anthropology, and Robert
Bailey, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology in the School of
Public Health and of anthropology at the University of Illinois
at Chicago, are co-authors of the editorial.
"The evidence is so compelling now, it shouldn't be ignored,"
said Bailey. "We have limited tools against the AIDS epidemic.
Circumcision could have a huge impact on the HIV pandemic in many
developing countries."
Researchers have put the relative risk of heterosexual HIV
infection, the primary way AIDS is spread throughout Africa and
Asia, at two to eight times higher for uncircumcised men. The
authors point to 32 studies from eight countries that found a
significant association between lack of male circumcision and HIV
infection. Recent findings from three additional countries
reported similar results.
In addition, dramatic discrepancies in regional HIV infection
rates can be partially explained by circumcision practices, say
the authors. In most West African countries, for example, where
male circumcision is a widespread practice, HIV prevalence levels
are between one and five percent. In comparison, many of the
predominately non-circumcising East and South African nations
have infection rates approaching 25 percent. Similar patterns
exist in South and Southeast Asia.
Halperin and Bailey estimate that in countries like Nigeria and
Indonesia, where no more than a fifth of the men are
uncircumcised, roughly 25 percent of HIV infections can be
explained by a lack of circumcision. This number jumps to 55
percent for countries such as Zambia and Thailand, where 80
percent or more of men are uncircumcised.
The increased risk of infection is attributable to the foreskin
of the penis which provides a vulnerable portal of entry to HIV
and other pathogens. The foreskin is susceptible to small
scratches and tears during intercourse and contains a high
density of Langerhans cells -primary target cells for HIV. An
intact foreskin also exposes a man to other sexually transmitted
diseases such as syphilis, herpes, and chancroid that are known
cofactors for HIV infection.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that circumcision could lead to
better protection against HIV through an increased use of condoms
as well, says Halperin. Uncircumcised men seem more likely to
find condoms uncomfortable and prone to breakage, although
further research is needed to substantiate these claims.
"The number of infections probably caused by lack of male
circumcision already reaches into the millions," says Halperin.
"We would expect the international health community to at least
consider some form of action, but male circumcision remains
largely unexplored as a tool against AIDS."
Perhaps the biggest argument for addressing the feasibility of
male circumcision is that a majority of men and women in the
countries besieged by AIDS may support the practice, say the
authors. In a survey of 216 adults in Western Kenya, Bailey
found that 60 percent of men would prefer to be circumcised and
62 percent of women would prefer to have circumcised partners,
but only about 10 percent of men actually have the procedure
done.
Many health professionals have been hesitant to integrate
circumcision with other HIV prevention strategies, say the
authors, perhaps because it is embedded in a complex web of
deeply held cultural values and religious beliefs.
"Health workers may be biased by their own traditions and
religious beliefs," said Bailey. "The practice is currently
discussed in the context of culture and religion, but it needs to
be brought into the context of health and disease prevention."
Men who seek circumcision have difficulty gaining access to
trained professionals operating in safe settings, say the
authors. Private clinics that specialize in male circumcision,
many of which are run by people with minimum or no medical
training, are sprouting up in many countries including Tanzania,
western Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. When done properly, adult
circumcision is a simple, outpatient procedure that allows most
men to return to work the next day. In unsafe and unclean
conditions, however, excessive bleeding or infections can disable
a man for weeks.
"We need to provide communities with balanced information,
training, and the resources needed to offer safe, voluntary male
circumcision," says Halperin. "Everyone has the right to access
safe services and to make informed decisions."
A preliminary analysis by Halperin and Malcolm Potts, MD, PhD,
Bixby Professor of Population and Family Planning at the UC
Berkeley School of Public Health, estimates that the practice of
male circumcision has so far prevented at least 8 million HIV
infections in the 15 African and Asian countries cited in the
editorial review alone.
The authors believe that in addition to proper training in the
procedure itself, clinicians need training on how to counsel men
and women on the risks, benefits, and care associated with
circumcision. They also caution that advertising circumcision as
a way to prevent HIV transmission could be counterproductive if
men who opt for the procedure believe it will fully protect them
from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
==========================
Neal
...
>While on the subject of circumcision the following recent study is of
>interest.
>
>==========================
>UCSF NEWS SERVICES
>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
>7 PM (EST), Thursday, November 18, 1999
>TO COINCIDE WITH PUBLICATION IN THE LANCET
Yes, I found it in the Lancet. It was in the 20 Nov 1999 issue. It
was NOT a research paper. It was an opinion piece. I looked for it
in the "original research" section, but could not find it.
I found it listed under the editorial section, as a "Viewpoint" piece.
It was, then, strictly an opinion.
No peer review.
Two guys' (probably both circumcised) opinion.
Wadi has posted many articles about circumcision and HIV.
He has never been able to find one that recommended circumcision.
Steve
>
> Long term memory does not kick in until age 2.
Not precisely correct. I have memories of an item in our house that was
then removed entirely when I was 9 months old, and playing around it.
A number of researchers have noted a difference in the neurology of
circumcised (note spelling) versus non-circumcised males, boys and men.
The circumcised seem to be more easily frightened and less investigative
than their uncircumcised mates. And this doesn't even deal with the fact
that it is entirely medically unnecesary, reduces their sexual sensation
and diameter which is prized by sexually aware women, and is an
inherently extremely dishonoring act of mutilation which they can
clearly find cause to resent or even hate the parents who did this.
> I doubt that all of these
> little boys who were circumscribed still remember what they went through at
> age 2-3 days.
---------------
Memory proper, no, likely not, but the neuro-biology can be altered by
trauma, biochemically, and this has been noted in early infants
subjected to necessary surgeries.
> This is a heated topic too and I know that my thoughts on it
> are not popular, but I see no harm in circumscribing a boy. There are many
> medical reasons that are in favor of circumcision.
------------
No there are not according to the AMA. They indicate it is ONLY a
religious practice, not a medical one.
> And personally, I like it
> better. I think that, that woman is beating herself up for nothing. My
> thoughts only, so don't flame me.
>
> Sue B.
----------------
Part of this feeling among women is merely xenophobia, they aren't as
used to seeing an uncirc'd penis, and in this antisexual culture it
makes them feel very uncomfortable to handle their son's penis in
washing, which is important and quite simple. It brings up issues of
guilt around thoughts of incest, which are overplayed today. When "au
natural" first came back in nobody seemed to remember what people used
to do, and for a while there was a rush to retract the foreskin of a
newborn for frantic cleaning. This was found to be silly and painful, as
the foreskin is naturally adhered forward to the corona of the helmet of
the glans till mid-childhood anyway, age five or six. The boy needs to
be told to wash inside as well as possible and to advise parents of any
inflammation, whereupon a trisporic or bacitracin ointment on a Q-tip is
sufficient swabbed around inside a couple days.
When the mouth of the foreskin finally stretches enough to retract due
to growth or activity or erection the adhesion will pull loose and full
retraction will occur. The mouth of the foreskin must be stretched and
fully retracted long before full growth or it can harbor infection. The
boy can be advised to retract it when urinating as soon as he can manage
to do that, and to retract it and wash thereafter when showering, and to
dry it well, that's all. Teaching him to masturbate by repeated
retraction and closure at an early age is perfect training for a healthy
foeskin. Nothing else is needed once he can do that and wash with it
fully retracted. Remember, this stupid operation was promoted by the
nutcake Kellog boys of battle creek, mich, who thought that having a
foreskin promoted masturbation. Well it does, and so what!?? That's
totally normal, don't people expect orgasn to remain healthy through
use?? Morons!
Steve
---more---
> > My son is circumcised. I won't apologize to him for having done it, and
> > later, I'm pretty sure that he won't hold it against me. However, if I
> > had decided against it, and he, as an adult, decided to have it done, I'm
> > pretty sure he'd be mad at me then. From men who have had it done as
> > adults (three different men) I've heard that their doctors told them that
> > it would take much longer for them to heal than had it been done in
> > infancy--approximately two or three weeks, as opposed to three days to be
> > completely healed for my son.
---------------------
Yes, but virtually NOBODY wants it done as an adult! And no, this
surgery and healing is very overblown. Docs like to use this little
talk as a selling point for circumcision, for which they get a fat fee.
> > My child is not sexually mutilated. He's protected from some of those
> > discomforts that have been linked to uncircumcised men, however seemingly
> > insignificant to you.
-------------------
There aren't any statistically significant "discomforts" or "diseases"
connected with remaining natural. The very few case histories which are
used time and again are being repeated constantly by Jewish groups,
notably, for fear that we might decide to ban this barbaric practice as
a couple European nations have done as a form of child abuse. These case
histories always involve doctors unfriendly to the natural foreskin and
relate to horror stories of actually unneeded surgeries and consequent
infections later, which is so rare in the non-western world as to be
notable as malpractice!!
Steve
Steve
>
> Ditto. But, I would say "You'll thank me next time you're in the locker
> room."
>
> I also checked out his page. It is a distortion of the truth. It would
> seem to me that a if he wanted to truly discuss the topic, he should present
> all sides.
In a recent survey uncirced boys were thought by their peers to be more
macho and to have larger penises. So much for the much vaunted little
shown locker-room uniformity which plagued the 1960's. More than 38% are
no uncircumcised when they enter school.
Steve
Chris
This is clearly one of those topics that won't be agreed on for a long time.
Most of the males I know are circumsized, and none of them have consistently
exhibited the behaviours outlined in some of the anti-circ discussions. I've
heard lots of them: more fearful, less tolerant of pain, less sensitive.
Everybody I know seems fine to me.
Having said that, I can't say that it's an easy decision for me. Even though
I don't believe there are long-term effects, I would never take putting my
child in pain (and at risk) lightly.
