If this study is correct, and there are no other factors at play here, then why are the H.I.V. rates significantly higher in the U.S. (where most men are circumcised) than in Europe where few men are circumcised. This is already a much larger scale study proving this new information false. Even if it were true, imagine how much better it would be to just cut off the whole penis. In order to reproduce, we could extract semen from the intact testes and implant it in women. And while were at it think of how many women we could save from breast cancer by doing double mastectomies to everyone. Even if we only lop off the left breast, we could cut the rate by half. It seems unethical to leave breasts on women knowing that some will get cancer which we have a 100 percent chance of ending knowing we could just surgically remove them.

Here's a study suggesting FEMALE circumcision reduces HIV infection:

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Are you as entusiastic about the idea of mutilating women's genitals to curb HIV infection as you seem to be about doing it to men?

Circumcision for all males worldwide? Absolutely not!!

It is understandable for universal male circumcision to be considered in certain parts of Africa, where heterosexually transmitted AIDS is widespread. However, in places like Western Europe or the Western Hemisphere, where heterosexually transmitted AIDS is relatively rare, there is no reason to subject males to this barbaric practice.

Outside of Africa, the practice of circumcision on males should be restricted to adults who have consented after full disclosure of the risks and pitfalls and for those extremely rare instances where a minor has a condition which requires the procedure and in which there is no alternative. These are the ONLY circumstances in which male circumcision should be performed.

Outside of these rare exceptions, there is no reason to practice routine male circumcision outside of Africa.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice that has an unacceptably high complication rate. Other precaustions against HIV should be fully explored before advocating such an uncivilised and ridiculous practice.

Even if this prematurely closed trail is accurate (I do not find it that surprising that someone who has been genitally mutilated in this way in the short term has less sex because a) for a while it hurts and b) much sensation giving tissue has been removed).
This is comparable to recommending people now play Russian Roulette with “only” one bullet in the revolver rather than 2 because it “halves the risk” of death in preference to wearing a bullet-proof helmet (i.e. the condom). How this can be promoted as a sensible public health practice stuns me. One has to ask if the “researchers” have some vested interest in promoting such practices.

Has anyone considered the possibility that this effect may be social as opposed to biological in nature? As circumcision is a religious practice, circumcised men may be less promiscuous statistically than uncircumcised men, thereby reducing their exposure to the virus and ultimately lowering infection rates in their group. Before making such blanket statements about what is ultimately a cultural procedure that may potentially affect millions of men it is important to consider ALL the relevant factors.

There's another strand of comments on this topic on Nature Medicine's blog, here: http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/2006/12/the_kindest_cut.html

All well and good, but circumcision is a widespread practice in Africa, where the rate of heterosexual AIDS is the highest in the world!

1) This link shows a link between _female_ circ and lower HIV rates:

http://www.aegis.com/conferences/IASHIVPT/2005/TuOa0401.html

I find it nonsensical that we're (quite rightly) doing all we can to stop all forms of female circumcision, yet male circumcision is being promoted.

2) A study which does NOT support a link between circumcision and lower HIV rates in Africa:
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF6852571CD005207D9

Now why didn't this get the same kind of coverage that the other study has been getting?

There are a lot more issues with the Auvert study anyway:

1) 69 men contracted HIV during the study, but 134 men were already HIV+ at the start of the study and were not informed.
2) they finished it early on "ethical grounds". I find that very disturbing. According to their own figures (Table 3), the "protection rate" was going down. Had they finished the study, there may no longer have been a correlation.
3) although they claim to have factored in the number of times men had sex, it's highly likely that newly circed men had a lot less sex, but in that culture wouldn't admit it, or would actually claim to have had more. Some of them believe that they become a "man" when they're circumcised, so they're unlikely to admit to no sex.
4) They compare circumcision to a "vaccine of high efficacy" in their conclusion. I find that shockingly irresponsible.
5) _any_ partial solution, be it microbicide, vaccine or circumcision will result in men having more unprotected sex. We know that condoms work, so why would millions of dollars be spent on examining surgery as a possible partial cause? It is my honest opinion that the people behind these studies are more interested in promoting circ than they are in fighting AIDS.

