By L. K. Regan
Published Sep 03, 2009
In late August the New York Times reported that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were considering, for the first time, issuing a recommendation on male circumcision. Speculation abounded that they would recommend circumcision of boys (and in some high-risk cases, adult men) to help prevent STD transmission, in particular HIV. This was shortly followed by further research indicating that circumcision has little impact on HIV transmission for men who have sex with men (MSM). In the wake of this news, the already raging controversy over circumcision, and the CDC's role in promoting it, has deepened even further.
In recent years circumcision—particularly adult circumcision—has become an important element in HIV prevention in Africa. According to the
World Health Organization, "There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda and Orange Farm, South Africa that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." Circumcision is relatively rare in Africa in comparison to the U.S., where circumcision rates in newborns are around 60 percent. A recommendation for circumcision for the U.S. would largely reaffirm a common cultural practice, though circumcisions have been in steady decline here as well over the last couple of decades.
But such a broad-based circumcision promotion does not appear to speak to the health needs of gay men, and could in fact lead to a false sense of security. AIDS in Africa is transmitted primarily through heterosexual contact; in the U.S., sex between men accounts for over half of new HIV cases each year, though gay men are only four percent of the population. And a CDC study presented at an HIV/AIDS conference in Atlanta in the same week as the recommendation controversy indicates that circumcision will do little to prevent those cases.
The CDC study surveyed roughly 4,900 men who had anal sex with HIV-positive male partners. The infection rate was about 3.5 percent whether the men were circumcised or not—there was no measurable difference. As the study concluded, circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in preventing the spread of HIV among MSM, meaning that the CDC is rethinking its guidelines. According to Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for CDC's division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, the CDC may still recommend circumcision for infants and high-risk heterosexual men, or may simply counsel improved education for doctors and parents about risks and benefits. Even so, the inapplicability of circumcision to the majority of HIV transmissions in the U.S. throws into doubt the wisdom of making a recommendation at all.
According to the CDC's
website, "Whatever [their] content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary. While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately the decision will rest with individuals and parents." No adult will be forced to undergo the procedure—though, of course, babies have little choice in the matter.
I completely agree with the statement that an unclean penis is more the culprit in the spread of disease than the status of your foreskin. My point is that to say "because your foreskin is dirty, we should remove it" is akin to saying "because X body part is dirty, we should remove it". The answer is to be CLEAN. If my penis is not clean, my partner should say "Wash that thing off before you stick it in me!" rather than "Cut that skin off before you stick it in me!". Much like teaching people to wash their hads after using the restroom will help stop the flu, washing other body arts will help stop the spread of other diseases.
But as other people have said, clean or no, nothing will stop the spread of HIV other than safe sex. Scrub your cock/ass with bleach all you want, and circumcised or not you will still get HIV if you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected.
And having been uncircumsised for 37 years, my penis is also clean enough to eat off of! =D (Usually that is... after riding a bike for 30 miles, I may need to wash... but that has lessto do with foreskin / smegma / etc. and more to do with sweating my ASS off! LOL)
The idea that getting circumcised will keep a male from getting aids or any disease is really the wrong idea to put out there. The fact is, if you are circumcised and you have sex with a male that is hiv+ then you will get aids. Being cut or uncut has nothing to do with it. Keeping the head of your penis clean is something each male should do. You can tell when a male that has been circumcised is not keeping his penis clean also. I have been a uncut male for 50 years and I can tell you this: my penis is clean enough to eat off of it. lol
Unfortunately not all uncircumcised men wash as they know they should. This is not BS, it is Real Life experience sadly gathered over many years. Now that we know for sure that Smegma (cockhead sweat) carries the cancer starting Human Papilloma Virus strains 18 & 16 within its oily secretions then until ALL uncircumcised men must take their social responsibilities a little more seriously or all is lost. They MUST learn to wash themselves under the foreskin at least twice a day. The European epidemia of Chlamydia is a case in point. Sure there are Chlamydia epidemics everywhere but it is the sheer scale of this in Europe that dwarfs anything else. This most certainly does have something to do with the fact that Europeans don't circumcise their sons
To deny this is to stick your head in the sand. The same goes for a myriad of other cross infections and diseases.. Your choice ?? Which comes first ? The Greater Public Interest or the Individual Right ?? At present the "Jury is Out". but the verdict will come and i know it will swing in favor of the cut.