In response to the first posting, way back in the thread, I wouldn't make an
issue of it at all. As long as my son's healthy and functional down there,
why should I put doubt in his mind as to decisions we made long ago? He will
develop his own thoughts and opinions on the subject, and I shouldn't get in
the way with my guilt.
Chris.
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=IQN035
(Get paid for websurfing!)
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:3892EB...@armory.com...
Frank Blackfire
anti-circumcision page through his post, and was frightend to death about
what we had done to our son. I tried to tell her that, as a circumcised
male, it is nothing but one-sided crap. Hopefully I can shed some
additional light on the subject. I also ordered your article.
FB
Amanda C.
>isn't pleasant, and can save your child from a disease he almost certainly
>wouldn't be exposed to anyway--yet you'd do it even if it weren't required
>to get into school. Polio is, for all practical purposes, eliminated, at
>least here in the states, and yet I bet every one of your children was
>immunized against it. The shot site (they almost never give oral polio
>here anymore) was sore for a day or so, and then that protection, from an
>eliminated disease, or at least from a disease that poses so small a risk
>as to be considered eliminated, is in place.
>
>later, I'm pretty sure that he won't hold it against me. However, if I
>had decided against it, and he, as an adult, decided to have it done, I'm
>pretty sure he'd be mad at me then. From men who have had it done as
>adults (three different men) I've heard that their doctors told them that
>it would take much longer for them to heal than had it been done in
>infancy--approximately two or three weeks, as opposed to three days to be
>completely healed for my son.
>
>discomforts that have been linked to uncircumcised men, however seemingly
>insignificant to you.
>
>
I totally agree with your statement above. Both my sons have been circumcized
and i am glad I had it done. My husband is glad I had it done. I am sure if you
ask my 7yr old son Will if he remembers having such a thing done he would
probably look at you like you had lost your mind. I once had a friend whose
parents didn't have him circumcized and he had lots of trouble with it and
mentioned once that he wished his parents had it done for him. And one of my
lady friends father had to have it done in his 40's because he had developed
diabites and it was endangering his health and it took him weeks to heal
comepletely. So I feel I have done a good thing for my sons in saving them any
furture pain from not have been circumcized.
>> I just received this heart-rending letter from the mother
>> of a circumcised son, in response to her visit to my
>> website, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child.
>>
>> I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who cares to share
>> any thoughts about how they would respond to her
>> questions, had they received such a letter.
>>
>> John Erickson
>>
>> In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child
>> http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Respectfully,
Amanda
Mom to William Ellis C.
and John Thomas C.
If you do settle in the South and bear children,don't think we will accept them
as Southerners. After all, if the cat had kittens in the oven we wouldn't call
'em biscuits.
Frank Blackfire
of your presentation. Can you send it to: mailto:Jesc...@yahoo.com
or maybe give me the address again.
Why don't you get a free junk email address from yahoo or hotmail? They are
convienient when signing up for stuff and using in newsgroups.
Thanks
FB
Don <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vxiTOA3U6RKOev...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 05:30:39 -0800, Steve <rst...@armory.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sue wrote:
> >>
> >> Long term memory does not kick in until age 2.
> >--------------
> >Not precisely correct. I have memories of an item in our house that was
> >then removed entirely when I was 9 months old, and playing around it.
>
> Doubtful. What you probably remember is what you heard from
> parents or someone else about the alleged memory.
>
> >A number of researchers have noted a difference in the neurology of
> >circumcised (note spelling) versus non-circumcised males, boys and men.
> >The circumcised seem to be more easily frightened and less investigative
> >than their uncircumcised mates.
>
> "A number of"? Could you produce the citations?
>
> I know of one such research study, that entitled "Effect of
> Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response During Subsequent Routine
> Vaccination" [Anna Taddio, Joel Katz, A Lane Ilersich, Gideon
> Koren; The Lancet, Vol. 349: Pages 599-603, March 1, 1997].
>
> I know of speculation by others, mostly ardent anticircumcision
> activists such as Goldman.
>
> As the American Medical Association (AMA) puts it:
> ----------- Begin quoted material -----------
> Whereas, Male infant circumcision without anesthetic has been
> shown to cause excessive pain, and this pain may have long-term
> effects; and
> ----------- End quoted material -----------
>
> [Please note the use of the words "may have" in the above quote.]
>
> >And this doesn't even deal with the fact
> >that it is entirely medically unnecesary,
>
> Many medical procedures and practices are unnecessary. The key is
> in how one defines "unnecessary." And the question is not so much
> whether they are necessary, but whether the benefits outweighs
> the risks and disadvantages. And on this, opinion is rather
> divided (which is one of the reasons that the circ wars continue
> on and on in the parenting newsgroups).
>
> >reduces their sexual sensation
>
> Anecdotal evidence (which is just about all there is when it
> comes to this particular aspect) is more that circumcision
> changes sexual sensation. Some men circumcised at an age of
> awareness report decreased sensitivity, some little change, some
> increased sensitivity.
>
> >and diameter which is prized by sexually aware women,
>
> Produce your evidence, please.
>
> >and is an inherently extremely dishonoring act of mutilation
> >which they can clearly find cause to resent or even hate the
> >parents who did this.
>
> It can also be an inherently valued act of parental concern for
> the health and welfare of the child.
>
> The attitude of the individual toward having been circumcised or
> not having been circumcised depends on a number of factors
> including parental and peer attitudes. In my experience, many of
> the men who come to resent or hate parents for having been
> circumcised came to that resentment and/or hate through
> misinformation and hyperbole gleaned from biased anticircumcision
> sources such as yourself.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> This is a heated topic too and I know that my thoughts on it
> >> are not popular, but I see no harm in circumscribing a boy. There are
many
> >> medical reasons that are in favor of circumcision.
> >------------
> >No there are not according to the AMA. They indicate it is ONLY a
> >religious practice, not a medical one.
>
> Produce the evidence for your statement, and I will believe it.
> In the meantime, it looks to me to be a likely example of
> anticircumcision activist hyperbole. The AMA itself passed the
> following resolutions:
> ----------- Begin quoted material -----------
> "That our AMA endorse support the general principles of the 1999
> Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of
> Pediatrics, which reads as follows: 'Existing scientific
> evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male
> circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend
> routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there
> are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not
> essential to the child's current well-being, parents should
> determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an
> informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given
> accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity
> to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made,
> procedural analgesia should be provided.'"
>
> "That our AMA urge that as part of the informed consent
> discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for
> circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making
> their decisions."
> ----------- End quoted material -----------
>
> [snip]
>
> >Yes, but virtually NOBODY wants it done as an adult! And no, this
> >surgery and healing is very overblown. Docs like to use this little
> >talk as a selling point for circumcision, for which they get a fat fee.
>
> ----------- Begin quoted material -----------
> "After you counsel the parents appropriately and do the
> procedure, it's not a profitable use of time."
> --Craig Shoemaker, M.D., North Dakota pediatrician and
> member of the American Academy of Pediatrics task force
> on circumcision. ["Did Circumcision Ruin Your Sex Life?";
> Men's Health magazine, Jul/Aug 1998, p.135]
> ----------- End quoted material -----------
>
> >> > My child is not sexually mutilated. He's protected from some of
those
> >> > discomforts that have been linked to uncircumcised men, however
seemingly
> >> > insignificant to you.
> >-------------------
> >There aren't any statistically significant "discomforts" or "diseases"
> >connected with remaining natural.
>
> The above statement is typical anticircumcision activist
> hyperbole.
>
> There are statistically significant health benefits associated
> with circumcision. One of those is a reduction in the risk of
> urinary tract infections. As the AAP put it in its most recent
> statement on circumcision:
> ----------- Begin quoted material -----------
> In summary, all studies that have examined the association
> between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI
> in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger
> than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies among
> studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can estimate that
> 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI
> during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000
> circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of UTI in
> uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised male infants
> is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold during the first year
> of life, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an
> uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%).
> ----------- End quoted material -----------
>
> The question is not whether there are or are not statistically
> significant benefits associated with circumcision but whether
> those benefits are of sufficient magnitude to justify
> circumcision.
>
> >The very few case histories which are
> >used time and again are being repeated constantly by Jewish groups,
> >notably, for fear that we might decide to ban this barbaric practice as
> >a couple European nations have done as a form of child abuse.
>
> Can you name those "European nations" which have banned "this
> barbaric practice ... as a form of child abuse"?
>
> >These case
> >histories always involve doctors unfriendly to the natural foreskin and
> >relate to horror stories of actually unneeded surgeries and consequent
> >infections later, which is so rare in the non-western world as to be
> >notable as malpractice!!
> >Steve
>
> "Always"?
>
> Hardly.
>
> Unfortunately, it looks as if we have yet another
> anticircumcision True Believer fanatic spewing hyperbole. What
> seems so strange to me about it is that a valid case can be made
> against so-called routine infant circumcision without the use of
> misinformation, exaggeration, hyperbole, and the like. What I
> wonder is why there is such a pronounced tendency on the part of
> so many anticircumcision activists to engage in such hyperbole.
>
> -----------
>
> After a good deal of investigation, particularly into the medical
> research and opinion on the subject, I put together a
> presentation of the major arguments on both sides of the fence.
> References to many of the articles are included. I make my
> article available via e-mail for the asking. Any parent or
> prospective parent who is interested can obtain my article:
> "Circumcision: The Pros, the Cons, and the Bottom Line" as
> follows:
> 1.) send an e-mail to the following address (reassembled):
> secular at apexmail dot net
> 2.) use the following subject line: send info
>
> If you follow the instructions, my mailer will send the article
> automatically.
