Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[KaraBulut]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

And once again - the UNAIDS and WHO state that it only matters among heterosexual males, not for us queers. Jesus if cutting off the foreskin was it all took to stop HIV spreading the US would never have had a problem in the 80s.

Ah! common sense strikes again....

One of the odd things about discussions of the circumcision studies on gay forums is that most of the discussions miss the point. The studies are of heterosexual transmission in SubSaharan Africa which has resulted in the death of millions of women and children.

Early in the pandemic, there was a theory that African men were having clandestine homosexual encounters- because heterosexual transmission in the west was relatively rare and there was a cultural bias in the research that assumed that the rest of the world is like the US where HIV was a "gay disease". To researchers in the US, it was illogical that women were infecting men- after all, this just didn't happen in the much better studied populations in the US.

Thirty years into the epidemic, there are 24 million people with HIV in Africa. The circumcision studies were a breakthrough in the understanding of HIV transmission in Africa but they just have limited application in the United States where anal sex is still the predominant means of transmission.

Where the studies may help with understanding of HIV risks in the US are in minority populations- where risk reduction hasn't been as effective and we don't completely understand why.

I don't know how the Mayo Clinic has its name on this.

One of the big criticisms of the US healthcare system is that it focuses on illness (both in practice and in profits) and not on prevention. Mayo has been on the forefront of changing the healthcare delivery model to one that focuses on prevention, so it does make sense that they would look at the issue.

I haven't read the paper yet but often statements are taken out of context. If the recommendation is that circumcision be offered to parents of newborn boys, that's not particularly ground-breaking, as that is the current practice in most of the US. If the recommendation is that circumcision be promoted as a preventative measure- that may be going too far. Surgical procedures come with some amount of risk and just like we wouldn't recommend removal of the appendix to prevent appendicitis or removal of the breasts to prevent breast cancer, it would not be good practice to promote circumcision to prevent disease... at least not in the US where better options are available for prevention.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

One of the odd things about discussions of the circumcision studies on gay forums is that most of the discussions miss the point. The studies are of heterosexual transmission in SubSaharan Africa which has resulted in the death of millions of women and children.

Early in the pandemic, there was a theory that African men were having clandestine homosexual encounters- because heterosexual transmission in the west was relatively rare and there was a cultural bias in the research that assumed that the rest of the world is like the US where HIV was a "gay disease". To researchers in the US, it was illogical that women were infecting men- after all, this just didn't happen in the much better studied populations in the US.

Thirty years into the epidemic, there are 24 million people with HIV in Africa. The circumcision studies were a breakthrough in the understanding of HIV transmission in Africa but they just have limited application in the United States where anal sex is still the predominant means of transmission.

Where the studies may help with understanding of HIV risks in the US are in minority populations- where risk reduction hasn't been as effective and we don't completely understand why.


One of the big criticisms of the US healthcare system is that it focuses on illness (both in practice and in profits) and not on prevention. Mayo has been on the forefront of changing the healthcare delivery model to one that focuses on prevention, so it does make sense that they would look at the issue.

I haven't read the paper yet but often statements are taken out of context. If the recommendation is that circumcision be offered to parents of newborn boys, that's not particularly ground-breaking, as that is the current practice in most of the US. If the recommendation is that circumcision be promoted as a preventative measure- that may be going too far. Surgical procedures come with some amount of risk and just like we wouldn't recommend removal of the appendix to prevent appendicitis or removal of the breasts to prevent breast cancer, it would not be good practice to promote circumcision to prevent disease... at least not in the US where better options are available for prevention.

I want to state, that in the quote you used me on (I also edited it to make actual sense now - damn dyslexia!) I had just stated that all African studies are to do with heterosexual men and I have been at pains throughout the whole debate to say that.

One of the problems with the African studies has been that they have not taken anthropologists or sociologists into the fold and thus the socio-economic reasons as to why some men in Africa are cut/uncut was not read into, leading to some selection bias.

