Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Four trials have evaluated male circumcision as an STI prevention intervention; 3 evaluated STI endpoints among male subjects randomized to either immediate or delayed circumcision (58–62). The fourth assessed the impact of STI risk among wives of men randomized to the procedure (63). Male circumcision appears to provide significant protection against viral STIs. In addition to the 50%–60% reduction in HIV acquisition consistently demonstrated (108–110), HPV prevalence was reduced by about one-third (61, 62), and HSV-2 incidence was reduced by 28% (62) in the trials that assessed these endpoints.
From the first link, here's the relevant section:
Quote:Four trials have evaluated male circumcision as an STI prevention intervention; 3 evaluated STI endpoints among male subjects randomized to either immediate or delayed circumcision. The fourth assessed the impact of STI risk among wives of men randomized to the procedure. Male circumcision appears to provide significant protection against viral STIs. In addition to the 50%–60% reduction in HIV acquisition consistently demonstrated, HPV prevalence was reduced by about one-third, and HSV-2 incidence was reduced by 28% in the trials that assessed these endpoints.
The impact of male circumcision on curable STIs was mixed. Circumcision reduced T. vaginalis acquisition by almost half among wives of men who were circumcised in Uganda and among circumcised men, themselves, in South Africa, although the latter was of borderline significance. However, prevention of T. vaginalis infection was not demonstrated among circumcised men in the Kenyan RCT. Mixed results were also observed for chlamydial infection. Although a borderline significant reduction in chlamydia of >40% was observed among circumcised men in South Africa, the procedure did not protect men in the Kenyan RCT. Neither trial that assessed gonorrhea observed a protective effect of circumcision, nor did the 1 trial that reported syphilis results, which had limited power to evaluate this endpoint.
The male circumcision trials were all conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and were powered primarily to evaluate the efficacy of the procedure in preventing HIV. Follow-up rates were over 90% in the 3 trials that reported this information, and adherence was not an issue for this surgical intervention.
According to the last paragraph, the findings are based on sub-Saharan African samples. The problem with this is that you can't just unconditionally generalise all these findings to Western populations.
Also, notice the mixed and conflicting findings among these trials and how the report here is not as confident as you appear to be regarding the health benefits of circumcision.
Condoms protect against STI's far more effectively than cutting.
And for the record, MH - I'm against slicing into a kid without their consent regardless. When they're old enough to make a cosmetic decision, they can make it.
June 11, 2016 at 9:34 pm (This post was last modified: June 11, 2016 at 9:35 pm by Athene.)
Despite meticulous hygiene, the skin underneath the foreskin is naturally dark, warm, and often moist; An ideal place for Candida/yeast to thrive. As an oxygen-deprived area, it is particularly susceptible to anaerobic bacteria. Unless one keeps the foreskin retracted at ALL times, microbes will accumulate on the skin underneath the area at a much higher rate than that of the average circumcised penis; Regardless of attention to personal hygiene.
These ongoing assertions that circumcision offers absolutely NO benefit in the way of health/hygiene that can't just as easily be addressed through personal cleanliness are untrue. I'm personally NOT of the opinion that this "benefit" is worth having the procedure done on an infant, as the presence of microbes doesn't always indicate infection and in the event that infection does occur, it can usually be addressed through simple interventions; Even as a result of the body's own defenses.
But, facts are facts.
Being informed is a two-way street in regards to this issue, as well as being honest. If the goal is to actually encourage parents to reconsider choosing circumcision, it would best be done without glossing over the truth, making unfair comparisons, and resorting to vitriolic attacks and insults. It only serves to make SOME opponents of the procedure appear to be desperate, hyper-emotional and somewhat fanatical.
(June 11, 2016 at 9:34 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Despite meticulous hygiene, the skin underneath the foreskin is naturally dark, warm, and often moist; An ideal place for Candida/yeast to thrive. As an oxygen-deprived area, it is particularly susceptible to anaerobic bacteria. Unless one keeps the foreskin retracted at ALL times, microbes will accumulate on the skin underneath the area at a much higher rate than that of the average circumcised penis; Regardless of attention to personal hygiene.
These ongoing assertions that circumcision offers absolutely NO benefit in the way of health/hygiene that can't just as easily be addressed through personal cleanliness are untrue. I'm personally NOT of the opinion that this "benefit" is worth having the procedure done on an infant, as the presence of microbes doesn't always indicate infection and in the event that infection does occur, it can usually be addressed through simple interventions; Even as a result of the body's own defenses.
But, facts are facts.
Being informed is a two-way street in regards to this issue, as well as being honest. If the goal is to actually encourage parents to reconsider choosing circumcision, it would best be done without glossing over the truth, making unfair comparisons, and resorting to vitriolic attacks and insults. It only serves to make SOME opponents of the procedure appear to be desperate, hyper-emotional and somewhat fanatical.
That's isn't the way to change minds.
FGM also offers health benefits, so? You can argue for almost any procedure having health benefits.
June 11, 2016 at 9:44 pm (This post was last modified: June 11, 2016 at 9:56 pm by Athene.)
(June 11, 2016 at 9:38 pm)Irrational Wrote:
(June 11, 2016 at 9:34 pm)Thena323 Wrote:
Despite meticulous hygiene, the skin underneath the foreskin is naturally dark, warm, and often moist; An ideal place for Candida/yeast to thrive. As an oxygen-deprived area, it is particularly susceptible to anaerobic bacteria. Unless one keeps the foreskin retracted at ALL times, microbes will accumulate on the skin underneath the area at a much higher rate than that of the average circumcised penis; Regardless of attention to personal hygiene.
These ongoing assertions that circumcision offers absolutely NO benefit in the way of health/hygiene that can't just as easily be addressed through personal cleanliness are untrue. I'm personally NOT of the opinion that this "benefit" is worth having the procedure done on an infant, as the presence of microbes doesn't always indicate infection and in the event that infection does occur, it can usually be addressed through simple interventions; Even as a result of the body's own defenses.
But, facts are facts.
Being informed is a two-way street in regards to this issue, as well as being honest. If the goal is to actually encourage parents to reconsider choosing circumcision, it would best be done without glossing over the truth, making unfair comparisons, and resorting to vitriolic attacks and insults. It only serves to make SOME opponents of the procedure appear to be desperate, hyper-emotional and somewhat fanatical.
That's isn't the way to change minds.
FGM also offers health benefits, so? You can argue for almost any procedure having health benefits.
That wasn't my point, as I wasn't arguing for circumcision.
The point was that parties should honest and/or informed on both sides, if the goal is to effect change.
Just thought it was important to put this out there.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane"- sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable."- Maryam Namazie
June 11, 2016 at 9:49 pm (This post was last modified: June 11, 2016 at 9:57 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
(June 11, 2016 at 9:12 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I voted yes, much cleaner look [...]
Really - that's an argument? "Cleaner look"? Pray tell - how does one measure the "cleanliness" of a look of a penis? Because it sounds like an arbitrary value judgement to me - the kind of rationalization someone would make up, if they wanted to justify a preconceived notion, with no actual facts available. Personally - I think cut d*ck looks sad, ugly, unnatural, and dirty - not only because people, who had it done seem to think, that they don't have to wash it now, but also because the head scrapes against dirty underwear all the time...
But hey - whatever helps you sleep at night, without the urge to punch your mom in the mouth for mutilating your body ...
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
I'm not sold on the health benefits of circumcision. The studies I've found all show a negligible benefit. For instance, this study claims that less bacteria grow on circumcised penises, but the amounts were only 15 - 23% less. They say that's a significant drop, but to me that just demonstrates that men need to clean their penises regardless of whether they have foreskin.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