>
> -----------
wadi
Frank Blackfire <jesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86vgpb$3ra$0...@208.10.2.203...
In reply to Don:
Well I guess Erickson achieved his aim then.
He played the "scare tactic" well.
This is of course the best approach when his cause is short on facts and the
end justifies the means.
I the wake of one of these pro-foreskin trolls I am always left wondering
why if their cause was indeed credible would they have the need to indulge
in this base form of propaganda.
The fact is that there is little of substance to their arguments.
Big on emotion, big on innuendo but always short on facts.
I have read Don's article, it is a fair and balanced assessment.
The AAP's advice to parents brouchure is also pretty down the line.
=========================
Circumcision:
Information for Parents
Circumcision is a surgical procedure in which the skin covering the end of
the penis is removed. Scientific studies show some medical benefits of
circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American
Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.
Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social, and cultural
reasons. Since circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents
should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and
risks. This brochure answers common questions you may have about
circumcision. Use this as a guide to help you decide what is best for your
baby boy.
What is Circumcision?
At birth, boys have skin that covers the end of the penis, called the
foreskin. Circumcision surgically removes the foreskin, exposing the tip of
the penis. Circumcision is usually performed by a doctor in the first few
days of life. An infant must be stable and healthy to safely be circumcised.
Many parents choose to have their sons circumcised because "all the other
men in the family were circumcised" or because they do not want their sons
to feel "different." Others feel that circumcision is unnecessary and choose
not to have it done. Some groups such as followers of the Jewish and Islamic
faiths, practice circumcision for religious and cultural reasons. Since
circumcision may be more risky if done later in life, parents may want to
decide before or soon after their son is born if they want their son
circumcised.
Reasons Parents May Choose Circumcision
Research studies suggest that there may be some medical benefits to
circumcision. These include the following:
A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised
infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first
year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of
developing a UTI in the first year of life.
A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is
very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.
A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs),
including HIV, the AIDS virus.
Prevention of foreskin infections.
Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes
foreskin retraction impossible.
Easier genital hygiene.
Reasons Parents May Choose Not to Circumcise
The following are reasons why parents may choose NOT to have their son
circumcised:
Possible risks. As with any surgery, circumcision has some risks.
Complications from circumcision are rare and usually minor. They may include
bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and
improper healing.
The belief that the foreskin is necessary to protect the tip of the penis.
When removed, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the
opening of the penis to become too small. This can cause urination problems
that may need to be surgically corrected.
The belief that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive,
causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life.
Almost all uncircumcised boys can be taught proper hygiene that can lower
their chances of getting infections, cancer of the penis, and sexually
transmitted diseases.
Common Questions About Circumcision
Is circumcision painful?
When done without pain medicine, circumcision is painful. There are pain
medicines available that are safe and effective. The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends that they be used to reduce pain from circumcision.
Local anesthetics can be injected into the penis to lower pain and stress in
infants. There are also topical creams that can help. Talk to your
pediatrician about which pain medicine is best for your son. Problems with
using pain medicine are rare and usually not serious.
What should I expect for my son after circumcision?
After the circumcision, the tip of the penis may seem raw or yellowish. If
there is a bandage, it should be changed with each diapering to reduce the
risk of the penis becoming infected. Petroleum jelly should be used to keep
the bandage from sticking. Sometimes a plastic ring is used instead of a
bandage. The plastic ring that is left on the tip of the penis usually drops
off within 5 to 8 days. It takes about 1 week to 10 days for the penis to
fully heal after circumcision.
Are there any problems that can happen after circumcision?
Problems after a circumcision are very rare. However, call your pediatrician
right away if
Your baby does not urinate normally within 6 to 8 hours after the
circumcision.
There is persistent bleeding.
There is redness around the tip of the penis that gets worse after 3 to 5
days.
It is normal to have a little yellow discharge or coating around the head of
the penis, but this should not last longer than a week. What if I choose not
to have my son circumcised?
If you choose not to have your son circumcised, talk to your pediatrician
about how to keep your son's penis clean. When your son is old enough, he
can learn how to keep his penis clean just as he will learn to keep other
parts of his body clean.
The foreskin usually does not fully retract for several years and should
never be forced. The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean by gently
washing the genital area while bathing. You do not need to do any special
cleansing, such as with cotton swabs or antiseptics.
Later, when the foreskin fully retracts, boys should be taught how to wash
underneath the foreskin every day. Teach your son to clean his foreskin by
Gently pulling it back away from the head of the penis
Rinsing the head of the penis and inside fold of the foreskin with soap and
warm water
Pulling the foreskin back over the head of the penis
See the AAP brochure Newborns: Care of the Uncircumcised Penis for more
details. See your pediatrician if you notice any signs of infection such as
redness, swelling, or foul-smelling drainage.
Female "Circumcision"
Female genital mutilation, sometimes called female circumcision, is common
in many cultures. It involves removing part or all of a female's clitoris.
It may also involve sewing up the opening of the vagina. It is often done
without any pain medicine. The purpose of this practice is to prove that a
female is a virgin before she gets married, reduce her ability to experience
sexual pleasure after marriage, and promote marital fidelity. There are many
serious side effects, including the following:
Pelvic and urinary tract infections
Negative effects on self-esteem and sexuality
Inability to deliver a baby vaginally
The Academy is absolutely opposed to this practice in all forms as it is
disfiguring and has no medical benefits.
The information contained in this publication should not be used as a
substitute for the medical care and advice of your pediatrician. There may
be variations in treatment that your pediatrician may recommend based on
individual facts and circumstances.
© 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics
=========================
wadi
Neal <neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> wrote in message
news:s7i49sg5pkdj4atam...@4ax.com...
> >interest.
> >
> >==========================
> >UCSF NEWS SERVICES
> >UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
> >7 PM (EST), Thursday, November 18, 1999
> >TO COINCIDE WITH PUBLICATION IN THE LANCET
>
>
> was NOT a research paper. It was an opinion piece. I looked for it
> in the "original research" section, but could not find it.
>
> I found it listed under the editorial section, as a "Viewpoint" piece.
>
> It was, then, strictly an opinion.
>
> No peer review.
That's the normal 4skincentric approach.
First attempt to trivialise the "message".
>
> Two guys' (probably both circumcised) opinion.
And secondly, "shoot the messengers".
>
> Wadi has posted many articles about circumcision and HIV.
Yes indeed and there are many which find a connection between the lack of
circumcision and a higher rate of HIV infection among uncircumcised men and
their wives/partners.
Those that wish to read the facts themselves can goto www.aegis.com and do
searches under "circumcision" and "foreskin".
Bailey and Halperin are correct when they state:
"The evidence is so compelling now, it shouldn't be ignored,"
said Bailey. "We have limited tools against the AIDS epidemic.
Circumcision could have a huge impact on the HIV pandemic in many
developing countries."
It is of course interesting to note that the timing and "style" of
circumcision plays a significant role in the degree of "protective effect"
against HIV infection accruing through circumsion.
The best protective effect is achieved when:
The circumcision is carried out before the age of 12 and certainly before
the boy becomes sexually active.
And when the circumcision is of the "style" called "tight" where there is
little if any residual foreskin remaining.
The issue which is becoming more and more important is the risk to wives and
partners.
This has up to now been assessed as a three times higher risk of infection
to the wives/partners of uncircumcised men.
The recent UNAIDS sponsored study (below) has highlighted the vulnerability
of receptive partners of uncircumcised men and at higher levels than
previously believed.
Here in South Africa uncircumcised men are now classified in group known as
"super spreaders" along with prositutes etc.
The lack of circumcision in men is indeed a public health risk.
Circumcision is being recommended and promoted in a number of areas and is
available at government subsidised rates at hospitals and clinics.
As recent legislation has made it impossible for medical schemes to refuse
or terminate membership on the basis of HIV infection increased premiums for
uncircumcised males is being seriously considered.
This is viewed much the same as increased premiums for those who continue to
smoke.
And given the cost of treatments for the HIV infected running at around
$17,500 per annum the medical funds need to increase their revenue.
And just as it would be unacceptable to expect non-smokers to subsidise the
health care of smokers so is it to expect that the circumcising will
subsidise the non-circumcising's significantly higher incidence of HIV
related health costs.
>
> He has never been able to find one that recommended circumcision.
>
There are indeed studies which recommend the use of circumcision as a means
to reduce the rate of HIV infection.
Why would I need to specifically cite them?
Unlike you and your ilk I am not attempting to influence parents to follow
my prefered course of action.
So I am more interested in quoting and/or stating the facts for people to
form their own opinions than indulging in speculation as to how they should
react to such findings.
==========================
Lusaka, 14 September 1999
Differences in HIV spread
in four sub-Saharan African cities
Summary of the multi-site study
In many large towns in Central, East and southern Africa the HIV prevalence
rate among pregnant women currently exceeds 30%, while in the cities and
towns of most of West Africa fewer than 10% of pregnant women are infected.
What accounts for these enormous variations? Some urban populations
admittedly have a longer-standing epidemic than others, but the time factor
alone does not explain all the differences. Clearly, HIV has been spreading
at different rates in different populations.
To understand more about this differential rate of spread, a multi-site
study was carried out in four African towns with differing HIV prevalence
trends in pregnant women. Kisumu (Kenya) and Ndola (Zambia), in Central/East
Africa, were selected as the towns with high HIV prevalence, while the
low-prevalence towns in West Africa were Cotonou (Benin) and Yaoundé
(Cameroon).