If female circ was still prevalent in the US (Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies till 1977) then some people would be defending it, and deriding the people against it as propellor heads. People use the exact same arguments to cut off parts of women's genitals that they use to circumcise men (cleaner, looks better, doesn't pass on disease). Yes, I know that the extreme forms of FGM are far worse than male circ, but one of the most common forms is just removing the female prepuce ie the exact equivalent of male circ.

Oh, one last link. You may not realise how out of step the US with other developed countries. From the summary statement of the paediatric policy on circumcision of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians:
"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (those last 9 words in bold on their website).
http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm

Most of the people responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves or married to circumcised men, since the circ rate in Australia was 90% in 1950 (down to 12.6% now).

Your point of view is ridiculous and irresponsible.

Circumcision can save over two million in the next 15 years. This is very serious and should not be taken as a joke.

All these studies have been carried out by prestigious and respectable research institutions and universities, and are back in many cases by official organisations such as the US National Institutions of Health or the World Health Organisation.

Why uncircumcised men are more prone to STD’s?

Scientist have discovered that the skin covering the inner side of the foreskin is by its nature (has a very low amount of a protein called ‘keratin’ which stops viruses entering into the body, plus some other factors) acts as an ‘open door’ to STD’s. Circumcision, by removing the foreskin, ‘closes’ this ‘door’.

Circumcision rates are increasing nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

The sites below have very interesting information related to this topic. Please have a look.

http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

Moses - inspired by God - was correct about circumcision. It covers a little bit of fence jumping = promiscuity. I write - by the Grace of God - as one of the few people in history to discover the first mutated chemokine receptor.

Moses - inspired by God - was correct about circumcision. It covers a little bit of fence jumping = promiscuity. I write - by the Grace of God - as one of the few people in history to discover the first mutated chemokine receptor.

I'm shocked at the level of ignorance around circumcision. My dad, brother, myself and my son are all circumcised..no we're not Jewish or religous at all.

It has been known for millenia that it is more hygenic, so the HIV infection is just one more which may, depending on rate of exposure to infection, be prevented.

It is a minor discomfort when done, my 10 year old son had pain urinating hence the op, he was fine in a week or so. Sensation is in no way affected and I know of no negative aspects to circumcision whatsoever.

We should encourage anything which will help prevent the spread of disease, even if it's by 10%.

Best wishes, Jerry

` I have three points. The first one is:
` Cutting nerves off the penis reduces sexual pleasure.

` Did you know that 'medical circumcision' began in America in the Victorian ages because it reduces sexual sensitivity in men (and women)? This was done to prevent disorders believed to be associated with orgasms and excessive loss of sperm.
` That is what circumcision does in all cases - the insides of foreskins are massively innervated, therefore, removing them reduces sensation.

` Also, Helen, you ask; why have a foreskin if you have underwear? Actually, the foreskin protects the glans from the underwear, preventing it from growing a callous over its sensitive surface and losing even more sensitivity.

` In fact, I have interviewed a young man who was unfortunate enough to suffer the sexual problems of losing his foreskin - it took him a very long time to learn how to have any sexual pleasure, so great was the difference.
` He told me that sexual stimulation was not nearly as intense as before the operation, even though the reason for the procedure was a painful injury that bled during stimulation.
` He preferred painful intercourse over intercourse that was dampened by loss of sensitivity (though, after two years of depression over the whole thing, he is glad that at least it doesn't hurt anymore).

` Judging from typically negative responses like his, non-medical circumcision is generally not something a sexually active man does not want if only he knew the consequences.
` In fact, there are many sexual activities and techniques that can only be performed if a man has a foreskin.
` (Some men, on the other hand, appreciate non-medical circumcision because of the loss of sensation: They feel less pain when doing excessively rough sexual activities.)
` In other words, this procedure is very similar to partial removal of the clitoris or removal of the labia in women.
` Each form of mutilation is only acceptable to those who hold cultural beliefs that support them - without such indoctrination, people abhor genital mutilation because they intuitively understand the consequences.