Also in studies done in the Western world, such as Australia, the expose to STD's for cut and uncut men were the same due to the sanitary cleanliness on the part of the uncut men leading to less infections. I am sure improvement in clean water supply and greater access to washing facilities would also cut STDs in general - however that costs a lot more than telling everyone to get cut and thus they have gone down that route. I understand that, but its not the existence of foreskin that leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDs, but a range of issues and making the debate about cut/uncut for us on a predominantly first world website is fairly pointless.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I suspect that if it was grown men getting snipped, the practice would decrease rapidly.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I suspect that if it was grown men getting snipped, the practice would decrease rapidly.

Well in some African cultures (and I think in the Pacific - in Melanesia) the practice is only done on men once they reach manhood at about 18. I remember in a class watching a film in which one young man was cut at this age and was then made to eat the skin!

 

[hylas]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

It is said to be very painful during the recovery. Then the head is very sensitive and painful when touched by clothing etc. Eventually, the skin will thicken and become less sensitive. For uncut guys, the head is very sensitive when flaccid--uncomfortable to touch with the fingers or clothing-- but much less so when hard.

Ok, I assumed that it's painful and uncomfortable, but is it more painful and uncomfortable for adult men than it is for infants?

 

[KaraBulut]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I want to state, that in the quote you used me on (I also edited it to make actual sense now - damn dyslexia!) I had just stated that all African studies are to do with heterosexual men and I have been at pains throughout the whole debate to say that.

My comments weren't directed toward you or anyone in particular. The circumcision studies have been cited in other forums, usually with an agenda to promote one side of the argument or the other. Discussions on gay forums in particular usually end up with the pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision people returning to their usual positions when these studies really don't have much relevance to the transmission issues for gay men... at least not in non-minority gay men.

One of the problems with the African studies has been that they have not taken anthropologists or sociologists into the fold and thus the socio-economic reasons as to why some men in Africa are cut/uncut was not read into, leading to some selection bias.

Oh, it's been studied but it is such a complicated issue because of a lot of cultural factors- religion, language, social mores and a general lack of knowledge about the sexual practices of the native people of SubSaharan Africa.

We've known for some time that HIV rates in Central and Northern Africa were lower than in the South. It's just difficult to be sure why.

Also in studies done in the Western world, such as Australia, the expose to STD's for cut and uncut men were the same due to the sanitary cleanliness on the part of the uncut men leading to less infections. I am sure improvement in clean water supply and greater access to washing facilities would also cut STDs in general - however that costs a lot more than telling everyone to get cut and thus they have gone down that route. I understand that, but its not the existence of foreskin that leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDs, but a range of issues and making the debate about cut/uncut for us on a predominantly first world website is fairly pointless.

Beware of cultural bias. It's not just "Australians" that were studied- it was white men who lived in Australia.

In the US, the rates of HIV in minority gay men are much higher.

Estimated Incidence of HIV Infection Among Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age at Infection, 2010—United States

Source

In the US, there's an overall HIV infection rate in the general population that is somewhere around 0.5%. Further south, in Haiti the rate is somewhere around 2% of the general population and HIV is primarily transmitted by heterosexual sex.

We don't have all the answers to why HIV affects different populations differently. It cannot be reduced to something like sanitation or hygiene like one might expect in Africa.
And there's not a single cause- it's a combination of a lot of genetic and social factors that have not been adequately studied. Circumcision is a factor- that's been a settled conclusion for several years now but there's still so many other factors that we don't completely understand... even though we are 30 years into this.

 

[medic1]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

No, only that having the [STRIKE]mutilation[/STRIKE], procedure done as an adult, your memories are far fresher, and not lost in the mists of time.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

No need for condoms for you then.

Of course not. I am monogamous with my boyfriend of five years.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

They still only support widespread circumcision in some parts of Africa for heterosexual males and only then they do it on cost. Its cheaper to circumcise someone than give them all condoms. There is no universal position on circumcision by any medical organisation.