Between June 1997 and March 1998, surveys were carried out in all four sites
to compare:
? sexual behaviour patterns - e.g. age of sexual initiation and marriage,
number of sex partners, contacts with prostitutes - which may determine the
probability of exposure to an infected partner
? co-factors - e.g. condom use, other sexually transmitted diseases, male
circumcision - which may determine the probability of HIV transmission
during intercourse.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the national ethics
committee in each of the countries where the study took place, as well as
from other ethics committees. The general population survey in each town
aimed at a random sample size of 1000 men and 1000 women aged 15 to 49
years. Households were visited by a team of interviewers and nurses or
doctors. The survey of sex workers was preceded by mapping all places where
prostitutes could be found and recording the number of sex workers present
in each location at the time of the study team's visit, so that a
representative sample of about 300 prostitutes could be selected in each
town.
After giving their informed oral consent, study participants were
interviewed on their socio-demographic characteristics and sexual behaviour,
using a standardized questionnaire, and were asked to give a blood sample
and urine sample. HIV testing was done anonymously, but the result was
linked to the interview data and to the results of the laboratory tests for
HIV and for the presence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including
syphilis, gonorrhoea, genital herpes (HSV-2) and trichomonas infection.
Study participants who wished to know their HIV serostatus were referred for
pre- and post-test counselling and re-testing, free of charge. Study
participants with symptoms and/or signs suggestive of an STD were treated.
* The full report of the multi-site study has been submitted for
publication.
Findings
Prevalence of HIV infection
The prevalence of HIV infection in men (aged 15-49) was 3% in Cotonou, 4% in
Yaoundé, 20% in Kisumu and 23% in Ndola. For women, the respective
prevalence rates were 3%, 8%, 30% and 32%.
In all sites, except Cotonou, overall prevalence was significantly higher in
women than in men. The largest male/female divergence was found among
15-19-year-olds in Kisumu and Ndola. In Kisumu, over 3% of male teenagers
were infected, compared with 23% of female teenagers. In Ndola, HIV
prevalence in this age group was 4% in boys and 15% in girls.
The prevalence of HIV infection among sex workers was extremely high in the
two high-prevalence sites (Kisumu, almost 75%; Ndola, 68%) compared with
Yaoundé (33%), although the prevalence in Cotonou (over 57%) was also quite
high. Across these four sites 40% of the prostitutes were 24 years old or
younger, with a figure of 56% in Ndola. Almost a quarter of prostitutes in
Ndola were under 20.
In the two low-prevalence sites and in Kisumu, more than 70% of circulating
HIV-1 strains belonged to subtype A. In Ndola practically all circulating
strains were subtype C. The biggest range of strains was see in Yaoundé,
where subtypes A, D, E, F, G and H were found, as well as strains belonging
to group O.
Sexual behaviour characteristics
Sexual debut and marriage
In all sites, between 97% and 99% of men and of women 20 years old and above
reported having had sexual intercourse. However, among 15-19-year-olds the
proportion of those who were sexually active ranged from under 50% in
Cotonou to just over 70% in Kisumu. For both males and females, age at first
sexual intercourse was lowest in Kisumu and highest in Cotonou.
Significantly more girls in Kisumu and Ndola had their sexual debut before
age 15 than in the two low-prevalence sites.
The percentage of men and women who were currently-married or ever-married
was significantly higher in Kisumu and Ndola than in the low-prevalence
sites. Similarly, age at first marriage was significantly lower for both men
and women in Kisumu and Ndola than in Cotonou and Yaoundé.
Rate of partner change
The highest rate of partner change was found in Yaoundé, where men reported
an average of 10 lifetime partners (compared with 5 in Kisumu and 4 in
Cotonou and Ndola) and women reported 3 (compared with 2 in the other three
sites). Never-married men and women in Yaoundé reported the largest numbers
of non-spousal partners in the year preceding the interview, followed by men
and women in Kisumu. Currently-married men in the high-prevalence sites
reported fewer non-spousal (extramarital) partners than married men in
Cotonou and Yaoundé. Extramarital relationships were reported by very few
currently-married women (1-3%) except in Yaoundé, where 12% of women
reported at least one such relationship in the year before the interview.
Age mixing between non-spousal partners
Age differences between non-spousal partners were similar in Cotonou,
Yaoundé and Ndola, but significantly smaller in the high-prevalence site,
Kisumu. The age difference between non-spousal partners, as reported by men,
was 4 in Cotonou and Yaoundé, 3 in Kisumu and 4 in Ndola, the male partner
always being older. However, among married - teenage girls living in Kisumu
and Ndola, the older their husband (and the larger the age difference
between the partners), the higher their risk of being HIV-infected.
Male contacts with sex workers
The proportion of men reporting at least one contact with a sex worker in
the past year was almost 7% for Cotonou, 13% for Yaoundé, almost 7% for
Kisumu and 11% for Ndola. When analysis was restricted to men who reported
having non-spousal partnerships in the year before interview, the percentage
having contact with a prostitute was significantly higher in Ndola (over
32%) than in Cotonou and in Kisumu (around 15%) and Yaoundé (almost 20%).
While HIV prevalence among sex workers tended to be higher in the
high-prevalence sites, as mentioned earlier, the HIV rate in Cotonou sex
workers was also quite high. However, use of a condom with the most recent
client was reported more often by sex workers in Cotonou than in any other
site. Of the HIV-infected sex workers in Cotonou 64% reported condom use
with their last client, compared with 349% in Yaoundé, 50% in Kisumu and 30%
in Ndola. When the data on HIV prevalence and condom use with clients are
examined together, it is clear that sex work clients in Ndola and Kisumu are
more exposed to HIV infection than clients in the low-prevalence towns.
Condom use
A relatively low proportion of men in all sites - ranging from 21% in
Cotonou to 25% in Ndola - reported that they often or always used condoms
with non-spousal partners. Women in the low-prevalence towns reported less
condom use than women in the high-prevalence sites.
Co-factors in HIV transmission
Other STDs
Syphilis, an STD that causes genital ulcers, was by far most prevalent in
Ndola, followed by Yaoundé. Serologic evidence of current or previous
genital herpes (HSV-2 infection) - another ulcer-producing STD -- was more
common in the high-prevalence sites than in the other two sites. Taken
together, the prevalence of the two ulcerative STDs was higher in the towns
with high HIV prevalence. The differences between the sites were especially
marked among young people under 25. In all four sites HSV-2 infection was
strongly associated with an increased risk of HIV infection in both men and
women.
The prevalence of gonorrhoea was generally low and variable. Chlamydial
infection was more common in younger age groups, especially in girls, and
the highest prevalence was in Yaoundé, followed by Kisumu. The highest rates
of trichomonas infection were found in women in Kisumu and Ndola (29% and
34%).
Male circumcision
In Cotonou and Yaoundé nearly all men reported being circumcised, while in
Ndola only 10% of men were circumcised. In Kisumu, where the overall
percentage of circumcised men was less than 30%, HIV prevalence was below 8%
in men circumcised before their sexual debut and 25% in uncircumcised men.
In multivariate analysis, being circumcised was associated with a lower risk
of HIV infection .
Discussion
In our study the only differences in sexual behaviour that distinguished
Kisumu and Ndola from Cotonou and Yaoundé concerned the age at which girls
became sexually active, and the age at which men and women first married.
Compared with the low-prevalence sites, in Kisumu and Ndola females were
younger at sexual debut and both sexes married earlier. In Kisumu, moreover,
teenage girls whose husbands were older were more likely to be HIV-infected.
High rates of partner change, contacts with sex workers, and concurrent
sexual partnerships, were not reported more systematically in the
high-prevalence than in the low-prevalence sites.
From these data, it would be difficult to argue that the divergence in the
rate of HIV spread between the East African and West African sites can be
explained solely by differences in sexual behaviour.
Nor was there evidence that differences in circulating strains of HIV-1 are
a major factor in the rate of spread of HIV. Subtype A was the most
prevalent subtype in both of the low-prevalence sites as well as in one
high-prevalence site.
However, the study did find associations between higher HIV rates and two
biological co-factors, suggesting that these might have contributed to a
higher probability of HIV transmission during sexual intercourse in the
high-prevalence sites.
Previous studies had already established that HIV transmission is enhanced
in the presence of another STD, particularly an STD causing genital ulcers.
The multi-site study found that significantly more people in Kisumu and
Ndola, especially in the 15-24 age bracket, had serologic evidence of
current or previous infection with an ulcerative STD (syphilis and genital
herpes).
Secondly, the study found large differences between the sites in the
percentage of men circumcised. In Cotonou and Yaoundé, cities where over 97%
of men are circumcised, lower HIV rates were found than in Kisumu and Ndola,
where the percentage of men circumcised ranges from 10% to less than 30%. In
the high HIV prevalence sites, moreover, close to 16% of young men under 25
had an ulcerative STD, whereas in the low-prevalence sites the figure was
6%-8%. Lack of circumcision was thus associated with higher rates of both
HIV and ulcerative STDs, the latter in turn possibly raising the HIV
transmission risk.
Finally, how can one explain the dramatically high prevalence of HIV
infection (15%-23%) in girls under 20 in Kisumu and Ndola? Unmarried girls
in these cities reported a median of 1 to 1.5 lifetime sex partners, an
estimated 10-12% of whom were HIV infected. A separate qualititative study
carried out in Kisumu has found evidence of early sex with older partners
(men aged 25 and above) among teenage girls, both married and unmarried.
This suggests that the teenagers in the multi-site study may have
under-reported their number of partners, especially non-spousal partners
older than 25. Partners like these are likely to have exposed the girls to
the virus, since HIV prevalence in Kisumu and Ndola among men aged 25 and
over ranged from 26% to 40%.
