SanFran Chronicle: Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope

I believe that circumcision has very little to do with transmission of AIDS or STDs. I believe that having unprotected sex with multiple casual partners and shooting up drugs with dirty needles is alot more likely to give you AIDS than whether or not one has a retractible sheath of protective skin over the glans of the penis.

I wonder if, in this study, the scientists took local sexual practices into account? In some regions of Africa, homosexual intercourse -- including anal intercourse -- is considered normal behavior, quite acceptable and sometimes even encouraged by local standards. There are also factors to take into account such as health care availability, social customs, and access to clean water for hygeine. Not to mention the widespread practice of female circumcision. Did you know that women are also circumcised in Africa, Baraka? It is a bloody, painful and nasty ritual that leads to quite of bit of disease and death. In some regions, it is common practice for women to have their vaginas sewn shut to make themselves more desireable to men. In some instances, there is ripping and bleeding when the woman resumes sexual intercourse. Sometimes sex is so painful for these women that they will resort to anal intercourse instead of getting ripped open again. None of that was in the report. Of course not. If they didn't suBathmateit a report that wasn't at least "somewhat promising" there would be no more funding.

I don't buy it. Of course, I'm sure someone will. And that someone probably has alot of $$$$$ to spend.

Let's hear about the horrible problem that countries like Japan and Sweden have with Aids. They rarely circumcise. Oh, wait, they don't really have much of a problem with Aids. Hmmm...

Seperate to the main argument, just a few stickles with that.

It seems implied that female circumcision might somehow be related to facilitation of HIV. This seems unlikely to me, as infected semen is transmitted inside an orifice and female circumcision only alters the external portion of a woman. Gruesome as it is, I fail to see what it has to do with the argument at hand.

Also, it was my understanding after spending some time in Africa and knowing several people born on the continent that homosexuality was not tolerated well across the continent, let alone accepted or encouraged.

Not only does legislation prohibit homosexuality in many African countries but its very existence is also denied as prevailing within the culture. There is a continual attempt to deny that gays and lesbians make up a significant part of the population. “Gay culture” virtually does not exist from an African point of view. The subject of homosexuality is a huge taboo. Many Africans are in same-sex relationships but very few will be open about their sexuality to their families."

http://thewitness.org/agw/macauley121604.html

Anyway, that was just what I had always believed to be an accurate account, but if you know of large populations of individuals in Africa that embrace homosexuality or at least same-sex sodomy I would be interested to see the information.

My two cents on this is still that if anything shows promise for curbing the spread if infection, then more research is justifiable.

If it could leave to sacving large numbers of lives, especially those of children and other innocents, then I say some reduced sexual sensitivity isn't an ungodly price to pay, especially if men can be persuaded to volunteer. Plus, further pathology and demographic research can be done on populations without actually circumcising men specifically for research purposes. There are few viable solutions to the epidemic, and education and condom use are pretty unrealistic when you actually get into the practicality of things. Nothing will throw on the brakes 100% during our lifetimes or probably even the next 50 years short of the development of a vaccine, but in the meantime, circumcision, if it could be proven as an effective barrier to transmission, is actually more feasable than most other things.

When you're talking about epidemics at this kind of proportion, the door shouldn't be shut on any avenues of research that have shown some promise.

Please read this article, written about actual, real life African gay and lesbian practices, if you're interested. There has been and always will be a schism between what we humans practice and what we preach, especially in Christian and Muslim cultures.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/patron-africhomo.html

Here are a few links as well concerning female genital mutilation and HIV transmission.

http://209.183.227.156/ipp/guardian/2005/02/01/31357.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/africa1203/6.htm

PLEASE NOTE:

Some 15 percent of women and girls who have undergone FGM have suffered the most severe form, infibulation, whereby the clitoris and labia are removed and the vaginal opening is stitched shut, leaving only a small space. But over 80 percent of FGM cases in Somalia, Djibouti, and Sudan involve infibulation. Although few clinical studies have been conducted, it is clear that at least some forms of FGM increase the HIV transmission risk faced by women and girls, both in that unsterile instruments may be used in the cutting and because some FGM is associated with chronic genital injury and tearing, ulceration, and delayed healing of injuries, all of which may increase HIV risk.

