US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%

[mandoman]

Here is a link to the original article as reported by the Centers for Disease Control at the 11th Annual International AIDS Conference in Vienna, as printed in the New York Times.

The New York Times > Log In

 

[spiritsong72]

Here is a link to the original article as reported by the Centers for Disease Control at the 11th Annual International AIDS Conference in Vienna, as printed in the New York Times.

The New York Times > Log In

Taken from the last two paragraphs of that same article:

Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.

And while studies in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s becoming infected by an H.I.V.-positive female partner, it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.

So there you go, folks. I stand corrected. I just wish stemming the tide of HIV was as simple as chopping off foreskin. I guess nothing is ever that simple... (except wearing a condom, which everyone should do and even THAT isn't 100% guaranteed to protect you from HIV. But it's better than nothing. And right now at least, outside of abstinence, it seems that's the best we got.)

 

[mitchymo]

It surely is only a matter of time before the USA has a largely uncut status like most of Europe, South America and Oceania.

No religious motivation to do it.

80% of the worlds men are uncut.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I really have to doubt whether circumcision has any effect on the LIFETIME risk of transmission of HIV. On the other hand, use of safer sex practices confers a high degree of protection to both partners.
Dave

Thanks Dave. Show me a study anywhere that says that routine infant circumcision extends life expectancy even by one year. With all the "amazing" health benefits [smoke, mirrors, superstition, wives' tales] surely cut guys live much longer?

RIC is a total fraud on every level.

 

[mandoman]

Fraud is the right word. I speak from personal experience.
I let three doctors tell me it was the only way, for my son.
All were either ignorant of basic human anatomy, or simply covering each other's asses in a quest for easy money.
A foreskin is a wonderful toy, and requires almost no maintenance.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Northwest Voices | Times article on circumcision in Washington draws ire | Seattle Times Newspaper

In epidemiology, only interventions with 95 percent-plus efficacy are considered worthy. Those with 60 percent or so protection are only somewhat above chance, and relied upon, invite disaster.

In the U.S. this “experiment” has already been run, for decades, and has failed miserably. The U.S. has the highest rate of HIV in the Western world, and the highest rate of circumcised men, above 70 percent. Why would we expect this experiment to suddenly succeed in Washington?

Do Cassandra Brooks and Matthew Golden expect Washington state parents to look down at their 1-day-old son and see an IV-street-drug abuser who will have unprotected sex with men, the most common sources of HIV in the U. S.?

Why should any circumcised young man observe caution when he has been assured he is now (mostly) immune from HIV?

Does anyone imagine that Washington infants and toddlers are a high-risk group of sexual adventurers?

 

[Smaccoms]

I'll have to drop in on this later, I'm kind of exhausted at the moment. Here is where I would have inserted the rare, totally appropriate smiley, if my computer weren't trying to be the most obnoxious bitch asshole this world has every seen...

 

[seneca]

Agreed, about the percentage of circumcised men in the world. It's definitely unknown, but 9 out of 10 Arabs and Jews are circumcised, and the majority of Americans, South Koreans, Malaysians, and Filipinos are, along with many Canadians and Africans. The guesstimates I've heard are between 15 and 25 percent.

Majority of Canadians are uncircmcised, not sure why you believe they are?

 

[badgirl22]

I have two sons and I really did NOT want to circumsize them. But, their dad is and he wouldn't consider anything but cuz he wanted them to look like him (I find this the most pathetic reason to cut - at least make it a health reason but vanity - come on!). I wish, wish, wish I hadn't caved in and let them circ my boys. Soooo wish they were natural. Just can't see the point in circs. I've been with both and there has never been an issue with an uncirc'd cock. In fact, the hottest cock I've ever seen (redcell - sadly gone from here) is made all the better by the fact he's not circumsized. It's so hot, wild and rogue!

I feel badly I cut my sons and some day when they are old enough I will apologize to them.

 

[maxcok]

Agreed, about the percentage of circumcised men in the world. It's definitely unknown, but 9 out of 10 Arabs and Jews are circumcised, and the majority of Americans, South Koreans, Malaysians, and Filipinos are, along with many Canadians and Africans. The guesstimates I've heard are between 15 and 25 percent.

25% seems rather high. I wouldnt think its more than 20% but really...who knows these things.

Let's ask the World Health Organization via Wiki:

"Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one-sixth[57] to a third.[58] The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[8] Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world, parts of South East Asia, Africa, the United States, The Philippines, Israel, and South Korea. It is relatively rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa, and most of Asia and Oceania. Prevalence is near-universal in the Middle East and Central Asia.[8] The WHO states that "there is generally little non-religious circumcision in Asia, with the exceptions of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines". Circumcision
​

 

[Snozzle]

...it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.

