If you know me at all, and you very well might not, you know that I'm completely against circumcision. I think its a sick and outdated practice with no basis in actual heath for men who are not going for months without showering. I also think it might be one of the reasons men are so obsessed with their dicks. Imagine that your first experience in life is having someone chop off a piece of your genetalia, it must be traumatic.
BUT, low and behold, my (circumcized) ex boyfriend just sent me this article about how circumcision can lower your chances of contracting HIV by as much as 70%!!!!
Why woudl this work? "Laboratory studies have found that the foreskin is rich in white blood cells, which are favored targets of HIV."
This is amazing. Although it should be put in context. The study was only partially completed because the researchers didn't want to make uncircumcized guys feel bad or something. Very strange. It was done in Africa, in regions where HIV infection is at 30% (east and south Africa).
But, "the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity."
So I'm not sure the extent to which this study applies to people in North America.
Posted by bluprnt at July 7, 2005 04:56 PMSorry, accidentally stumbled across your blog while wandering through search results on Google, and this entry caught my eye.
There are some serious issues with the circ/AIDS study. For one thing, they didn't seem to factor in the fact that after circumcision, the victims...er, patients...are going to be sexually out of action for at least 4, possibly up to 8 weeks. That could skew stats!
The study itself is suspicious too - rather than publishing the study in a peer reviewed medical journal, the went for publicity. Why? Because it couldn't stand up to peer review?
The other thing is that if the claimed results are indeed accurate, you should see the effects in real life; so the Xhosa people in South Africa (circumcised) should have 70% lower HIV/AIDS figures than the Zulu (intact). This in definitely not the case - no such differential has been noted.
Posted by: Graeme at July 29, 2005 02:03 PMThanks Graeme!
All good points. But do you think there is any creedence to the white blood cell argument?
I also thought their reasoning for not publishing was fishey. Because they didnt want to make people feel bad? Come ON. Politics.
Do you know a lot about it?
Best,
~ rebecca
The blood cell argument certainly sounds plausible, to some degree; but then, in addition to that, one can also argue that the foreskin is more susceptible to transmission of STDs simply because it's "internal" mucous membrane, and hasn't been keratinised.
But that, actual statistics don't seem to bear it out. For example, the US has the highest AIDS statistics of any Western country, but is the only one that has a significant circumcision rate.
I do know a bit about it - I've read a fair bit on the internet, mainly because I once got into an argument, and was forced to read up on it. Living in South Africa tends to educate one on the whole AIDS issue, simply because it receives so much attention.
Nice chatting to you - is your blog always this quiet?
Posted by: Graeme at July 30, 2005 12:13 PMInteresting. Why do you think people want to make it look like circumcision is a good thing? To rationalize their own partial genetialia? It seems like a good scientific study on the subject would be SO easy. I'm surprised it hasnt been done.
YES, my blog is the quietest blog ever. I dont know why. I get thousands and thousands of hits each month. A lot of my friends even read it. But no one replies which I think is strange because I find all of it worthy of conversation. I started hunting around on blogs I know of to see what sorts of post they were getting and came to the conclusion that each blog done by a girls seems to have one (at least) guy very dedicated to commenting on each post and (I decided to make myself feel better) also probably dedicated into getting into her pants. So I like to imagine my blog is read by extroverts with too much time for commenting on blogs. But I like to believe in a lot of unprobable things so make of it what you will.
Posted by: rebecca at August 1, 2005 03:55 AMI do indeed think it's an attempt at rationalisation. They either have to accept that they are permanently incomplete, or that they're "better". What would most people prefer to believe?
As for blogs - perhaps it's location? Are there many other bloggers on this site? To tell the truth, I find the commenting method not too great - for example, you can't reply to specific comments, etc. I have a journal at Livejournal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/claidheamhmor/) where I think it's much easier to get responses, comments, and like-minded friends.
Posted by: Graeme at August 1, 2005 03:13 PMis it also tru that circumcision makes the penis longer andf sterdy
Posted by: cutkleen at September 20, 2006 06:37 AMthat, m'dear, is not also true. i suggest you look for your information from more reliable sources than lockers and blogs.
Posted by: rebecca at January 25, 2007 04:29 PM