In some parts of Africa, so-called “dry sex” is frequently practiced whereby girls and women attempt to dry out their vaginas in an effort to provide more pleasurable sex to men... Human Rights Watch found that in Zambia, dryness is achieved by using certain herbs and ingredients that reportedly reduce vaginal fluids and increase friction during intercourse. Given the likelihood that dry sex will cause tears and lacerations in the vaginal wall, especially among adolescent girls, the practice increases the risk of HIV transmission... one counselor told Human Rights Watch, “Men love dry sex. If you’re wet, they think it’s not normal. So we talk about it in outreach; we say ‘stop using those herbs.

Do you think it's possible that the widespread and often crude and damaging circumcisions inflicted on African men is causing their women to go to further and further extremes in an effort to sexually please them?

Penis EnlargementRHAPS THE PROBLEM IS GENITAL MUTILATION IN THE FIRST PLACE... CIRCUMCISION CAUSING MEN TO BE LESS SENSITIVE... FORCING THEIR WOMEN TO GO TO EXTREME LENGTHS TO PLEASE AND KEEP THEM... ALL THESE EXTREME AND HORRIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR SEX ORGANS CREATING SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS CROSS CONTAMINATION OF CUTTING INSTRUMENTS, INJURIES DURING SEX, ALTERED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR...

I know it is an unsavory and unpleasant reality. It hurts the brain and the heart to contemplate how much pain we inflict on ourselves as a race. The cure is not to inflict even more pain, however, but to accept the truth and try somehow to end the cycle of mutilation and misinformation.

Or you can believe that cutting off a peice of your penis will make everything ALLLLLLLLLLL BETTER...

Don't be a sucker. The truth is out there.

kong1971 said:

I believe that circumcision has very little to do with transmission of AIDS or STDs. I believe that having unprotected sex with multiple casual partners and shooting up drugs with dirty needles is alot more likely to give you AIDS than whether or not one has a retractible sheath of protective skin over the glans of the penis.

I wonder if, in this study, the scientists took local sexual practices into account? In some regions of Africa, homosexual intercourse -- including anal intercourse -- is considered normal behavior, quite acceptable and sometimes even encouraged by local standards. There are also factors to take into account such as health care availability, social customs, and access to clean water for hygeine. Not to mention the widespread practice of female circumcision. Did you know that women are also circumcised in Africa, Baraka? It is a bloody, painful and nasty ritual that leads to quite of bit of disease and death. In some regions, it is common practice for women to have their vaginas sewn shut to make themselves more desireable to men. In some instances, there is ripping and bleeding when the woman resumes sexual intercourse. Sometimes sex is so painful for these women that they will resort to anal intercourse instead of getting ripped open again. None of that was in the report. Of course not. If they didn't suBathmateit a report that wasn't at least "somewhat promising" there would be no more funding.

I don't buy it. Of course, I'm sure someone will. And that someone probably has alot of $$$$$ to spend.

Let's hear about the horrible problem that countries like Japan and Sweden have with Aids. They rarely circumcise. Oh, wait, they don't really have much of a problem with Aids. Hmmm...

Click to expand...

Women are mainly circumsized in Somalia. Not the whole Africa.

Mmmmkay. Please refer to my links a couple posts up.

Hmm, that's interesting about the female circumcisions causing tearing which would in fact facilitate the spread of HIV. I hadn't even considered that. I didn't have time to read the links, but do they address the fact that there is a very low female circumcision rate in South Africa (I'm not sure it's practiced at all there, but I don't really know) and yet one of the highest infection rates? My source of info on the female circumcision rates in SA is a friend who was born there, so perhaps you have some more info. I don't really see how it would facilitate transfer of the virus after the first time was over and things had healed up unless the woman continued to have open wounds on her genitals.