Undfortunately, so many people assume that uncut = dirty smegma filled foreskin. If people are taught the same basics of hygeine for their genitals and anal areas as they are for the rest of their bodies, we wouldn't have any of the issues people are describing below... at least as far as those cleanliness issues are concerned. (Can you imagine the following coversation? "Did you wash behind your ears? No? You never learned to correctly wash behind your ears? Then I guess we should cut them off if you cannot keep them clean - ears spread SO many diseases!").
Speaking from personal experience, I have known several Asians who were horrified to find that Americans do not wash their ass after defecating. The fact that we only use dry toilet paper and thats usually all is disgusting to them, and many would not even consider sex with an America (anal or otherwise) without a shower first (not a bad idea!) because of the smell and lack of persoanl hyeine so many of us seem to have in those areas.
vanguard2010 had just about correct! 'nough said ...............
Absolutely ! It's a no brainer. Universal circumcision would help eliminate so many diseases and viruses. It's not the ultimate cure but it does save your kids having to be injected with dubious vaccines that may have very unpleasant long term lifetime effects. As for the pleasure argument, well, that is so much BS !! I was circumcized aged 44 and I have not lost any pleasure from sex. Far from it, but as far as the Anti Circumcision fetishists go " there is no way a donkey can think beyond the carrot " !!
So much misinformation here by the usual anti-circumcision fanatics...
Circumcision is proven to reduce the risk of numerous diseases and other harmful conditions, including penile cancer, HPV, and HIV (though not for the bottom in anal sex since the rectal cavity is so prone to infection). While I have no problem with uncut dicks, being cut has numerous health advantages that make it well worthwhile, plain and simple. The uncut zealots need to just accept this and stop denying hard scientific data and common sense.
So much misinformation here by the usual anti-circumcision fanatics...
Circumcision is proved to reduce the risk of numerous diseases and other harmful conditions, including penile cancer, HPV, and HIV (though not for the bottom in anal sex since the rectal cavity is so prone to infection). While I have no problem with uncut dicks, being cut has numerous health advantages that make it well worthwhile, plain and simple. The uncut zealots need to just accept this and stop denying hard scientific data and common sense.
Case in point, these previous two responses.
Man, I've been circumsize a lot's of years ago. No HIV. Just always use the condom. Lots of pleasue without fear
People who want to believe that the foreskin is the source of any evil will not change their minds and that is predominantly US americans. The hang ups and myths in the USA about uncut is legend and appalling. In the early 20th century thanks once again to the non separation of Church and Government, circumcision (genital mutilation) just after birth became the norm as a means of reducing or inhibiting masturbation at maturity. So was everyone convinced. There is no more or less disease, infection, or anything with an uncut penis. If that were the case most of Europe and South America, Australia would have reduced male populations, which they don't. This is just another mind fuck by religion, medical profession and politicos. The sexual sensation is very different and enhanced with a foreskin. But just think of all the dollars to be lost if no one was circumcised. Even the religious reasons are nothing to do with a deity but infection in antiquity when people were not clean and knew nothing about hygiene. Thus the jewish and moslem traditions of washing hands and feet. The first awakening to cleanliness.
"Because the major problem does not reside in the foreskin. The anus is the problematic area. It was not designed to receive foreign bodies, even if it is physically possible. Get off anal sex and HIV and AIDS will decrease."
Quoted for truth and because it's not often I see words as true as these on RJ.
I doubt this truth will be embraced on a widespread level anytime soon though. Once a person has rationalized a behavior as acceptable, it's almost impossible to convince that person to change that behavior. No matter how detrimental that behavior may be.
If male babies can be forcibly circumcised then why not adult males?
Really!? Of all the "educated" men out there honestly believes Circumcision helps to "PREVENT" STDs and HIV!?!? Even with a person with one Biology course in school would know that Circumcision has ABSOLUTEELY NOTHING to do with preventing such virus! LOL This CLEARLY shows Statistics has NOTHING to do with REALITY.
Um...Duh!
I find it somewhat hilarious that SCIENTISTS would honestly think that being uncircumcised is somehow unhealthy in any context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't several million years of evolution produced results that say otherwise? Kind of ridiculous. At this point in the game disease in the gay male community is spread by two things: arrogance and ignorance.