On the contrary, it IS clear that circumcised man with HIV would NOT be less likely to infect a woman, in fact the Wawer et al. study suggested that he would be MORE likely to infect her. 18% of the female partners of circumcised HIV+ men seroconverted, while "only" 12% of the partners of non-circumcised men did. They then stopped the study "for futility" before those figures could reach statitistical significance. (There was no ethical objection to letting it run, because they had already established that cutting the control group, who were already HIV+, could not help them or their partners.) It's as though they didn't WANT to find out if circumcision increased the risk.

 

[Snozzle]

Maybe we shouldn't speak English to our children because we're taking away their right to choose their mother tongue when they're an adult. Once they learn English, they can't change their mother tongue as it's "irreversible." Many may lament that as adults.

Parents have no right in making decisions for their children, including mother tongue selection. Let your child grow up before he makes that choice.

That is a really bad analogy. (Are you suggesting parents should teach their children some language they don't speak? Or just stay silent?) We all have to speak some language. We don't any of us have to cut off any body parts.

 

[Snozzle]

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Actually, not. A Cochrane Review in 2003 found insufficient evidence that circumcision reduced the risk. After three Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) it found there was. So the RCTs are all there is. In three trials of paid, self-selected volunteers, recruited by a snowball process (recruiting each other), so very far from a random sample of the population, they circumcised a total of 5,400 men and left similar numbers intact. After less than two years in each case, a total of 64 circumcised men and 137 non-circumcised controls had HIV. The difference, 73 circumcised men without HIV, is the WHOLE basis of the claim. Meanwhile, 327 circumcised men (and a similar number of controls) left the trials, their HIV status unknown.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/hiv-rcts.jpg

Various studies in the USA have failed to find any such correlation, and in at least six African countries, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised. That should at least be explained before racing lemming-like into mass circumcision campaigns.
​

 

[laser90]

The reason the US started to cut guy was they thought it would stop them from stoking off...yeah right!

I ask the doc when my son was born if their was ANY medical reason to cut him. He said...no, so he intact.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I ask the doc when my son was born if their was ANY medical reason to cut him. He said...no, so he intact.

Thanks Laser. :veryhappy: Amazing cock and body on daddy too.

If you're going to make a non-medical decision in a moment of confusion for junior, at least prepare an apology like badgirl. All my mom ever said was, "that's just the way it was." But still cutting my nephews and grand-nephews two generations on. Fucked up people doing fucked up things to babies.

 

[BIGBULL29]

That is a really bad analogy. (Are you suggesting parents should teach their children some language they don't speak? Or just stay silent?) We all have to speak some language. We don't any of us have to cut off any body parts.

You missed my point completely. The idea is that parents and society will always make "irreversible" decisions for their children, and they might not at all be liked when they're found out. For example, I may mourn that I was raised in a bizarre religion, or that my dad was an alcoholic as a child. Things as such leave scars on us, much deeper than a circumcision one. And although it may sound like hyperbole, we may not even like our maternal language "scar" as an adult, but we can't change that fact. So, many a thing is forever in us, chosen for us when we were children.

 

[mandoman]

some are voluntary, some are involuntary. that's the distinction.

 

[maxcok]

Maybe we shouldn't speak English to our children because we're taking away their right to choose their mother tongue when they're an adult. Once they learn English, they can't change their mother tongue as it's "irreversible." Many may lament that as adults.

Parents have no right in making decisions for their children, including mother tongue selection. Let your child grow up before he makes that choice.

That is patently absurd. Can you name one person who "laments" learning the language of the culture they were raised in, or how this could possibly be a handicap?

And although it may sound like hyperbole, we may not even like our maternal language "scar" as an adult, but we can't change that fact.

It is hyperbole. How is one "scarred" by being able to function in the native tongue of the society in which one lives? Not to mention, one can learn a new language or live in another culture entirely if one so chooses. One cannot choose to become uncircumcised. Your analogy is irrelevant to the discussion on so many levels.

I may mourn that I was raised in a bizarre religion, or that my dad was an alcoholic as a child. Things as such leave scars on us, much deeper than a circumcision one.

You presume that the scar of circumcision is only cosmetic, that there is no loss of pleasure, function or identity. You also ignore the existence of psychological scarring, which for some can be quite deep indeed.

 

[Dave NoCal]

Maxcok nails it again!
Dave

 

[B_dxjnorto]

For example, I may mourn that I was raised in a bizarre religion, or that my dad was an alcoholic as a child.

These things are to be avoided too.

It is a failure of logic to list horrible next to awful and conclude that one is okay by comparison.