It is also worth noting that female circumcision and high infection rates are not correlated to my knowledge, as the practice is fairly regional yet the infection rates are high in almost all of sub-saharan Africa. It's basically leaping to a very grand conclusion from a small observation, though I do agree it could certainly increase risk of infection in some cases.

But, like I have said, male and female circumcision are quite different things, and I don't think anybody is arguing in favor of female circumcision in this thread.

So far as dry sex, I had read in National Geographic that this practice dates from antiquity but has only recently come to the attention of the mainstream. I don't believe there's really any correlation between the dry sex pheonomena and circumcision. Speaking as a circumcised male in the US, my penis isn't so desensitized as to not be able to feel pleasure without a bone-dry vagina, and I think millions of men would agree with me.

Everything I have read about teh dry sex thing links it to a generally chauvanistic and male-dominated culture, not some pervasive lack of sensitivity in men. If lubricated vaginal intercourse were so terribly unsatisfying for men I think we would have had some serious problems elsewhere in the world where circumcision is widley practiced. Again, this making a very grand leap in logic. In effect, it seems you are trying to link the horrible spread of the AIDs virus and a fairly old cultural practice to the practice of circumcision.

I find this theory to be about on par with the 'circumcision causes male aggression' and the famous 'countries that circumcise have more aggressive foreign policies and violent histories' arguements in terms of whackiness. Of course, I may not be understanding your arguments entirely either.

Either way, as I said before, if it holds any realisitic effectiveness in controlling the AIDs epidiemic in Africa and the abject human suffering and misery that it causes, I say it warrants more study. Weighing human life against 'sexual sensitivity' isn't even a question in my mind.

I didn't have time to read the links...

Nuff said.

Ah, well in light of that repsonse I did take a few moments to check them out, thinking I had perhaps judged your position unfairly, and I see that I have not. Your conentions are still completely off base. In fact, all my questions and comments stand, and I have several new points of interest as well.

As I said, I agreed that the female gentital mutilation practices could obviously facilitate spread of the disease, thought the article seemed to emphasize unclean insturments as the real protagonist and quoted:

"Although few clinical studies have been conducted, it is clear that at least some forms of FGM increase the HIV transmission"

Well, we all agree on this logic, though we have no idea to what magnitude, but, it fails to answer what this has to do with male circumcision and the HIV epidemic. Quite frankly, why is female genital mutilation even being discussed here? I believe you brought it up, so perhaps you can answer that.

Secondly, the brief snippet on dry sex makes a point at the end to emphasize that dry sex is mainly favored by married women, as some African men seem to construe a wet vagina as a sign of promiscuity or infidelity. It notes that sex workers, and assumably single women, are under no such pressure to provide a dry vagina. It mentions absolutely nothing about male circumcision being any sort of root cause for the desire for 'dry sex,' and in fact emphasizes the belief that it's more of a cultural ideal.

So, I guess my statement still stands. The idea that circumcision is related to the spread of dry sex or HIV is pretty much totally bogus and based on pure conjecture and broad assumptions gleamed from a very tiny amount of information and no expertise.

I also stand by my statement that if there's a possibility that circumcision could help curb the HIV infection rates in Africa, then it ought to be researched further, as no options should be ruled out when millions of lives are at stake.

Also, now speaking with benefit of having read the material you linked, it really doesn't change the realevence or accuracy of any of my comments from the previous post.

You say alot without really saying anything at all, swank. You argument mainly consists of your belief that you are right and I am wrong. That's all you pretty much say in the previous post. I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to "beat you", only reveal in this debate that there are many more factors involved in this article than is being admitted to, specifically:

1) Female Genital Mutilation also plays a part in Africa's AIDS woes, due to the obvious increase in vaginal injuries during intercourse, especially with the practice of infibulation, wherein the vagina is sewn shut.

2) Education and health care services are sorely needed and would not only help curb the spread of AIDS, but increase the general poor living conditions that many Africans must endure.

3) AIDS is not an instant kill disease. It has a long incubation period and causes a miserable lingering death, so any studies would have to take into account very many widespread social factors, as an HIV infected female in one village could cause an outbreak in a neighboring community just because of the patterns of human movement and social interaction during the incubation periods of those infected.