` In fact, men with foreskins do not generally want to be circumcised, though men who have been circumcised at birth say they prefer not having a foreskin anyway. ...But how would they know if they never had that experience? Keep in mind, it is well-known that the human brain tends to rationalize our present situation as the better situation, and any misinformation that supports this rationalization is welcome.
` This is what perpetuates them to have it done to their own children, and they to theirs, etc.

` Circumcision has not generally been shown to be beneficial in this way before:

` I am also quite doubtful of this HIV prevention, as many studies in the past have shown many different outcomes - previous studies with this dramatic of pro-circumcision outcome have also been shown to be deeply flawed.
` Other more common and more manageable STDs, however, do not seem to be affected by circumcision, and it is for this reason and others that major medical organizations around the world have rejected it as a disease prevention measure.
` There seems to be as much evidence in favor of 'female circumcision' having medical benefits as 'male circucmision'. In fact, not too long ago, I was listening to NPR - two doctors from Egypt (where 90% of women have various 'circumcisions') were arguing over the medical benefits.
` One was saying that there were no medical benefits and that all 'female circumcision' is just pointless mutilation, and the other was saying that only infibulation was mutilation and that there are benefits.

` So, why was male 'medical' circumcision started? The Victorian Era's notions of less sex = better health. There have been many 'medical reasons' since then for circumcision, all of which have been unfounded fads, encouraged mostly by cultural beliefs of no foreskin = cleanliness.

` Take away the foreskins and you take away people's knowledge of them:

` Foreskins are good for many things (such as sexual pleasure, lubrication and protective and immune functions), but they have an unbelievably bad rap in countries that have a shortage of them:
` Over here in America, the sheer widespread use of forced circumcision (circumcision with prior consent is rare) has caused another problem - irrational fears and dogmatic beliefs about foreskins:

` Not many Americans seem to know what a foreskin is or does - many circumcised men do not know any (accurate) information about what their penis is supposed to look like, and some even believe that this is the way boys are born and that no part of their genitals had been amputated: In other words, they have no knowledge of foreskins at all. (Other than perhaps, it is something that happens to Jewish boys, but they don't know what it is.)
` Learning about what a foreskin is often comes late in life, and it is likely that myths about foreskins will reach an ignorant person's ears first.
` I know this because I recently explained to a twenty-one year old man what his penis would look like if it was left alone.

` I think I know what's going on: People don't believe that sex is bad anymore, so they are trying to rationalize why it is done instead of admit to a mistake.
` Doing this involves resorting to a variety of myths:

` One major American myth is that circumcision improves sexual feeling. (Obviously this is untrue.)

` Another is that foreskins do not retract during intercourse and masturbation and thus block the glans from sexual stimulation.
` In fact, so difficult, they say, is it to retract, that it is widely believed that foreskins are hard to clean under.
` Clearly, these people do not understand what a foreskin is or how easily it retracts:
` They don't know that it retracts when it is moved back, that it rolls back and forth over the glans (and labia of a woman) during sexual activities, and that the mere engorgement of the penis can tighten the skin enough so that the foreskin pulls back from the glans.

` It is also popular opinion among many Americans that foreskins are so disgusting that it is crazy to want to keep them, and that they are the cause of many diseases.

` In fact, South Korean culture - which was influenced by the 1940's American Circumcision craze - is full of even more extreme beliefs. Most South Koreans apparently believe that if you are not circumcised you almost certainly will get a certain pathogenic disease (sometimes inaccurately called 'phimosis' - this is an infection that women can also contract) that is so bad the foreskin will have to be removed to clear it up.
` So deep is this belief that circumcision in that country is also called 'the phimosis operation'.
` This is clearly not the case - most men obviously do not need to be circumcised for any reason in their lifetimes, otherwise they would be - but the SKs believe this out of ignorance.