Well, it doesn't help the prevention of the continual spread of this disease when men of ANY age that are sexually active are no longer concerned with catching or contracting AIDS or other STD's. The fact that "drug therapies" are available and at their disposal if needed are somewhat of a "security blanket" for some or most. Others in my own first class experience are willing to get the virus or have already infected themselves so it is no longer a concern to them and they feel that they are free to bare-back it up with the promise of drug therapy, natural supplements, or "living for the moment" and just not caring. It's sad all the way around, because so many are still not educated nor care about themselves or others. This goes towards the ones who know they are infected or might be at risk "but don't get tested" and still have random sex with various people. That to me is scary! And I think in the coming days of this whole "Swine Flu" scare and soon to be forced vaccinations these carriers of the disease either new or old cases will be the first to go when we are hit with a "home-made" biological weapon as AIDS, Ebola, Herpes, and others were designed and made. :-(
If anal sex takes place without a condom then nothing in this world will stop HIV transmission since the virus is carried in the semen. It goes straight into the rectal canal. After a good pounding the tissues are inflamed and receptive to infection.
What is clear is that the inner mucosal lining of the foreskin is the entry point of HIV infection into the body due to its extremely delicate nature. Micro abrasions and tears which often go unnoticed leave the entire body open to infection. This means that an uncircumcised man who is AIDS negative could become infected if he tops a man who is AIDS positive without a condom.
Sad but true !
There is a danger of anal cancer that affects all Gay men with uncircumcised partners having 'bareback' anal sex. The foreskin produces smegma. That consists of dead skin cells and secreted oils. Inside the oils are Human Papilloma Virus strains 16 & 18 if your partner is carrying this virus. HPV strains 16 & 18 are cancerous. Gay men are at risk of anal cancer from unprotected anal sex with an uncircumcised partner.
There is also a higher risk of mouth and throat cancer from oral sex with uncircumcised men too. In fact ANY form of unprotected oral sex is highly risky because the AIDS virus is carried in semen and the HPV virus is carried in smegma.
Rimming is extremely risky. There are so many infections that can be transmitted this way. The body has no natural barrier against this route of infection. So far no real research has been done into this, but when gastro-enteric infections become more commonplace there will be warnings issued. You have been warned.
So far no tests are available for men to see if they are carriers of HPV.
The only possible form of protection against either of these infections is to ALWAYS use a condom for BOTH anal & oral sex !!
Far too many Gay men see AIDS as a nuisance rather than a sentence of death. Youngsters have become complacent and carefree in their sexual behav
Because the major problem does not reside in the foreskin. The anus is the problematic area. It was not designed to receive foreign bodies, even if it is physically possible. Get off anal sex and HIV and AIDS will decrease.
boarddog73 wrote:
I completely agree with the statement that an unclean penis is more the culprit in the spread of disease than the status of your foreskin. My point is that to say "because your foreskin is dirty, we should remove it" is akin to saying "because X body part is dirty, we should remove it". The answer is to be CLEAN. If my penis is not clean, my partner should say "Wash that thing off before you stick it in me!" rather than "Cut that skin off before you stick it in me!". Much like teaching people to wash their hads after using the restroom will help stop the flu, washing other body arts will help stop the spread of other diseases.
But as other people have said, clean or no, nothing will stop the spread of HIV other than safe sex. Scrub your cock/ass with bleach all you want, and circumcised or not you will still get HIV if you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected.
And having been uncircumsised for 37 years, my penis is also clean enough to eat off of! =D (Usually that is... after riding a bike for 30 miles, I may need to wash... but that has lessto do with foreskin / smegma / etc. and more to do with sweating my ASS off! LOL)
Sep 12 6:53 PM
josh762 wrote:
The idea that getting circumcised will keep a male from getting aids or any disease is really the wrong idea to put out there. The fact is, if you are circumcised and you have sex with a male that is hiv+ then you will get aids. Being cut or uncut has nothing to do with it. Keeping the head of your penis clean is something each male should do. You can tell when a male that has been circumcised is not keeping his penis clean also. I have been a uncut male for 50 years and I can tell you this: my penis is clean enough to eat off of it. lol
Sep 11 2:28 AM
technofan wrote:
Unfortunately not all uncircumcised men wash as they know they should. This is not BS, it is Real Life experience sadly gathered over many years. Now that we know for sure that Smegma (cockhead sweat) carries the cancer starting Human Papilloma Virus strains 18 & 16 within its oily secretions then until ALL uncircumcised men must take their social responsibilities a little more seriously or all is lost. They MUST learn to wash themselves under the foreskin at least twice a day. The European epidemia of Chlamydia is a case in point. Sure there are Chlamydia epidemics everywhere but it is the sheer scale of this in Europe that dwarfs anything else. This most certainly does have something to do with the fact that Europeans don't circumcise their sons
To deny this is to stick your head in the sand. The same goes for a myriad of other cross infections and diseases.. Your choice ?? Which comes first ? The Greater Public Interest or the Individual Right ?? At present the "Jury is Out". but the verdict will come and i know it will swing in favor of the cut.