Even when these factors are taken into account, however, it is hard to
explain the high HIV prevalence in female teenagers. For the girls to have
become infected so soon after their sexual debut as a result of relatively
few exposures to an infected partner, HIV transmission co-factors must be
part of the explanation. In this connection it is important to recall that
almost 50% of the 15-19-year-old girls in Kisumu and Ndola had been exposed
to the virus that causes genital herpes and almost 16% had syphilis.
In conclusion, differences in the rate of HIV spread between the East
African and West African cities studied cannot be explained away by
differences in sexual behaviour alone. In fact, behavioural differences seem
to be outweighed by differences in HIV transmission probability.
The implications of our findings for the prevention measures are complex.
For instance, if further studies prove that male circumcision is really
protective, it would be important to assess carefully the benefits as well
as the practical risks of the procedure under field conditions, including
the risks of infection and haemorrhage. With respect to the ulcerative STDs,
while syphilis is curable there are no drugs that can cure or reduce the
transmission of genital herpes -- a lifelong viral infection. Herpes can,
however, be prevented through condom use, and research is in progress to
develop a vaccine.
On the other hand, our findings should not be interpreted as a denial of the
important role that sexual behaviour change and improved STD care can play
in curbing the HIV epidemic. First of all, even the "low" HIV prevalence
sites studied have considerable rates of HIV infection, and even in the
high-prevalence sites barely a quarter of men reported that they often or
always used condoms with non-spousal partners. The risk behaviours
identified in all four sites call for scaled-up and sustained action in the
areas of condom promotion, education for safer sexual behaviour, and
diagnosis and treatment of the curable STDs.
Secondly, given the high levels of HIV infection in young women in Kisumu
and Ndola, effective interventions are urgently needed to decrease their
vulnerability. Girls must be made aware that they run an enormous risk of
becoming infected with ulcerative STDs, HIV, or both, during their first few
exposures to sex, especially with an older man, who is far more likely to be
infected than boys their own age. Girls should learn the necessary
life-skills to stand up to demands for early, unwanted or unsafe
intercourse.
Above all, since men still play the dominant role in deciding whether and
under what circumstances sex will take place, priority must be given to
sexual behaviour change programmes aimed at them. Social pressure should be
put on older men to avoid forcing or coercing young girls into sex, or
enticing them with sugar-daddy gifts. Cross-generational sex exposes girls
to lethal risk and helps drive the HIV epidemic.
***
Members of the Study Group on Heterogeneity of HIV Epidemics in African
Cities are: A Buvé (coordinator), M Laga, E Van Dyck, W Janssens, L
Heyndricks (Institute of Tropical Medicine, Belgium); S Anagonou (Programme
national de Lutte contre le SIDA, Benin); M Laourou (Institut national de
Statistiques et d'Analyses économiques, Benin); L Kanhonou (Centre de
Recherche en Reproduction humaine et en Démographie, Benin); Evina Akam, M
de Loenzien (Institut de Formation et de Recherche démographiques,
Cameroon); S-C Abega (Université Catholique d'Afrique Centrale, Cameroon);
Zekeng (Programme de Lutte contre le SIDA, Cameroon); J Chege (The
Population Council, Kenya); V Kimani, J Olenja (University of Nairobi,
Kenya); M Kahindo (National AIDS/STD Control Programme, Kenya); F Kaona, R
Musonda, T Sukwa (Tropical Diseases Research Centre, Zambia); N Rutenberg
(The Population Council, USA); B Auvert, E Lagarde (INSERM U88, France); B
Ferry, N Lydié (Centre français sur la population et le développement,
France); R Hayes, L Morison, H Weiss, J Glynn (London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine, UK); NJ Robinson (Glaxo Wellcome, UK); (M Caraël (UNAIDS,
Switzerland).
Josephea L. Payne
<mt4...@home.com> writes:
>This is a heated topic too and I know that my thoughts on it
>are not popular, but I see no harm in circumscribing a boy. There are many
>medical reasons that are in favor of circumcision. And personally, I like it
>better. I think that, that woman is beating herself up for nothing. My
>thoughts only, so don't flame me.
>
Though my son wasn't circumcised........I agree with you completely. No harm
will come of it either way. Those people who think it's wrong shouldn't choose
it for their son, and IMO......really ought to find something more worthwhile
to rant and rave about. It should be up to each parent to decide this for their
child and everyone else should zip their lips on it. Who cares anyway? It
wasn't a big deal one way or the other when I was faced with this
choice.......only reason that I really chose it at all was because I thought
it'd be easier on my son to grow up `looking` like his father...which is hardly
an altruistic motive. Not all of us non-circ mommies make our decisions based
on what mouth-foaming zealots with a cause du jour have to say. JMO
Josie
Neal
>
>Neal <neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> wrote in message
>news:s7i49sg5pkdj4atam...@4ax.com...
...
>> Yes, I found it in the Lancet. It was in the 20 Nov 1999 issue. It
>> was NOT a research paper. It was an opinion piece. I looked for it
>> in the "original research" section, but could not find it.
>>
>> I found it listed under the editorial section, as a "Viewpoint" piece.
>>
>> It was, then, strictly an opinion.
>>
>> No peer review.
>
>That's the normal 4skincentric approach.
>First attempt to trivialise the "message".
Well, you dismiss anything that says "Don't circumcise." Why the
double standard?
>>
>> Two guys' (probably both circumcised) opinion.
>
>And secondly, "shoot the messengers".
>
>>
>> Wadi has posted many articles about circumcision and HIV.
>
>Yes indeed and there are many which find a connection between the lack of
>circumcision and a higher rate of HIV infection among uncircumcised men and
>their wives/partners.
>
>Those that wish to read the facts themselves can goto www.aegis.com and do
>searches under "circumcision" and "foreskin".
>
>Bailey and Halperin are correct when they state:
>
>"The evidence is so compelling now, it shouldn't be ignored,"
>said Bailey. "We have limited tools against the AIDS epidemic.
>Circumcision could have a huge impact on the HIV pandemic in many
>developing countries."
Yes, that sounds just like Wiswell when he went to Europe preaching
circumcision. They knew to ignore him.
>It is of course interesting to note that the timing and "style" of
>circumcision plays a significant role in the degree of "protective effect"
>against HIV infection accruing through circumsion.
>
>The best protective effect is achieved when:
>
>The circumcision is carried out before the age of 12 and certainly before
>the boy becomes sexually active.
>
>And when the circumcision is of the "style" called "tight" where there is
>little if any residual foreskin remaining.
Sounds like you are getting into the fetishes here.
...
>Here in South Africa uncircumcised men are now classified in group known as
>"super spreaders" along with prositutes etc.
>The lack of circumcision in men is indeed a public health risk.
Wadi, I can believe this. Particularly since the ruling party,
members of the Xhosa tribe, are circumcised, and their political
opponents, the Zulu tribe, are not.
...
>> He has never been able to find one that recommended circumcision.
>>
>
>There are indeed studies which recommend the use of circumcision as a means
>to reduce the rate of HIV infection.
>Why would I need to specifically cite them?
And then you paste in a study that does not recommend circumcision.
>Unlike you and your ilk I am not attempting to influence parents to follow
>my prefered course of action.
Then why do you post here? The only conceivable purpose would be to
influence parents to circumcise.
I readily admit that I post to influence to NOT circumcise. The
evidence shows that it does not provide all the touted health
benefits.
>So I am more interested in quoting and/or stating the facts for people to
>form their own opinions than indulging in speculation as to how they should
>react to such findings.
But if you didn't want them to circumcise, you wouldn't bother.
Lurkers are invited to search Wadi's post for "Recommend" (you want
find it), and then for "circumcise" to see what it really says about
circumcision.
Readers are also invited to think upon Wadi's exhortation that a
"tight" circumcision provides more protection (he has never provided
any evidence). Wadi has posted that he personally has a tight
circumcision, and said that it might be better if it were a little
tighter.
Josephea L. Payne
>Teaching him to masturbate by repeated
>retraction and closure at an early age is perfect training for a healthy
>foeskin.
Just what kind of freak-ass mother actually sits downs with their children and
`teaches` them how to masturbate? Come on, get real.
Josie
wadi
> >> Yes, I found it in the Lancet. It was in the 20 Nov 1999 issue. It
> >> was NOT a research paper. It was an opinion piece. I looked for it
> >> in the "original research" section, but could not find it.
> >>
> >> I found it listed under the editorial section, as a "Viewpoint" piece.
> >>
> >> It was, then, strictly an opinion.
> >>
> >> No peer review.
> >
> >That's the normal 4skincentric approach.
> >First attempt to trivialise the "message".
>
> double standard?
>
heh heh
Double standard?
The difference is simply that the evidence of a connection between the lack
of circumcision and a higher rate of HIV infection is irrefutable.
Hence the use of the tactics I described above (in the previous post).
And the use of the tactics you use below (in this post).
When some 18 months ago I first encountered the anti-circumcision rhetoric
on the web and usenet I suppose I had 3 options.
One, walk away.
Two, assume that there was some merit in the arguments.
Three, take some time to become informed on the issue.
I chose number three.
And what did I find?
That there is less of an anti-circ movement than those of a "pro-foreskin"
persuasion.
In the process I found that the pro-foreskin argument comprised nothing but
exaggeration, misinformation, misrepresentations, deceit and downright lies.
That process was pretty simple and straightforward.
What has been more interesting and keeps me involved in the issue is to
establish what is the real motivation of those behind this pro-foreskin
crusade?
And to tell the truth there are some pretty weird people who share this
peculiar interest in the foreskin.
You are one of them Neal.
> >>
> >> Two guys' (probably both circumcised) opinion.
> >
> >And secondly, "shoot the messengers".
> >
> >>
> >> Wadi has posted many articles about circumcision and HIV.