` The Phillipine culture have been similarly influenced by Americans in this way - they even believe that circumcision causes boys to grow up biger and stronger!

` On top of this, since medical organizations worldwide reject circumcision as a prophylactic (saying that the miniscule possible benefits are not nearly worth the risks), babies being circumcised for no medical reason at all is technically illegal.
` In fact, it is often done only because it is considered to be 'sexy' - plastic surgery, in other words.
` Pointless and plastic surgery of this kind (to individuals with no say in the matter, and no concept of the consequences) is illegal in the U.S. and breaks the law on many points: This includes the violation of one's right to their own body and is classified by law as sexual abuse and sexual mutilation.
` Also, since it is usually done to newborns (whose foreskins are not fully developed and thus fused onto the glans), the proedure involves being strapped down while the foreskin is ripped off the glans and then cut while the child screams in agony, and is thus legally torture.

` I fear that this African medical development will inevitably bolster the popular case for neonatal circumcision - give people another excuse, in other words.
` What needs to be done is that if they're going to say that circumcision might be good in this case to absolutely make clear in America that this concerns adults who are sexually active and that it will not be of any use to little boys.
` It also should be made clear that teenage boys need to be taught about STDs, condoms, masturbation (and perhaps oral sex), and they need to be very open about it with their parents (or somebody who can help them) so that they don't catch HIV.
` When you think about it, circumcision at a young age is like total disrespect - it gives the message that the parents do not trust their son to be responsible. "No way am I giving you a chance. Unfortunately, this is not generally perceived.
` It also needs to be clear that it isn't a parent's right to circumcise their own baby unless there is some type of freak occurrence in which it is necessary.

` Did I need to say all that? Yes - you cannot expect American (or South Korean or Filipino) 'circumcision believers' to take all that into account.
` Making this clear is VERY IMPORTANT!!!

` Even if this does prove effective, surely there is a much better way to prevent the spread of HIV: European countries appear to be doing much better at this compared to America, where 70% of males have undergone circumcision, and where HIV rates are much higher!
` Does that add up?
` Certainly, HIV screening, condoms, and being careful about who you do and don't have sex with plays a very large factor in the whole thing! Perhaps it is even more important?
` In any case, any type of 'preventative' circumcision should never be performed without the actual patient knowing what the consequences are.
` That's not likely to happen in America where the attitude is; 'Eew! Foreskins are gross and reduce sexual sensation!' Revulsion from ignorance and misinformation. It is like racism for a body part, is that not apt?
` If this idea of HIV prevention becomes popular over here (and it already was in the 1980's and 1990's, due to some specially-picked data and willful belief) this will only continue to cause parents to illegally circumcise their children.

` So, if they're wrong, these men are parting with something they really liked for no reason.
` And if they're right, what are they gonna do about 'body part bigotry?'
` Thank goodness the anti-tonsil hysteria is over and children are allowed to keep their tonsils!
` But people like having tonsils - and they like not having all their genital parts even more!
` I think there needs to be some major PR developments in the near future to clear up confusions and quiet the bigotry.

` Wow, that was a long comment.

` Hmm. I was pressed for time in that post, but I made a funny mistake. I said:

"` But people like having tonsils - and they like not having all their genital parts even more!"

` Actually, that is true for many who don't have them.
` I had meant to say; 'people like having tonsils - and they like having all their genital parts even more!'

` And Jerry, since you seem to like being circumcised so much:

'I'm shocked at the level of ignorance around circumcision....

It has been known for millenia that it is more hygenic, so the HIV infection is just one more which may, depending on rate of exposure to infection, be prevented.'

` Jerry, I have looked at the American Medical Association's website, and the American Pediatric Society's website and those of similar organizations around the world, and they all say, basically; 'No, don't do it, it's not worth it! Your baby is far more likely to have complications than benefit from circumcision, assuming there are any benefits to begin with.'
` Evidently, you never thought to look somewhere like that, where the information is most accurate.

'It is a minor discomfort when done, my 10 year old son had pain urinating hence the op, he was fine in a week or so. Sensation is in no way affected and I know of no negative aspects to circumcision whatsoever.'