Sep 10 7:15 PM
boarddog73 wrote:
Undfortunately, so many people assume that uncut = dirty smegma filled foreskin. If people are taught the same basics of hygeine for their genitals and anal areas as they are for the rest of their bodies, we wouldn't have any of the issues people are describing below... at least as far as those cleanliness issues are concerned. (Can you imagine the following coversation? "Did you wash behind your ears? No? You never learned to correctly wash behind your ears? Then I guess we should cut them off if you cannot keep them clean - ears spread SO many diseases!").
Speaking from personal experience, I have known several Asians who were horrified to find that Americans do not wash their ass after defecating. The fact that we only use dry toilet paper and thats usually all is disgusting to them, and many would not even consider sex with an America (anal or otherwise) without a shower first (not a bad idea!) because of the smell and lack of persoanl hyeine so many of us seem to have in those areas.
Sep 09 7:58 PM
sexylexi wrote:
vanguard2010 had just about correct! 'nough said ...............
Sep 09 6:44 PM
loopazilla wrote:
Absolutely ! It's a no brainer. Universal circumcision would help eliminate so many diseases and viruses. It's not the ultimate cure but it does save your kids having to be injected with dubious vaccines that may have very unpleasant long term lifetime effects. As for the pleasure argument, well, that is so much BS !! I was circumcized aged 44 and I have not lost any pleasure from sex. Far from it, but as far as the Anti Circumcision fetishists go " there is no way a donkey can think beyond the carrot " !!
Sep 06 9:58 PM
t0theheights wrote:
So much misinformation here by the usual anti-circumcision fanatics...
Circumcision is proven to reduce the risk of numerous diseases and other harmful conditions, including penile cancer, HPV, and HIV (though not for the bottom in anal sex since the rectal cavity is so prone to infection). While I have no problem with uncut dicks, being cut has numerous health advantages that make it well worthwhile, plain and simple. The uncut zealots need to just accept this and stop denying hard scientific data and common sense.
Sep 05 10:47 AM
t0theheights wrote:
So much misinformation here by the usual anti-circumcision fanatics...
Circumcision is proved to reduce the risk of numerous diseases and other harmful conditions, including penile cancer, HPV, and HIV (though not for the bottom in anal sex since the rectal cavity is so prone to infection). While I have no problem with uncut dicks, being cut has numerous health advantages that make it well worthwhile, plain and simple. The uncut zealots need to just accept this and stop denying hard scientific data and common sense.
Sep 05 10:47 AM
RyanReBoRn wrote:
Case in point, these previous two responses.
Sep 05 7:21 AM
AlphaMaleGuy wrote:
Man, I've been circumsize a lot's of years ago. No HIV. Just always use the condom. Lots of pleasue without fear
Sep 05 6:12 AM
vanguard2010 wrote:
People who want to believe that the foreskin is the source of any evil will not change their minds and that is predominantly US americans. The hang ups and myths in the USA about uncut is legend and appalling. In the early 20th century thanks once again to the non separation of Church and Government, circumcision (genital mutilation) just after birth became the norm as a means of reducing or inhibiting masturbation at maturity. So was everyone convinced. There is no more or less disease, infection, or anything with an uncut penis. If that were the case most of Europe and South America, Australia would have reduced male populations, which they don't. This is just another mind fuck by religion, medical profession and politicos. The sexual sensation is very different and enhanced with a foreskin. But just think of all the dollars to be lost if no one was circumcised. Even the religious reasons are nothing to do with a deity but infection in antiquity when people were not clean and knew nothing about hygiene. Thus the jewish and moslem traditions of washing hands and feet. The first awakening to cleanliness.