> >
> >Yes indeed and there are many which find a connection between the lack of
> >circumcision and a higher rate of HIV infection among uncircumcised men
and
> >their wives/partners.
> >
> >Those that wish to read the facts themselves can goto www.aegis.com and
do
> >searches under "circumcision" and "foreskin".
> >
> >Bailey and Halperin are correct when they state:
> >
> >"The evidence is so compelling now, it shouldn't be ignored,"
> >said Bailey. "We have limited tools against the AIDS epidemic.
> >Circumcision could have a huge impact on the HIV pandemic in many
> >developing countries."
>
> Yes, that sounds just like Wiswell when he went to Europe preaching
> circumcision. They knew to ignore him.
Read it again and refute it if you can.
(same old 4skincentric tactic here ... smear the messengers)
> >It is of course interesting to note that the timing and "style" of
> >circumcision plays a significant role in the degree of "protective
effect"
> >against HIV infection accruing through circumsion.
> >
> >The best protective effect is achieved when:
> >
> >The circumcision is carried out before the age of 12 and certainly before
> >the boy becomes sexually active.
> >
> >And when the circumcision is of the "style" called "tight" where there is
> >little if any residual foreskin remaining.
>
> Sounds like you are getting into the fetishes here.
>
I have posted the Gambian study numerous times before in other newsgroups.
So why the crap?
It is really quite simple.
The more residual foreskin the greater the number of Langerhans cells and
there the greater the chances of infection through that route.
> ...
> >Here in South Africa uncircumcised men are now classified in group known
as
> >"super spreaders" along with prositutes etc.
> >The lack of circumcision in men is indeed a public health risk.
>
> Wadi, I can believe this. Particularly since the ruling party,
> members of the Xhosa tribe, are circumcised, and their political
> opponents, the Zulu tribe, are not.
>
heh heh
So this classification is tribally/politically inspired?
Grasping at straws here I am afraid.
Nice try though Neal.
(but not as good a lie as you 4skincentric can normally come up with)
In fact the Xhosa comprise about 13% of the population so the government
draws it's support across the tribal divide (but then you probably knew that
anyway ;-)
> ...
> >> He has never been able to find one that recommended circumcision.
> >>
> >
> >There are indeed studies which recommend the use of circumcision as a
means
> >to reduce the rate of HIV infection.
> >Why would I need to specifically cite them?
>
> And then you paste in a study that does not recommend circumcision.
>
Huh?
Are you really as stupid as you appear to be?
I am not interested in specifically seeking out and posting studies which
recommend circumcision.
I am content with providing evidence of the higher risk of HIV infection
among the uncircumcised and their partners.
This with the specific intention of exposing the deceit in the 4skincentric
assertion that it is in fact the other way around.
And I just love the way you skin freaks squirm when confronted with the
truth.
> >Unlike you and your ilk I am not attempting to influence parents to
follow
> >my prefered course of action.
>
> Then why do you post here? The only conceivable purpose would be to
> influence parents to circumcise.
>
No.
As I have said, to expose the deceit behind the great pro-foreskin lie and
secondly to get to understand the motivation of those who serve to
perpetuate this lie.
> I readily admit that I post to influence to NOT circumcise. The
> evidence shows that it does not provide all the touted health
> benefits.
>
Which evidence is that?
The fact is that there is a net medical benefit accruing through neonatal
circumcision.
We can argue as to the degree if you like but that changes nothing.
In fact I would put it to you that with the HIV connection the health
benefits of circumcision have never been stronger.
That is why you are prepared to go to such lengths to discredit the likes of
Bailey and Halperin.
> >So I am more interested in quoting and/or stating the facts for people to
> >form their own opinions than indulging in speculation as to how they
should
> >react to such findings.
>
> But if you didn't want them to circumcise, you wouldn't bother.
Two points.
One, you are attempting a slur on the basis that I may wish to promote
circumcision.
Within the context of my family and community male circumcision is a given.
No promotion necessary.
And if someone posted to the effect that he recommended circumcision based
on religious, cultural or medical reasons I would have no problem with it.
It is only in the minds of the 4skincentric true believers that the lable of
"circumcision advocate" is considered a slur.
Two, what I bother about is the psychosexual motivation for the foreskin
which prompts you to attempt to slur the Bailey and Halperin and myself when
you are unable to debate the merits of HIV/foreskin connection.
Do you really think the browsers of this group are unable to see through
your pathetic tactics?
> Lurkers are invited to search Wadi's post for "Recommend" (you want
> find it), and then for "circumcise" to see what it really says about
> circumcision.
>
Tell us.
Or are you just going to drop a bit of innuendo?
LOL
> Readers are also invited to think upon Wadi's exhortation that a
> "tight" circumcision provides more protection (he has never provided
> any evidence). Wadi has posted that he personally has a tight
> circumcision, and said that it might be better if it were a little
> tighter.
>
A double lie!!!!!!!
Gosh.
This HIV/foreskin connection must be really hurting your cause.
As stated before the Gambian study has been posted many times before.
It found "Circumcised patients with residual foreskin were more likely to be
HIV-2 infected than patients with complete circumcision."
And me.
While I bow to your superior experience with penises from what I have
gathered I have what would be termed a loose circumcision and NOT a tight
circumcision.
Yes this I have stated before.
So why the lie?
Why all the lies?
==========================
Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer diseases among male
sexually transmitted disease patients in The Gambia.
AIDS. 1992 May;6(5):489-93. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/92313560
Pepin J; Quigley M; Todd J; Gaye I; Janneh M; Van Dyck E; Piot P; Whittle H;
Medical Research Council Laboratories, Fajara, The Gambia.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether genital ulcer diseases are
cofactors which enhance the transmission of HIV-2 in West Africa. DESIGN: A
cross-sectional study of 435 men presenting with a sexually transmitted
disease (STD). SETTING: The outpatient clinic of the Medical Research
Council Laboratories, a primary care facility in Fajara, a suburb of Banjul,
the capital city of The Gambia (West Africa). PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Six
hundred and twenty-four men presenting with a genital complaint, of whom 443
had an STD. Eight of the men with an STD were excluded from further analysis
because they were HIV-1-infected (five patients) or had indeterminate
Western blot patterns (three patients). The remaining 21 HIV-2-infected and
414 seronegative men constituted our study-group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Participants were questioned about previous STD and behavioural and
demographic characteristics. A physical examination was performed and serum
collected for measurement of antibodies against Haemophilus ducreyi and
Treponema pallidum. RESULTS: HIV-2-infected men were more likely than
HIV-seronegative participants to have previously had a genital ulcer [odds
ratio (OR), 3.00; 95% confidence interval (Cl), 1.18-7.60] and to have
antibodies against T. pallidum (OR, 5.95; 95% Cl, 2.10-16.91), or H. ducreyi
(OR, 4.59; 95% Cl, 1.71-12.33). Circumcised patients with residual foreskin
were more likely to be HIV-2 infected than patients with complete
circumcision. HIV-2-seropositive patients were six times more likely to have
generalized lymphadenopathy than their seronegative counterparts.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that genital ulcerative diseases, such as
syphilis and chancroid, are probably cofactors that increase the
transmission of HIV-2 in West Africa, and that HIV-2 infection frequently
results in generalized lymphadenopathy.
Scott Strohm
Thanks for posting your message with information about the ongoing
mutilation of boy babies. And thanks for maintaining your Web site.
/Scott Strohm
themomma
whole...now that the big argument on to circumcise or not has been
debated...my opinion...I have none...I haven't got a penis...my sons...that
was hubby's choice...he had a partial circumcision...long
story....anyhow...I am bored otherwise I would not be wasting my time
entertaining this debate...hmmmmmm....I need to find a better hobby
wadi wrote in message <8778vg$a2a$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>...
Cush
This looks like a pretty good reason for circumcision to me.
None of the circ'd men in the study contracted the aids
virus. From CNN/Health, today:
http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/inde
x.html
wadi
Cush <cush...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:87dlco$505a$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> This looks like a pretty good reason for circumcision to me.
> None of the circ'd men in the study contracted the aids
> virus. From CNN/Health, today:
>
> http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/inde
> x.html
>
That URL did not post correctly, it should be:
http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/index.html
Yes there is indeed an overwhelming body of evidence relating to the lack of
circumcision and a higher rate of HIV infection among the uncircumcised and
their wives/partners.
While Dr. Thomas Quinn appears not to understand the infection mechanism and
any other factors which may contribute to infection or otherwise that of
course does not indicate that these are indeed unknown.
I recommend that you (or I should really suggest Dr. Thomas Quinn) goto
www.aegis.com and do searches under "circumcision", "foreskin" and
"langerhans cells" to get clarity on these issues.
You suggest it is a pretty good reason to circumcise.
My opinion (based on my own background) is that it is yet another "pretty
good reason" why I would not cease the practice within the context of my
family.
There is another published article which relates to the protective effect of
circumcision iro of HIV:
========================
UCSF NEWS SERVICES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
7 PM (EST), Thursday, November 18, 1999
TO COINCIDE WITH PUBLICATION IN THE LANCET
JOINT RELEASE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO AND
THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
MALE CIRCUMCISION COULD PREVENT MILLIONS OF HIV INFECTIONS
A simple, outpatient procedure could potentially save millions of
men and their partners from becoming infected with HIV, but
health professionals have been reluctant to provide the needed
information and resources, say the authors of a Lancet editorial
review.
The procedure is circumcision, a practice widely accepted in the
United States but less common in many other parts of the world.
Despite numerous epidemiological studies showing an association
between lack of male circumcision and HIV transmission, training
and resources for the procedure are lacking in the countries hit
hardest by the AIDS pandemic, the authors said.
