Circumcision update

[Vilnius]

A while back there was a topic on circumcision where parents were trying to decide whether to have it done on their newborns. Catching up on my reading after being on vacation, I came across a front page article in the 5 July 2005 Wall Street Journal. The title is Study Says Circumcision reduces AIDS Risk by 70%. Reading the article, it was apparent that it was a top-notch study that took 3000 HIV negative men and circumcised half and left the other half as a control group. During the study, for every 10 uncircumcised men who contracted HIV, only 3 circumcised did. The article also noted that some 30 earlier studies have all indicated a link between circumcision and HIV.

One theory is that a type of cell that HIV targets lies close to the delicate underside of the foreskin, whereas the head of the circumcised penis tends to develope a thick layer of outer skin that may armour it against HIV.

I was very happy to finally get some answers to some circumcision questions from such a reliable source as the WSJ. For instance, the anti-circumcision web sites I read all complained that circumcision removes an "exquisitly sensitive" part of the penis and this results in the head of the penis also loosing much of its feeling because it developes a thick layer of skin. Thus, they conclude that circumcision is a bad thing because it greatly reduces pleasurable sensations. They go on to prove their point by showing in great detail that from the mid 1800's into the 1900's circumcision was advocated to reduce masturbation for this very reason. Having been circumcised at birth, I had know way to know claims of thicker skin causing less feeling was true or not, now it appears it may be true. Though the main thing they complain about regarding pleasure and circumcision is the effect of the loss of the foreskin on self-pleasuring.

I do not know if this information makes the decision for parents any easier. It appears we get to choose between reduced pleasure and reduced risk or greater pleasure and greater risk. Any way, I hope this helps.

Praise God

 

[vscola]

i did not know that ... but it bothers me that they wanted people to contract HIV for their study There is no cure ...

Thank you for posting though. We had our son circumsized for many reasons, future health was one of them (but a smaller one I admit).

 

[HonorTruth]

Vilnius:
Another good and helpful post on the subject. Thanks. I also have to assume that God had an original purpose in the rite of circumcision that is also important. It was the covenant sign for the men of Israel. They were literally 'marked men.' There is no doubt that it is no longer required of Christians -- the New Testament leaves no doubt about that. But I can't accept the accusation that the practice is cruel or unhealthy. God meant it for the good of the men and boys of Israel. Perhaps health was closely linked to God's purpose in circumcision.
HonorTruth

 

[Vilnius]

i did not know that ... but it bothers me that they wanted people to contract HIV for their study There is no cure ...

Thank you for posting though. We had our son circumsized for many reasons, future health was one of them (but a smaller one I admit).

To be fair to the researchers, there is nothing to indicate they wanted people in the study to contract HIV. In fact, because the results of the study were so dramatic they stopped it early so they could offer circumcision to those in the control group. The study shows that circumcision makes it much harder to contract HIV, but it is not absolute protection.

 

[selune]

In all fairness though, without promiscuity (I know this is spread via blood from needle sharing and bad transfusions etc. but intercourse is the prime transfer) , there is little risk of hiv infection from intercourse. If men and women remain virgins until they are married and then only have intercourse with each other, why should circumcision be recommended by Christians for this reason? Yes this is a big if, but shouldn't we hold Christians to a high standard and work towards a world where people aren't sleeping around? Just my 2 cents

 

[Ron_the_Nazarene]

There's no way for the reporters to take into account the sexual activities of the men. Were they engaged in unprotected gay sex? Monogomous hereo sex? No sex? That would make a huge difference between the groups.

I think the circumcision debate has raged too long. If you're a parent and you decide to keep you son uncircumcised, fine ... but shut up about it. There are more important issues that we could be addressing in this world.

 

[Marie D]

the main thing they complain about regarding pleasure and circumcision is the effect of the loss of the foreskin on self-pleasuring.

I do not know if this information makes the decision for parents any easier. It appears we get to choose between reduced pleasure and reduced risk or greater pleasure and greater risk. Any way, I hope this helps.

Praise God

If circumcision's only disadvantage is that it makes self abuse harder to do and less rewarding compared to the hygiene benefits, especially protecting against HIV, then I can't see why it isn't done automatically.

 

[Vilnius]

There's no way for the reporters to take into account the sexual activities of the men. Were they engaged in unprotected gay sex? Monogomous hereo sex? No sex? That would make a huge difference between the groups.

I think the circumcision debate has raged too long. If you're a parent and you decide to keep you son uncircumcised, fine ... but shut up about it. There are more important issues that we could be addressing in this world.

This was a first-rate study following individuals as long as 21 months, not a survey or poll done by reporters as your post implies. I do not know if these factors were taken into account, one would hope they would be, and they certainly could be fairly easily. However, the large sample of 3,000 participants would tend to make this unecessary. The study was conducted in South Africa where the vast majority of HIV is spread through non-monogomous heterosexual contact.

Rather than suggesting we shut up, perhaps it would be best for you to spend your time posting on "more important issues" and leave these less important topics to those who are interested.

 

[Ron_the_Nazarene]

If circumcision's only disadvantage is that it makes self abuse harder to do and less rewarding ... then I can't see why it isn't done automatically.

Assuming masturbation is a sin (can we use "grown up" words here) ... wouldn't it preferable that God change the heart of the sinful man, vice man recreating God's design. After all, God created our bodies ... and each part of it was created for a purpose.

And ... again ... assuming that circumcision should be an automatic deterence to masturbation, what does that do for females who touch?

I think your whole line of logic is convoluted.

 

[B®ent]

I do not know if this information makes the decision for parents any easier. It appears we get to choose between reduced pleasure and reduced risk or greater pleasure and greater risk. Any way, I hope this helps.

To be honest, I'm not expecting that my children are going to sleep around, so the information given does not change my opinion in any way, shape or form. I am uncircumcized and, if I have boys, they will remain uncircumcized. There is no room for compromise there.

Scissor-happy mothers seriously bother me. To put it bluntly, they need to back off and let the partner with the penis make the decision of whether or not to circumcize their boys.

Regards,
Johannes

 

[Vilnius]

And ... again ... assuming that circumcision should be an automatic deterence to masturbation, what does that do for females who touch?

I think your whole line of logic is convoluted.

To be fair to Marie-o, she did not say that circumcision should be performed as a deterence to m. [I am comfortable with the "grown-up' word, but many are not, so out of deference to them I will use the abbreviation "m."], rather she wrote that if circumcision has health benefits, such as helping prevent the contraction of HIV, and "If circumcision's only disadvantage is that it makes self abuse harder to do and less rewarding ... then I can't see why it [circumcision] isn't done automatically."

That said, I am sure there are plenty of people who feel that if circumcision is a deterence to m. then that alone is a good enough reason to do it.

Lastly, I think it is great to get everyone's thoughts, and I encourage everyone to express them politely. Jumping on others only discourages discussion, so please be nice to others when you don't agree with them.

 

[Ron_the_Nazarene]

... it was not meant to be an attack. My point was, the solution to sin is the life-changing experience of Jesus ... not body modification.