I’ve seen some studies which indicate that women who have circumcised partners have ower incidences of uterine cancers and the like. If accurate, then it indicates that male circumcision benefits both genders.
Uterine (and cervical) cancer is almost 100% due to HPV, the transmission of which was discussued by Pazu a couple of posts up.
I wasn’t questioning your knowledge, I was trying to say that it was beyond the scope of my Rural Soc. class documentary. I didn’t pay enough attention in Immunology to understand immune response…there weren’t movies.
I don’t think that governments are recommending circumcision as the only way to prevent AIDS, but as a way to reduce your risk of AIDS. The kids were reciting phrases that translated as “limited partners, condom use, personal hygene, circumcision, etc.”
Actually, to be strictly accurate, cervical cancer (of both the usual type [squamous cell carcinoma] and of the glandular type [adenocarcinoma]) is virtually 100% associated with HPV infection, but standard uterine (endometrial) carcinoma is not.
Penile cancer is also highly associated with HPV infection.
I did understand that, and I apologize if I sounded defensive, it wasn’t my intent. I was actually trying to remember where the heck I read about the macrophages, that’s all… 
We do need more immunology movies, though. Last one I remember involved a bunch of antibodies attacking Raquel Welch…
The minister of health (of SA) would have have you believe that eating garlic and beetroot is one of the fundamental cures for HIV. :smack: Personally I think people should only be circumcised with their consent and not as a matter of course.
What he said.
Thanks for the clarification regarding “callous.” I see what you are trying to argue, that the word “callus” is only applicable to when you play the guitar or wear tight shoes. This is again a matter of definitions, but let’s not let word choice get in the way of a discussion. I am trying to argue that pretty much the same process that turns normal skin into a “callus” is what turns the skin of the glans into “normal skin.” You have irritation and you get keratinization. It’s pretty straightforward, and makes sense. It’s what I had meant by “callousification.” Would you like to argue that the keratinization of the glans is caused by a fundamentally different mechanism than the keratinization of your heel, despite iritation being the catalyst in both?
Indeed, and like that poster I expect off-hand circumcision/keratinization to help with other STDs as well. (No, really, I’m a reasonable guy. I’m not arguing against tougher skin equaling greater protection. I’m just arguing that that is the mechanism. Although really, there’s no argument. The study already said it gets keratinized. Keratinized equals tougher skin. Now it’s a question if tougher skin equals less sensitivity. This IS a debatable question, but if you’re still arguing about the points preceding it, then I say you’re in denial.*) You link to a study which shows this, but how come we haven’t been hearing of this more? Have other studies had other conclusions, or has the field not been explored?
*Actually, I doubt that that which would cause most of the loss in sensitivity is the keratinization. It will cause some, because the nerve endings are physically shielded. However, the glans often senses dull stimuli, which wouldn’t really get muffled too much by this. See, I’m being reasonable! Rather, my argument would be that the irritation that causes keratinization would cause desensitization in parallel (although keratinization would directly contribute regardless).
Clits rubbing against panties will dull the clits, to put it bluntly. And speaking of clits…
No, see, refusing to engage this analogy demonstrates that you are the one sticking fingers in your ears. My supportable factual evidence is that cutting off the hood will expose the clitoris to constant rubbing against panties, as what happens with the glans. Do you need a citation for that? Please respond in a way other than “LA LA LA LA - I CAN’T HEAT YOU! LA LA LA!!!”
Contrary to the way some other people argue, if I propose a challenge “well, what would you say to female circumcision” and I get the response “I think it will be alright,” then I say, “ok, in that case, I see where you’re coming form.” Of course, some people may go, “whoa, hold on a minute, that’s not ok.” And I hope those people either get a little cultural relativism on female circumcision or get a little backbone against dick-snipping. It’s just that I hate when people are inconsistent in their thought, and I’m glad I’ve gotten you to align on your viewpoints.