Now, I'm sure it's comforting to believe that a simple cosmetic operation would help, but that is clearly not going to be the case in something as large and complex as the HIV epidemic in Africa. I do understand that circumcision would be an acceptable preventative if it was actually effective in reducing the rate of transmission, but the 20% decrease could be explained by any of a million different factors... not excluding simply being an outright lie to garner more research funding.

Well, as I understand things, you are arguing that circumcision shouldn't even be considered or researched further because you are fundamentally opposed to the practice.

It is my contention that it has showed promise and ought to be researched further so that it can be said with certainty a good option to slowing infection rates wasn't passed up.

It is of course true that it wouldn't be a cure, and that many other things spread AIDs that are outside the realm of circumcision, but that's besides the point. My argument is that it simply should be looked into as it has showed promise.
If you read into the matter further, you'll see that the simple catch-all solution of "education and condom use" is an almost laughable solution to the epidemic, and that AIDs workers and researchers are more or less desperately just trying to find a way to slow infection rates. Circumcision at least offers some possibility, but nobody is calling a sure thing or a guranteed positive.

Let me put it this way: If some demographic pathology studies came out that strongly supported the idea that it significantly decreases infection transfer rate, would you think it unethical for non-profit or AIDs relief groups to set up free circumcision clinics?

Frankly this is the type of argument where I find the words zealot and fanatic to not be entirely out of line. Here you are weighing the possibility of saving human lives and the aleviation of untold suffering against, uh, maybe a slight loss of penile sensitivity in some men? I think the only way to be a sucker on this issue is to rule out viable possibilities and avenues for relief based on a fundamentalist style of belief.

I say research it further, it shows promise. Nobody here is a trained anthropologist or MD to my knowledge (and would practically have to be both, and one spexializing in African populations and AIDs research at that), so nobody is qualified to give a definitive answer on the interet based on reading a few articles on the internet.

I know the limits of my knowledge, and I also know I believe that all possible ways of tiding a health epidemic ought to be considered. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm just leery of this new "scientific breakthu" on circumcision. Seems there's always some new fantastic reason to do it. If history bears true, and it usually does, years from now they'll admit that it only gave marginal at best results... after a period of mass circumcisions. You can call me all the names you want -- zealot, fanatic, whatever -- I just don't believe everything I'm told. Especially when it comes to circumcision. It has a long history of bogus benefits, from curing masturbation and insanity, to penile and cervical cancer and now AIDS. To borrow a description from the opposition, "it's just a little flap of skin" :D Do you really think removing it is going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the AIDS epidemic in Africa? Be realistic. Why not just amputate the entire penis? That would definitely stop the spread of AIDS in Africa... and wouldn't it be better to have an amputated penis than to die of AIDS? Where do you draw the line? I draw the line at mutilation. I say work on their social practices and send aid in the form of educators and health workers. Leave their bodies alone. None of us are animals to be carved up, studied and dissected.

Well, once again you ahve taken my arguments way out of context and meaning.

I take your position to be, though you seem unable to state it clearly, that you are against any research into the possibility that circumcision does help prevent the transfer and spread of HIV. You believe it shouldn't even be considered. If this is incorrect, feel free to set things straight.

All I have argued is that it ought to be reserached if it shows promise. Like I said, read up on the AIDs epidemic and you'll see 'education' and 'relief efforts' are about the most hollow terms around. What do you think has been going on for the last 15 years to no avail accept rising death tolls?

AIDs workers and reserachers are searching for realistic solutions to slow infection rates, and if circumcision shows any promise, I say research the hell out of it.

Nobody is suggesting manditory circumcisions or involunatary human experimentation - just research, further study, exploration of possibility. You're appearently so fundamentally opposed to the idea that you think a foreskin perhaps outweighs the benefit of saving human lives and preventing suffering. That's cool, but that's also why I feel comfortable using the term fanatic when I describe the viewpoint.

