Circumcision Can Cut HIV/AIDS Transmission

A large study confirms this, and better data is expected next year when another study finishes.

Promising news, and I’m sure that a certain ex-Doper is out there screaming, “Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!” :smiley:

I’m shouting ‘Deja vu’, actually :stuck_out_tongue:

Cut aids transmission in Kenya and Uganda :o

Paging Mr. Tyler…

Any hypothises on why this works yet?

In my opinion, circumcision is a barbaric practice that robs men of sexual pleasure by cutting off a third of their erogenous zone and desensitizing the rest.

Could this be the reason?

Or perhaps body fluids stay under the foreskin allowing more time for the virus to penetrate. However, maybe washing will work as well.

Most likely in my opinion, that same desensitization also makes the opening to the urethra more calloused and less susceptible to infection. Perhaps some less drastic conditioning regiment may be found? Perhaps chemical?

Surely there’s a better alternative to genital mutilation…

Is there any evidence besides opinion to support this? I’m supposing it would have to be a study of men who were circumcized after become sexually active.

Well, in a small piece of evidence, there are studies which show that circumcised men ejaculate quicker.

On the face of it, it seems to imply they get more pleasure. However, if you look into your experience of jacking off (this being a treasure-trove of good data since pleasure swings widely over the course of a month, corresponding with frequency of masturbation), you may note that the times when you receive the least pleasure, you try hardest, and end up triggering your instinctual mechanisms quicker.

In the movie Yu Tu Mama Tambien, the female lead says something like “you boys come too fast, you should jack off less.” I take that, along with my experience, to corroborate low pleasure -> fast ejaculation.

Admittedly, the above isn’t a direct study, just a small argument which relies on a study.

In any case, how about you postulate a theoretical basis for why not only cutting off the foreskin, but letting the head rub against underwear all day long won’t cut sensation (which you surely won’t be able to do), or that cutting sensation doesnt decrease pleasure (which you might have a better shot at… much of sex is in the mind).

This is obviously an isolated example, but I was circumcised at the age of 25. For the first couple of years, I felt that the area was too sensitive. The next few years, I don’t remember any significant difference. Now, 11 years later, I believe that I’ve lost some sensation and that sex doesn’t feel as good, although it is still very good. I’ve always blamed this on age and the fact that I now get sex any time I want. On the other hand, I last a lot longer (too long, sometimes). One major drawback that I can definitely tie to the circumcision is hypersensitivity immediately after orgasm. This means that immediately after I’m done, I can’t have any sort of contact down there. It’s extremely sensitive. But give it a few minutes and I’m ready to go again.

That’s my theory. If that’s the case, it seems that just washing afterwards would greatly reduce the additional risk.

Unless it’s proven as a wonder cure, circumcision is probably going to be a hard sell.

YOW! Don’t even say that.

I thought that jacking off too little makes you come quicker, not slower. When I tried (as an experiment) seeing how long I could go without jacking off (I made it about three weeks, which at the age of 20 seemed like three decades), all you had to to do to get me off was look in my eyes very deeply.

Even if you weren’t terribly attractive.

Or even female.

Or under 80 years old.

So I tended to avert my glances when in public.

“Just washing afterwards” may not be an option in places without abundant clean water, or among young men who consider themselves invulnerable and refuse to wash regularly, or some other reason I’m not thinking of for why washing (an active, voluntary solution) might not be preferable to circumcision (a passive, permanent solution).

I mean, shit, there are still men out there (and moreso in Africa, I hear) who refuse to wear condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. Why should I trust the man who won’t wear a condom to carefully wash under his foreskin after sex when all he wants to do is roll over and go to sleep?

The caveat that this information only applies to the men in the study is a valid one - circumcision may be *their *best option. Or not. I’m sure more research will be done.

You’re not making any sense.

If you’re going to present anecdotal and speculative evidence then I’ll chime in as having been circumcised later in life and have found that it’s been a positive change in all aspects: hygenic and sexual.

Yes. Condoms, abstinence, faithfulness to a single partner, getting tested regularly, , taking advantage of genericor cheap versions to AIDS drugs to lower viral loads, etc. are all better alternatives.

Unfortunately, people and governments haven’t seemed to fully implement these measures.

If HIV transmission is reduced via circumcision, it should be on the table for parents of infants and adults alike.

Ok, this is may be getting a little personal and tmi, but are you referring (regarding both before and after) to sex with condoms or without? And if with a condom, did you pull your foreskin down before putting it on?

I find the reports by posters with experience very interesting, and it would be a great opportunity if we could gather some more data. Sexual experience heightening after circumcision is an unexpected result, even if you do not believe there should be a negative effect.

If female circumcision (say you take the lips but leave the clit) was on the table, you and everyone else, I’m sure, would be aghast. You know you would be.

But when it’s something that’s widely practiced by your own culture, then it’s a. o. k.

I mean the above doesn’t argue who’s right or who’s wrong. Maybe female circumcision is the thing that’s not so bad. Yet we should find consistency and ask what is ok for a parent to do to his child.

P.S. if we’re asking which lips: all four

Alex_Dubinsky, I am not a mod, but I have a serious request: would you please take your anti-circimcision soapbox elsewhere? None of your posts in this thread have been on-topic. If you have any medical data on how circumcision doesn’t prevent the spread of HIV, then by all means, offer it as a counter-example to the OP.

Hell, even if you have any medical data on circumcision lowering sensations (which you don’t, you have some half-assed conjecture based on a movie about horny teenagers (who you have no idea whether or not were circumcised, being that they’re fictional and all) ejaculating “too soon” because they masturbate a lot) then bring that forward with an articulate query as to whether or not a small (or large) loss of sensation is a fair trade off for a 60% less chance of dying in your thirties and leaving a widow and fatherless children to manage without you.

But this whole “male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcision 'cause I think it is and you’re all brainwashed idiots” thing is not only WAY old, but irrelevant to this thread.

I’m sorry your mommy chopped off part of your pee-pee when you were a baby. What the hell does it have to do with circumcision lowering the rate of HIV transmission?

Well, I was circumcised at birth, and find it hard to believe that uncut I would have received more pleasure from sex. Have there been any studies on this question?

<SIGH> :rolleyes:

Somebody has to do the Joke.

“And that’s not all it cuts!”

Why must I be the one to take out Society’s garbage? :rolleyes:

Yeah, cut guys are never interested in sex.

It’s all a matter of degree.

Female circumcision is a likely fatal and horribly disfiguring procedure that almost entirely destroys a female’s ability to enjoy sexual activity.

Male circumcision is a vary rarely fatal and minorly disfiguring procedure that may or may not have an extremely minor effect upon a man’s ability to enjoy sexual activity.