Daniel Halperin, PhD, UCSF assistant adjunct professor of
community health systems and medical anthropology, and Robert
Bailey, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology in the School of
Public Health and of anthropology at the University of Illinois
at Chicago, are co-authors of the editorial.
"The evidence is so compelling now, it shouldn't be ignored,"
said Bailey. "We have limited tools against the AIDS epidemic.
Circumcision could have a huge impact on the HIV pandemic in many
developing countries."
Researchers have put the relative risk of heterosexual HIV
Neal
wrote:
>
>This looks like a pretty good reason for circumcision to me.
>None of the circ'd men in the study contracted the aids
>virus. From CNN/Health, today:
>
>http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/inde
>x.html
Please explain why the USA, with the highest circumcision rate in the
industiralized world, has the highest AIDS rate in the industrialized
world.
There are studies that show that religion is more important in HIV
infection rates than circumcision. Do you propose that people raise
their children in one of the religions with the lower HIV rates?
Anyone who will trust circumcision to protect them from AIDS deserves
what they will get.
Modifying risky behaviors reduces AIDS. It is the only thing that
does.
jpri...@escape.ca
----------
In article <j3bt9s0827805vce8...@4ax.com>, Neal
<neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:41:54 -0800, "Cush" <cush...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>This looks like a pretty good reason for circumcision to me.
>>None of the circ'd men in the study contracted the aids
>>virus. From CNN/Health, today:
>>
>>http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/inde
>>x.html
>
> Please explain why the USA, with the highest circumcision rate in the
> industiralized world, has the highest AIDS rate in the industrialized
> world.
The relationship of circumcision and HIV transmission relates to
transmission from an intected female to and uninfected male - entry through
the penis.
In the United States, HIV has been largely confined to Gay society and the
drug culture where entry through the penis is not the primary route of
transmission
> There are studies that show that religion is more important in HIV
> infection rates than circumcision. Do you propose that people raise
> their children in one of the religions with the lower HIV rates?
> Anyone who will trust circumcision to protect them from AIDS deserves
> what they will get.
A circumcised male does have a reduced chance of contracting the disease
from an infected female in any give incident.
> Modifying risky behaviors reduces AIDS. It is the only thing that
> does.
Only total abstinence is 100% effective. But is it practical?
Few, if any, other things are 100% effective but that does not mean that
they don't help - seal belts and condoms as examples.
Condoms are not 100% effective.
We have to be practical in this imperfect world.
wadi
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:41:54 -0800, "Cush" <cush...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >This looks like a pretty good reason for circumcision to me.
> >None of the circ'd men in the study contracted the aids
> >virus. From CNN/Health, today:
> >
> >http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/inde
> >x.html
>
> Please explain why the USA, with the highest circumcision rate in the
> industiralized world, has the highest AIDS rate in the industrialized
> world.
Yes that is the old line of the 4skincentric.
The inferrence that circumcision in fact contributes to a higher rate of HIV
infection.
Shall we go through it one more time Neal?
The 1998 UNAIDS report indicated that in the US the means of infection were
as follows:
Heterosexual 13%
Homosexual 52%
Intravenous Drug Use 33%
Blood 2%
First off.
IDU and blood infection do not involve a penis and therefore circumcision
status is not relevant.
Thats 35%
Of the homosexually infected the circumcision status of the anally receptive
partner is irrelevant.
What you say Neal, insertive/receptive - 50-50?
Ok another 26% of infections which have no correlation with the circumcision
staus of the infectee.
In heterosexual transmission women are at a 2-3 times higher risk than males
of infection.
So lets say 5% of heterosexual transmissions are male.
Thats another 8% off.
So 35+26+8=69
In 69% of HIV infections in the US the circumcision status of the infected
party has no relevance.
Of the remaining 31% where the penis appears to be the route of infection
the following applies:
US based studies among MSM (men who have sex with men) have found a three
times higher risk of infection among the uncircumcised. In addition the
protective effect accruing through circumcision is little help to a man who
repeatedly indulges in unprotected insertive anal sex. Unprotected anal sex
is much more risky than unprotected vaginal sex.
The pattern of heterosexual infection in the US is such that the rates are
much higher among Hispanics and African-Americans where circumcision is
practised at lower rates.
So the HIV+ women have a higher likelihood of having been infected by an
uncircumcised man.
This bears out studies from elsewhere that the wives/partners of
uncircumcised men are at a three times higher risk of HIV infection.
Of the 31% whose circumcision status matters the literature is clear that
lack of circumcision is a significant factor in the likelihood of HIV
infection.
Anymore red herrings?
> There are studies that show that religion is more important in HIV
> infection rates than circumcision. Do you propose that people raise
> their children in one of the religions with the lower HIV rates?
Do you always ask such silly questions?
The study at the bottom of the post "Religion, behaviours, and circumcision
as determinants of HIV dynamics in rural Uganda" answers some of the
questions.
"Conclusions: Lower rates of HIV infection among Pentecostals appear to be
associated with less alcohol consumption, sexual abstinence and fewer sexual
partners, whereas the low HIV prevalence in Muslims appears to be associated
with low reported alcohol consumption and male circumcision."
The factors which led to a lower HIV infection rate were:
- less alcohol consumption
- sexual abstinence
- fewer sexual partners
- male circumcision
This occurred in an environment where low condom use was reported.
The difference between the Pentecostals and Muslims is that despite having
the highest rate for the number of sexual partners the Muslims had the
lowest rate of HIV infection.
So really there is more to this than religious affiliation.
> Anyone who will trust circumcision to protect them from AIDS deserves
> what they will get.
Who is suggesting that men behave recklessly and "trust circumcision" to
protect them from HIV infection?
That is a ridiculous assertion.
What we know is that circumcision provides a protective effect against HIV
infection.
That means simply that when exposed to the virus circumcised men have a
significantly lower rate of infection.
Does anyone really "deserve" to become infected with HIV?
For one you seeks to present himself as a caring "child rights activist"
that is indeed a pretty strong position to take.
But then that is not altogether unexpected.
Bailey and Halperin found "that the practice of
male circumcision has so far prevented at least 8 million HIV
infections in the 15 African and Asian countries cited in the
editorial review alone."
Yet you continue to deny the protective effect of circumcision in respect of
HIV infection.
You give the distinct impression that you would rather have another 8
million men, women and children infected with HIV than accept that the
foreskin is a public health risk in this regard.
I guess you must have one BIG obsession for the foreskin.
> Modifying risky behaviors reduces AIDS. It is the only thing that
> does.
>
Almost.
There is no doubt that circumcision reduces the rate of HIV infection.
A circumcised man who indulges in unsafe sexual activity is of course at
risk.
Nobody is denying that.
Like playing "Russian Roulette" with one bullet in the revolver.
On the other hand an uncircumcised man who indulges in unsafe sex would be
playing "Russian Roulette" with two bullets.
Studies have also found that the use of substances (alcohol, drugs etc.)
prior to sex results in a greater likelihood of safe sex not being
practised.
Thus despite the best of intentions under such circumstances a man may well
be exposed to the virus.
Under such circumstances the protective effect of circumcision is indeed
meaningful.
=========================
(AIDSLINE) Religion, behaviours, and circumcision as determinants of HIV
dynamics in rural Uganda.
Int Conf AIDS. 1996 Jul 7-12;11(2):483 (abstract no. Pub.D.1294). Unique
Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/96925734
Kiwanuka N; Gray R; Sewankambo NK; Serwadda D; Wawer M; Li C; Rakai Project,
Entebbe, Uganda.
Abstract: Objectives: To determine the association between religion and HIV
infection, and to assess the behaviours and characteristics that might
explain differentials in HIV between religious denominations in rural
Uganda. Methods: As part of the baseline visit in a randomized community STD
mass treatment for HIV prevention, we collected information on HIV
prevalence, socio-demographic characteristics and behaviours including
alcohol consumption, number of sexual partners and sexual abstinence from
6366 females and 5148 males. Results: HIV infection was significantly higher
among Catholics (19.9%) and Protestants (19.2%), than among Muslims (14.5%)
and Saved/Pentecostal sects (14.6%). These differentials in HIV prevalence
by religion appeared to be associated with differentials in risk
behaviours/characteristics. Alcohol consumption in the last 30 days was
higher among Catholics 64.3%) and Protestants (50.1%), than among Muslims
(3.7%) and Saved/Pentecostal (3.4%). Saved/Pentecostals were less likely to
have two or more sexual partners (12.4% males, 1.0% females) compared to
other religions; Catholics (27.6% males, 4.3% females), Protestants (26.9%
males, 3.2% females), Muslims (39.4% males, 3.0% females). Abstinence was
higher among Saved (38.6%) when compared to other religions (22.7% in
Catholics, 22.6% in Protestants, 19.1% in Muslims). Male circumcision was
highest among Muslims (98.0%), with less than 5.0% males in other sects
being circumcised. Muslims were more likely to have been circumcised during
infancy (85.4%) whereas male circumcision in adherents of other religions
was rare and tended to occur in adult hood. Alcohol consumption was
associated with increased HIV infection (RR 1.42; CI 1.31-1.53), current
sexual abstinence was associated with somewhat lower HIV risk (RR=0.91; CI
0.84-1.0), circumcision at birth was also associated with reduced HIV risk
RR=0.57; CI 0.45-0.73). Conclusions: Lower rates of HIV infection among
Pentecostals appear to be associated with less alcohol consumption, sexual
abstinence and fewer sexual partners, whereas the low HIV prevalence in
Muslims appears to be associated with low reported alcohol consumption and
male circumcision.