I think if circumcision shows promise, there's damn near a moral obligation to understand what the process is and if it holds any promise. But, if you think any information regarding circumcision not being and entirely negative thing is somehow "suspect" or questionalbe, then there's no reasoning with you.

It seems you've closed your mind to the truly humanitarian argument here, and that unfortunately this is one of the side effects of this hardlining fundamentalist approach.

And really, all this talk of 'chopping off penises' and such is just so much hyperbole and quite sili.

But I think we've established your side of things, which is that it shouldn't even be considered for reserach. Here's a question though, what if multiple and credible studies found that it reduces transmission rates by 50% or so? What then?

Please, don't get personal. I have a viewpoint that differs from yours. That hardly makes me a fanatic or deluded. I simply believe that, if circumcision was such a fantastic preventative procedure, the AIDs rate in Africa would be significantly lower, as the country is around 60 to 70% circed already-- one of the highest in the world, in fact. What will they do after everyone is circumcised and they're still dying of AIDs?

I truly do understand what you're saying. I realize that loss of sensation is a small price to pay to get an epidemic under control... and I would have no objection to it if I truly believed it would work. I just don't think it would. I do not believe that the fold of skin at the tip of the penis makes it easier to catch the disease or transmit it. I think the 20% difference in transmission rates during the time period the men were under observation is from two basic factors... 1) the recovery period of the procedure led the circed group to have fewer sexual partners than the uncut group and 2) the resulting loss of sensation caused the cut group to have less desire for sex and thus less exposure to the disease.

And you're still glossing over the best points I've made so far, which is that the problem is far more complex than you or the researchers are admitting.

Unless you have something new add, I really have said everything I can think of on this subject. Let's not beat a dead horse, okay? I'll even let you have the last word.

Abstinence and monogamy with a clean person = 100% effective. Condoms can break, condoms cost, condoms dont always work, condoms arent always used and it only takes once.

I think in American we need to get our heads straight. Toss the youth some rubbers and tell em "fuck at your own risk" you might end up like this showing a gruesome video of STDs + fucked up people and explain how it spreads from people you dont expect.

or tell em to keep their legs closed and their dick in their pants until they get into a monogomous clean relationship, and they are guaranteed not to get an STD/AIDs, which is life ruining.

Anyways just my shpeel.

Mighty kind of you. My point was simply that I don't think the possibility of it's effectiveness ought to be ignored and excluded from further consideration. If it shows promise, look into it.

Your standpoint, at least as it seemed, was that circumcision is such a horrible thing that it should be ruled out for more research and the possibility that it hampers the spread of disease shouldn't even be investigated.

You then brought up dry sex, female circumcision, and a host of other red herrings that really have nothing to do with these core positions.

In your last post you analyze why you think the findings are incorrect or don't show promise. I have no way to know if you took these positions from another article you read somewhere (though I have seen literally hundreds of articles written on anti-circ sights that fervently argue against any disease-prevention type benefits from circs, but just as many that claim that they do in fact have merit), but either way I'd say your opinion on the matter, is well, just basically a scarcely educated guess or assumption. Like I said before, last time I checked you sold video games or something, not conducted medical or anthropological research.

I on the other hand understand what I do not know, but I do know that there is perhaps a possibility that circumcision could be an effective tool in slowing infection rates, which is basically the goal of every AIDs relief organization on earth aside from medication cost reductions. On the grounds of the very possibility of help aleviate suffering and unnecessary death I say it's worthwhile to investigate. It's still unclear to me as to what your position is on the matter, since you have recused yourself by claiming your understanding of the situation has allowed you to say with 100% confidence that there's no way circumcision couldn't help prevent infection.

And, it's not a personal attack when I describe a position on a matter as fundamentalist of fanatic. These are real and accurate descriptions of idelogical frames of mind, of which I think some of your statements do in fact classify you as such.

Fanatic: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."

You've described yourself in very similar terms many times on this very forum.

Fundamentalist: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Well, I have always felt the anti-circ crowd uses a lot of the same tactics, recruitment, and control mechanisms as religion (even mirroring the pro-life movement with all the violent rhetoric about 'butchery' and 'mutilation' and inhumanity and such, to create an emotional response instead of rational thought), and just replace secularism with circumcision at the end.