One of the odd things about discussions of the circumcision studies on gay forums is that most of the discussions miss the point. The studies are of heterosexual transmission in SubSaharan Africa which has resulted in the death of millions of women and children.

In your estimation, how does one go about segregating gay and straight babies? Since according to you, gay babies would be exempt from the preventative health recommendations of pretty much every major medical organization.

 

[Kahaih]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

In your estimation, how does one go about segregating gay and straight babies? Since according to you, gay babies would be exempt from the preventative health recommendations of pretty much every major medical organization.

And along that line of thought, why would any parent just assume that their son is going to grow up to be a disease ridden heterosexual whore? If they plan on teaching their sons to be reckless whores, them maybe those boys should be neutered at birth, too, to prevent a lot of unwanted babies.

---------

Most parents don't seem to have a bit of trouble teaching their daughters how to use rags, bloat-cramp pain medications, plugs, douches, cunt deodorants, 'the pill', . . . we see the advertisements for these things everywhere. Yet, parents can't be bothered to teach Jr. how to wash, and how to protect himself from diseases? Do some parents just assume boys are stupid and/or not worth the effort?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

You really don't want to have a circumcision in adulthood.

Better to be run over by a score of horses.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

And along that line of thought, why would any parent just assume that their son is going to grow up to be a disease ridden heterosexual whore? If they plan on teaching their sons to be reckless whores, them maybe those boys should be neutered at birth, too, to prevent a lot of unwanted babies.

This is the conservative reasoning behind opposition to the HPV vaccine. They don't want their kids to have it, because they think it's a license to be promiscuous. Which is of course ridiculous. You need only one sexual encounter in your life to contract a sexually transmitted disease.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Ok, I assumed that it's painful and uncomfortable, but is it more painful and uncomfortable for adult men than it is for infants?

A doctor friend says "no" on that -- it's just that infants don't retain the memory of the pain.

 

[peeonme]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

A doctor friend says "no" on that -- it's just that infants don't retain the memory of the pain.

I was circumcised at the age of 30, because I chose to have it done, I was sore and had to abstain from sex for about 6 weeks, it was not the end of the world.
I have no regrets, I had it done because I thought it looked better, I would not want to have babies circumcised just so that when they are adults there dicks look better to me.
That little bit of skin can be dealt with later if there is a problem. Let men choose.

 

[mikey3000]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I have a few friends who, for one reason or another, have had circumcisions as adults. ALL were very satisfied and wish they did it when younger.

I believe that the real $$ in medicine and pharmacology is not in the prevention or cure of disease, but in it's very treatment. De-listing a proven disease prevention procedure will only insure income in the future. WE have the cancer industry, the diabetes industry, and soon will have the STI industry. With a whole array of treatments at it's disposal, and a never ending supply of natural resources (people), a very profitable stream of income is assured.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

A doctor friend says "no" on that -- it's just that infants don't retain the memory of the pain.

Your hippocampus does not develop the ability to form long term memories until the age of three.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I have a few friends who, for one reason or another, have had circumcisions as adults. ALL were very satisfied and wish they did it when younger.

I believe that the real $$ in medicine and pharmacology is not in the prevention or cure of disease, but in it's very treatment. De-listing a proven disease prevention procedure will only insure income in the future. WE have the cancer industry, the diabetes industry, and soon will have the STI industry. With a whole array of treatments at it's disposal, and a never ending supply of natural resources (people), a very profitable stream of income is assured.

Exactly why for-profit medicine is a guaranteed fail... unless somehow all the patients were the shareholders, equally.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Your hippocampus does not develop the ability to form long term memories until the age of three.

Did they discover that at the Hippo Campus?

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Did they discover that at the Hippo Campus?

ιππoκαμπος means seahorse in Greek, because it looks like one apparently.

 

[SaskGuy]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

In some countries, genital mutilation is illegal. Not in Canada and USA though; in fact, the only reason why non-Jewish, non-Muslim Canadians get their dicks destroyed against their will is because of US influence.