Now as to whether it’ll affect sensation, it is back to the keratinization debate. Your quip of “THERE IS NO CALLUS ON YOUR DICK!!!” highlights that you are holding the same definition as Pazu. I’ve tried clearing that up above, so now i’m waiting for your new argument
I agree with the last two points, but I would be surprised if they were addressed to me (I don’t think I’ve ever broached the topics of safety or effectiveness). However, people ARE saying men should be forced to be circumcised, because that is what encouraging parents to snip their children translates to. Well, not completely because of the missing-what-you’ve-never-had angle, but it’s being forced nonetheless.
I’m quibbling, but it doesn’t count as being rational, thinking, or careful if you change your view just because the opponent is getting emotional. Not blaming you for being human here… just clarifying.
P.S. regarding HPV… wasn’t there a new vaccine released?
Why do you keep arguing such a stupid, stupid point? The difference is that Pazu is an expert, and you are not. Whether keratinization and “callusification” are the same thing is not a topic for legitimate debate. You just further damage your own credibility when you refuse to acknowledge that someone who knows more about a subject than you actually has knowledge you don’t. It makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously when you treat these simple, factual matters as things to argue over. Why not just admit it when you’re wrong about something? It’s a hell of a lot less of a humiliation than being wrong and refusing to admit it.
Wrong about what? The word usage? I’ve already admitted it and corrected myself several times… The connection with the toughening of the skin due to irritation? Pazu still has to get back to me on that. You call the point “stupid” only because it is either something you’d rather not be true, or it is something said by me.
Excalibre, all you do is troll around looking for my posts to say dumb, pointless things. (And I challenge anyone to make a list of Excalibre’s contributions in this and the daughter thread.) This occurs pretty much in every thread I participate. I’ve been trying to ignore you, but it’s really getting tiresome. Please find something else to do with your life, and don’t reply to any more of my posts. I’m sorry you keep hoping me to be an idiot, but in trying to make me out as one all you do is reveal a rabid, blind hatred of me, and a closed-minded stupidity in yourself.
It wouldn’t be so bad if you ever had some argument to present or something else constructive.
Well, frankly, what I’m arguing against here is sloppy use of terminology, so word choice is very important to this discussion.
You’re not arguing this with me, because I have yet to propose any sort of mechanism for the keratinization of the glans epithelium in this thread. Honestly, I doubt there’s any study on this subject, but I’m willing to bet that if you circumcised someone and left their penis totally uncovered and untouched afterward, the glans would still keratinize.
Except that the largest surface area of squamous epithelium in your entire body–your skin–keratinizes as part of normal development; no irritation required.
That’s fine, but it’s hard to hold a discussion with someone who uses personal, non-standard terminology.
Fundamentally different? No. Both surfaces are covered by squamous epithelium, which retains the ability to keratinize as part of its terminal differentiation.
However, as I have said repeatedly, the skin of your heel keratinizes regardless. The skin of a newborn baby’s heel is keratinized. If you never wore shoes and never walked on your feet, your heel’s skin would still be keratinized. No irritation required.
As I speculated above, I suspect that the glans would keratinize following circumcision even if were otherwise untouched by anything other than air, probably due to the fact that it no longer has a covering. However, I’m not aware of any studies on this issue.
You must have me confused with someone else; the ONLY thing I’ve been arguing about here is proper use of terminology.
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the thickness of the normal keratinized layer in the skin varies in different parts of the body. One of our most sensitive areas–the palmar surfaces of the hands and fingers–also has some of the thickest keratinized layers. So I would say that innervation counts for a lot more than keratinization when it comes to sensation.
That was only a single study out of a long list of PubMed citations I found in a few seconds’ worth of searching. The papers are out there for you to find, if you’re truly interested.
The definitions I use are the correct ones. They are part of the everyday vocabulary of my profession, so I find it a bit disingenuous of you to behave as if these words are defined arbitrarily.
Yes; it’s been approved for girls aged 6-11 or something like that. Hopefully, it will receive wider approval soon.
First off:
It was a poorly done study.
Of the the 69 who got infected, only 18 were circumcised.
WHOOPEE!!
Of course, no one studied was counseled to use condoms.