Zealot: "A fanatically committed person."

Uh, well, anybody who has ever read the forums probably has their own opinion as to how that description fits you.

But, I did establish above that you've pretty much described yourself as a 'fanatic' by definition many times, and a zealot is just a fanatical person.

Now, I wouldn't say those are personal insults so much as fairly even-handed descriptions.

derringer57 said:

Abstinence and monogamy with a clean person = 100% effective. Condoms can break, condoms cost, condoms dont always work, condoms arent always used and it only takes once.

I think in American we need to get our heads straight. Toss the youth some rubbers and tell em "fuck at your own risk" you might end up like this showing a gruesome video of STDs + fucked up people and explain how it spreads from people you dont expect.

or tell em to keep their legs closed and their dick in their pants until they get into a monogomous clean relationship, and they are guaranteed not to get an STD/AIDs, which is life ruining.

Anyways just my shpeel.

Click to expand...

Well, except we're talking about millions of people of all ages across teh African continent, and actually many other places in the world as well (anybody been down to Sao Paulo or Rio lately?).

You might also be interested to know that high schools with abstinence programs in place of sex education have no lower pregnancy rates and sometimes in fact even higher. Texas, the state with the biggest abstinence intitiative thanks to Bush, also has the highest teen pregnancy rates, at least as of last year. There's a million websites dedicated to this debate, google it and check a few out.

One things for sure, telling people to stop fucking and handing out condoms doesn't work. If it did, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Whoa, whre has my reply to derringer57 gone? It was about 300 words and containedx multiple links. What the hell is going on here? Where's my post? And where's his reply to mine for that matter?

Who has been altering this thread? This is not cool, I'm so sick of this shit happening on this site.

People are deleting posts and screwing with threads, this isn't supposed to happen.

Swank said:

Whoa, whre has my reply to derringer57 gone? It was about 300 words and containedx multiple links. What the hell is going on here? Where's my post? And where's his reply to mine for that matter?

Who has been altering this thread? This is not cool, I'm so sick of this shit happening on this site.

People are deleting posts and screwing with threads, this isn't supposed to happen.

Click to expand...

Don't you ever give up? Have you not noticed there are LOTS of posts missing, and that just maybe the mods have nothing to do with it? Did it cross your mind that we just switched servers and just maybe we lost some posts and threads in the process? Why do you constantly try to convince people that we're pulling all this crap on them? You say you're "so sick of this shit happening," but when has "this shit" EVER happened?

Just so you know, "people here" (the mods) don't even have the ability to delete or edit people's posts, so it doesn't, and CAN'T happen.

And no, the posts are not in the Trash Bucket. They are gone, and it's not the mods' doing. Quit trying to make us out to be the bad guys.

I'm not trying convince anybody of anything guy, take a deep breath and chill out.

And where else have I ranted about any moderators screwing with my posts? I've seen other threads get moved or vanish, had it explained to me, civilly, and been satisfied.

If there are lots of posts missing then fine, like where else for example? I understand there could have been fuck-ups in the process, but how was I to know that when I logged on and saw my stuff was deleted?

You do a good job with this stuff cyclops, but there's no need to be so frickin' touchy and defensive about the 'mod team.' It's a dick enlargment forum, and I'd think you'd agree not the most serious organization on the planet, nobody's feelings are wounded if I am annoyed to see things go missing once again.

The thing is, every time something goes missing you blame us for it and say we're censoring, blah blah blah. Every damn time. It gets old having to explain to you why we do what we do. Someone breaks the rules in their post, so we move it, and you cry censorship. A thread gets locked by a mod because it's going to hell in a handbasket, and you cry abuse of mod power. Some threads get deleted during a server switch, and you assume it's our fault.

It gets old.

Give us a break.

Since you asked, I have a few posts missing, there is a whole thread missing from the BB section, Kong and Kittie have missing posts, along with lots of other members.

Sorry if I came across harshly, but you must understand how it gets old.