Sep 05 5:59 AM
RyanReBoRn wrote:
"Because the major problem does not reside in the foreskin. The anus is the problematic area. It was not designed to receive foreign bodies, even if it is physically possible. Get off anal sex and HIV and AIDS will decrease."
Quoted for truth and because it's not often I see words as true as these on RJ.
I doubt this truth will be embraced on a widespread level anytime soon though. Once a person has rationalized a behavior as acceptable, it's almost impossible to convince that person to change that behavior. No matter how detrimental that behavior may be.
Sep 04 10:38 PM
Anto wrote:
If male babies can be forcibly circumcised then why not adult males?
Sep 04 4:38 PM
tamagocchiy2k wrote:
Really!? Of all the "educated" men out there honestly believes Circumcision helps to "PREVENT" STDs and HIV!?!? Even with a person with one Biology course in school would know that Circumcision has ABSOLUTEELY NOTHING to do with preventing such virus! LOL This CLEARLY shows Statistics has NOTHING to do with REALITY.
Sep 04 4:01 PM
kinetic wrote:
Um...Duh!
Sep 04 2:33 PM
res_ident wrote:
I find it somewhat hilarious that SCIENTISTS would honestly think that being uncircumcised is somehow unhealthy in any context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't several million years of evolution produced results that say otherwise? Kind of ridiculous. At this point in the game disease in the gay male community is spread by two things: arrogance and ignorance.
Sep 04 1:29 PM
UnifiedAron04 wrote:
Well, it doesn't help the prevention of the continual spread of this disease when men of ANY age that are sexually active are no longer concerned with catching or contracting AIDS or other STD's. The fact that "drug therapies" are available and at their disposal if needed are somewhat of a "security blanket" for some or most. Others in my own first class experience are willing to get the virus or have already infected themselves so it is no longer a concern to them and they feel that they are free to bare-back it up with the promise of drug therapy, natural supplements, or "living for the moment" and just not caring. It's sad all the way around, because so many are still not educated nor care about themselves or others. This goes towards the ones who know they are infected or might be at risk "but don't get tested" and still have random sex with various people. That to me is scary! And I think in the coming days of this whole "Swine Flu" scare and soon to be forced vaccinations these carriers of the disease either new or old cases will be the first to go when we are hit with a "home-made" biological weapon as AIDS, Ebola, Herpes, and others were designed and made. :-(
Sep 04 9:40 AM
loopazilla wrote:
If anal sex takes place without a condom then nothing in this world will stop HIV transmission since the virus is carried in the semen. It goes straight into the rectal canal. After a good pounding the tissues are inflamed and receptive to infection.
What is clear is that the inner mucosal lining of the foreskin is the entry point of HIV infection into the body due to its extremely delicate nature. Micro abrasions and tears which often go unnoticed leave the entire body open to infection. This means that an uncircumcised man who is AIDS negative could become infected if he tops a man who is AIDS positive without a condom.
Sad but true !
There is a danger of anal cancer that affects all Gay men with uncircumcised partners having 'bareback' anal sex. The foreskin produces smegma. That consists of dead skin cells and secreted oils. Inside the oils are Human Papilloma Virus strains 16 & 18 if your partner is carrying this virus. HPV strains 16 & 18 are cancerous. Gay men are at risk of anal cancer from unprotected anal sex with an uncircumcised partner.
There is also a higher risk of mouth and throat cancer from oral sex with uncircumcised men too. In fact ANY form of unprotected oral sex is highly risky because the AIDS virus is carried in semen and the HPV virus is carried in smegma.
Rimming is extremely risky. There are so many infections that can be transmitted this way. The body has no natural barrier against this route of infection. So far no real research has been done into this, but when gastro-enteric infections become more commonplace there will be warnings issued. You have been warned.
So far no tests are available for men to see if they are carriers of HPV.
The only possible form of protection against either of these infections is to ALWAYS use a condom for BOTH anal & oral sex !!
Far too many Gay men see AIDS as a nuisance rather than a sentence of death. Youngsters have become complacent and carefree in their sexual behav
Sep 04 9:03 AM
KidnapMyAffection wrote:
Because the major problem does not reside in the foreskin. The anus is the problematic area. It was not designed to receive foreign bodies, even if it is physically possible. Get off anal sex and HIV and AIDS will decrease.
Sep 04 7:03 AM