========================
Steve
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:41:54 -0800, "Cush" <cush...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >This looks like a pretty good reason for circumcision to me.
> >None of the circ'd men in the study contracted the aids
> >virus. From CNN/Health, today:
> >
> >http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/01/31/aids.circumcision/inde
> >x.html
>
> Please explain why the USA, with the highest circumcision rate in the
> industiralized world, has the highest AIDS rate in the industrialized
> world.
>
> infection rates than circumcision. Do you propose that people raise
> their children in one of the religions with the lower HIV rates?
>
> what they will get.
>
> does.
Indeed. Various agenda-driven anti-gay bigot-trolls have been hawking
this on every newsgroup they can stick it into. If you believe that
study you'll believe in supposed "creationist-science"!!
-Steve
Neal
>Who is suggesting that men behave recklessly and "trust circumcision" to
>protect them from HIV infection?
You do. You totally ignore the behaviors that cause HIV, even when
they are much more important than circumcision. When some one points
out that a study you posted lists circumcision as the fifth or sixth
most important factor, or that the study does not recommend
circumcision, while recommending behavior modifications, you ignore
that post and post different study, promising parents that
circumcision is the total answer for their child. I suspect that you
have a circumcision fetish.
>That is a ridiculous assertion.
>What we know is that circumcision provides a protective effect against HIV
>infection.
Maybe. But no one should confuse a statistical "a protective effect"
with "effective protection." (Especially when so many factors are not
being controlled for).
The bottom line is that if an individual is going to engage in risky
behaviors, they will eventually get a HIV infection, regardless of
their circumcision status.
wadi
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 06:48:49 +0200, "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Who is suggesting that men behave recklessly and "trust circumcision" to
> >protect them from HIV infection?
>
Why the lie Neal?
Can you quote a post where I have stated this?
> You totally ignore the behaviors that cause HIV, even when
> they are much more important than circumcision.
Give me a break.
I live in an environment where the HIV+ rate among aduts is in the upper
20's%
Most people around here are very aware of what behavior places them at risk
of becoming HIV infected.
The simple fact is that when the penis comes into contact with the virus the
incircumcised have a 2 to 8 times higher risk of becoming infected.
This situation has an implication for the partners of uncircumcised men as
well in that they are at a three times higher risk of infection because of
the lack of circumcision of their uncircumcised insertive partner.
Those are the simple facts Neal.
> When some one points
> out that a study you posted lists circumcision as the fifth or sixth
> most important factor, or that the study does not recommend
> circumcision, while recommending behavior modifications, you ignore
> that post and post different study, promising parents that
> circumcision is the total answer for their child.
I appreciate that given your peculiar obsession for the foreskin and your
emotional kneejerk reaction to any information which is not foreskin
friendly you are likely to miss the nuances.
There are two separate issues here.
One is the fact of the greater risk of HIV infection among the uncircumcised
and their wives/partners.
This is a simple fact.
People who wish to become informed as to the evidence can goto www.aegis.com
and do searches under "circumcision", "foreskin" and "langerhans cells".
There is the second issue.
That being of how people should react to this information.
There are those who recommend circumcision as one branch of the strategy to
slow the infection rate of HIV.
There are others who make no such recommendation.
Where such a decision is being considered it needs to be bourne in mind that
the best protective effect is achieved through a circumcision carried out
before the age of 12 (and certainly before the boy becomes sexually active)
and where there is little residual foreskin remaining.
That places the decision firmly in the hands of parents.
> I suspect that you
> have a circumcision fetish.
heh heh
Nice try Neal.
(Try using facts if you have any)
> >That is a ridiculous assertion.
> >What we know is that circumcision provides a protective effect against
HIV
> >infection.
>
> Maybe.
Not maybe.
For sure.
You are just in denial over the issue.
> But no one should confuse a statistical "a protective effect"
> with "effective protection." (Especially when so many factors are not
> being controlled for).
And this "statistical" protective effect is significant.
Too significant for all but the most dedicated foreskin obsessed individuals
to ignore.
If you had bothered to read the studies you would have found that
researcher's have become more focussed on controlling for all the possible
"factors".
This process of ensuring the absolute accuracy of the findings is citical
prior to forming public health policy in this regard.
What is clear is that the foreskin is a public health risk.
But public health policy has yet to make any recommendations in this regard.
I guess you find the likelihood of a less than foreskin friendly policy to
be too horrible to contemplate.
> The bottom line is that if an individual is going to engage in risky
> behaviors, they will eventually get a HIV infection, regardless of
> their circumcision status.
>
Again, not quite.
As we have been through all this many times before I must assume that this
cute little soundbite is a crude attempt to decieve.
That of course should read.
"If an idividual is going to engage in risky behaviors" the uncircumcised
are at a significantly higher risk of becoming infected with HIV.
Thomas and Nancy Jones
Steve wrote:
> Sue wrote:
> >
> > Long term memory does not kick in until age 2.
> --------------
> Not precisely correct. I have memories of an item in our house that was
> then removed entirely when I was 9 months old, and playing around it.
>
> A number of researchers have noted a difference in the neurology of
> circumcised (note spelling) versus non-circumcised males, boys and men.
> The circumcised seem to be more easily frightened and less investigative
> than their uncircumcised mates. And this doesn't even deal with the fact
> that it is entirely medically unnecesary, reduces their sexual sensation
> and diameter which is prized by sexually aware women,
EXCUSE ME? This means that because I'm not hung up on "hung like a horse" I'm
not sexually aware? Oh well, color me clueless, but I like what my man's got.
> and is an
> inherently extremely dishonoring act of mutilation which they can
> clearly find cause to resent or even hate the parents who did this.
Only an otherwise neurotic twit would hate the parents who did that.
>
>
> > I doubt that all of these
> > little boys who were circumscribed still remember what they went through at
> > age 2-3 days.
> ---------------
> Memory proper, no, likely not, but the neuro-biology can be altered by
> trauma, biochemically, and this has been noted in early infants
> subjected to necessary surgeries.
>
> > This is a heated topic too and I know that my thoughts on it
> > are not popular, but I see no harm in circumscribing a boy. There are many
> > medical reasons that are in favor of circumcision.
> ------------
> No there are not according to the AMA. They indicate it is ONLY a
> religious practice, not a medical one.
Actually, the AMA takes NO stand on it. There are, whether you care to admit it
or not, indications that may link lower cancer rates in the prostate and testes
in circumcised males, lower rates of urethral cancer and other infections in that
area, and lower incidents of yeast infections.
>
>
> > And personally, I like it
> > better. I think that, that woman is beating herself up for nothing. My
> > thoughts only, so don't flame me.
> >
> > Sue B.
> ----------------
> Part of this feeling among women is merely xenophobia,
wrong--it's pure preference. Deal.
> they aren't as
> used to seeing an uncirc'd penis, and in this antisexual culture it
> makes them feel very uncomfortable to handle their son's penis in
> washing, which is important and quite simple. It brings up issues of
> guilt around thoughts of incest, which are overplayed today. When "au
> natural" first came back in nobody seemed to remember what people used
> to do, and for a while there was a rush to retract the foreskin of a
> newborn for frantic cleaning. This was found to be silly and painful, as
> the foreskin is naturally adhered forward to the corona of the helmet of
> the glans till mid-childhood anyway, age five or six. The boy needs to
> be told to wash inside as well as possible and to advise parents of any
> inflammation, whereupon a trisporic or bacitracin ointment on a Q-tip is
> sufficient swabbed around inside a couple days.
>
> When the mouth of the foreskin finally stretches enough to retract due
> to growth or activity or erection the adhesion will pull loose and full
> retraction will occur. The mouth of the foreskin must be stretched and
> fully retracted long before full growth or it can harbor infection. The
> boy can be advised to retract it when urinating as soon as he can manage
> to do that, and to retract it and wash thereafter when showering, and to
> dry it well, that's all. Teaching him to masturbate by repeated
> retraction and closure at an early age is perfect training for a healthy
> foeskin. Nothing else is needed once he can do that and wash with it
> fully retracted. Remember, this stupid operation was promoted by the
> nutcake Kellog boys of battle creek, mich, who thought that having a
> foreskin promoted masturbation. Well it does, and so what!?? That's
> totally normal, don't people expect orgasn to remain healthy through
> use?? Morons!
> Steve
>
> ---more---
> > > My son is circumcised. I won't apologize to him for having done it, and
> > > later, I'm pretty sure that he won't hold it against me. However, if I
> > > had decided against it, and he, as an adult, decided to have it done, I'm
> > > pretty sure he'd be mad at me then. From men who have had it done as
> > > adults (three different men) I've heard that their doctors told them that
> > > it would take much longer for them to heal than had it been done in
> > > infancy--approximately two or three weeks, as opposed to three days to be
> > > completely healed for my son.
> ---------------------
> Yes, but virtually NOBODY wants it done as an adult! And no, this
> surgery and healing is very overblown. Docs like to use this little
> talk as a selling point for circumcision, for which they get a fat fee.
Oh well, If I was selling vacuum cleaners, I'd want to sell as many as possible.
You haven't shown that it causes harm, just that you're neurotic and thinks every
other man who gets circumcised will be too.
>
>
> > > My child is not sexually mutilated. He's protected from some of those
> > > discomforts that have been linked to uncircumcised men, however seemingly
> > > insignificant to you.
> -------------------
> There aren't any statistically significant "discomforts" or "diseases"
> connected with remaining natural.
Yes, there are, and, like your statistics, they're "linked to" these things, not
corrolarily proven.
> The very few case histories which are
> used time and again are being repeated constantly by Jewish groups,
> notably, for fear that we might decide to ban this barbaric practice as
> a couple European nations have done as a form of child abuse. These case