` If that is so for your family, it doesn't change the fact that most men complain that their sex life has gone downhill afterward.
` And indeed, many of them (including the guy I interviewed) suffer tons of horrible pain for a very long time, needed lots of painkillers like Vykadin, and found it excruciating to get an erection for some time.
` Maybe the difference has to do with personality type or the number of nerve connections between the brain and the penis?

'We should encourage anything which will help prevent the spread of disease, even if it's by 10%.'

` Not if it's unethical - all I can say is that you and your circumcised family sound like Americans, who are taught popular myths about circumcision (which I outlined above).
` I'm a girl. If cutting off my prepuce (clitoral foreskin) helps stop the spread of disease, I say 'no', I like my clitoris the way it is.
` It would be very disrespectful if someone said 'I don't trust you to take care of your body, so let me cut part of your genitals off.'
` Many of my female friends agree, saying 'that would be really creepy if someone did that to me!'

` And as for you, Sean:

'Scientist have discovered that the skin covering the inner side of the foreskin is by its nature (has a very low amount of a protein called ‘keratin’ which stops viruses entering into the body, plus some other factors) acts as an ‘open door’ to STD’s. Circumcision, by removing the foreskin, ‘closes’ this ‘door’.'

` If that is true, then cutting the outer labia off a woman -causing the vulva to dry up - would have the same immune effect.
` Should we start doing that now?
` Also, 'keratin' usually covers 'nerves' so quickly that it 'causes desensitization'. It is like getting callouses on your fingers.

` I admit I can't say I know that much about this particular detail of circumcision, however I'm sure that your claim is not undisputed, as the foreskin has many immune functions to keep that section of the penis wet and clean (like a woman's genitals) as it is meant to be.
` What I can say at the moment is this: Each mammal species has a foreskin to protect it, as well as nasal passages to protect them from breathing in pathogens!
` Apparently, no mammal species has needed to 'de-evolve' the foreskin. Why would humans be the only species on earth in which it is a problem?

'Circumcision rates are increasing nowadays, both in the United States and overseas.'

` Actually circumcision rates were about 90% in the 50's in the U.S. and are now a little more than 50 or 60% nowadays. They are even lower in Canada at about 15 or 20 percent.

I think no one should be pressured into circumcision. I am an American female and when I was being urged to circumcise my newborn son in 1998, I was told that uncircumcised males had a 1% increase in urinary infections, and the risk of any kind of complication from circumcision was much lower than 1%, and circumcision would not reduce sensation. So according to the American medical establishment, circumcision was slightly better from a medical standpoint and had no sexual drawbacks. According to what I know now, I was not fully and appropriately informed of the pros, cons and risks. There needs to be true and full informed consent for parents and adults about this procedure in all countries, and no public health authority should have the power to pressure people re. mutilating their own or their children's bodies.

` ...One of millions of examples of misinformed American parents. This one learned better.

` BTW, as far as I know, circumcision may help pervent urinary infections, but only in babies. Still, uncircumcised baby girls have a much higher chance of getting urinary infections as uncircumcised baby boys.
` Not only that, I don't think that's even clearly established - for example, instructing parents participating in such a study to lift up the uncircumcised baby's foreskin and clean under it necessarily inflicts much injury and pain (because it is fused down in babies) and can cause urinary tract and other infections!
` In other words, they caused the uncircumcised boys to get urinary infections and concluded that the foreskin was the problem and not the fact that they were tearing it!

` ...Another thought - I wish the author of this article had given us feedback :P What does she think?

My father was nearly thrown out of his residency for refusing to perform circumcisions, but he'd made a choice not to mutilate infants genitalia and he stuck to it. Just as female circumcision and foot binding will hopefully be left in the dark ages, so too may male circumcision.

as i recall the methodology of these studies has been called into question.

Noone should be pressured into a circumcision. Semenax pill I have trouble understanding how such a study could be ethically run while keeping to scientific methodology?