[Jburton]

It's almost as if contraception and routine testing are better than mutilating dicks.

Its laughable, isn't it.

[BocoDragon]

I'm cut-GAF but this story sounds like bullshit.

It's always funny when alarm bells are being raised in one country for something that is already common in other countries, where things are just fine.

[Wafflecakes]

Make up future costs for society due to STI infection, try to get more little boys cut so your hospital can get the money.

Yeah I am simply not convinced that circumcision has any actual impact.....I mean....how could they really do a study on it? Almost all people who get circumcised nowadays do it for religious reasons meaning they are culturally very different what those who are not circumcised.

Correlation =/= causation.

[Kurtofan]

Support America, cut your dick.

[Poindexter]

My little anteater thinks this story is mostly fudged fantasy numbers.

[Az987]

Anti-foreskin propaganda!

How long until they have routine inspections and forced circumcisions?

"You can take my freedom, but you'll never take my foreskin!"

[Eidan]

I get tetchy when people say uncut people have dirty dicks. Sorry but you did imply it.

Fair enough. I don't know anything about the difficulty (or lack thereof) in maintaining a clean uncircumcised penis. I just know women I've been involved with have expressed relief that I was circumcised. Blame anti-uncircumcised propaganda.

[Wazzim]

I'm so sick of being part of the 10% in Europe that does want to put an end to rising health-care costs.


What a ridiculous article.

[Earthstrike]

Make up future costs for society due to STI infection, try to get more little boys cut so your hospital can get the money.

Also, Jesus.

[Jburton]

Fuck foreskin! Circumcised for life!

Do you remember your foreskin?

It's easier to have one and imagine not having it than, for all intents and purposes never having had one and trying to imagine what its like.

Bitterness over childhood mutilation is righteous, let it flow.

[Dai101]

Fuck foreskin! Circumcised for life!

Like if you had a choice

[astroturfing]

sometimes progress is costly.

Fair enough. I don't know anything about the difficulty (or lack thereof) in maintaining a clean uncircumcised penis. I just know women I've been involved with have expressed relief that I was circumcised. Blame anti-uncircumcised propaganda.

if you know how to wash your armpits you can probably manage washing your foreskin. it's just slightly more difficult.

[KieferCrimson]

Okay, I might be lambasted to the hell and back for this and because I seem to have missed biology and anatomy classes and whatnot but:

Yet three separate studies have found that circumcision reduces the risks of infection with HIV, leading the World Health Organization to recommend circumcision in places where HIV risk runs high. Kenya, for one, is turning to circumcision of adult men to curb the spread of the virus there.

How and why? As far as I know, you can get HIV for having unprotected sex (with or without foreskin) with a HIV positive person, how does circumsicion reduces the risk of that?

[Mama Robotnik]

So much [CITATION NEEDED] in that article.

[THE NO LIFE KING]

Do you remember your foreskin? It's easier to have one and imagine not having it than, for all intents and purposes never having had one and trying to imagine what its like. Bitterness over childhood mutilation is righteous, let it flow.

Like if you had a choice

Got circumcised when I was 18. Do not miss it one bit.

[SquiddyCracker]

That doesn't make any sense. As far as I knew the benefits of Circumcision were minimal to nonexistent. How would doing the procedure LESS cause MORE costs? (Also don't believe the HIV shit personally...I think there are other explanations...)

From what I understood:

• If there is a slightly lower chance at contracting HIV for a circumcised person, then this will show up statistically if it's not too low.
• Reduce the number of circumcised people, and naturally the number of HIV-contractions will increase - if all things remain the same.
• More people with HIV will result in increased healthcare costs, even after you've included the savings of not funding circumcision and reduced number of complications related to circumcision.
• Decline in circumcisions could prove costly.

It makes sense, but the question is if the numbers are correct, e.g the chance of contracting HIV, the cost of HIV, the cost of circumcision; and some base premises such as all other factors remaining the same, and whether or not there is another, cheaper way than circumcising people, of reducing HIV contraction rates.

In other words:

[Dreamgazer]

To facilitate discussion instead of dirty vs cheesy dicks/"science is my friend till it fucks with sex":

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex. Biologic Plausibility Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4]. International Observational Studies A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men. Another review that included stringent assessment of 10 potential confounding factors and was stratified by study type or study population was published in 2003 [6]. Most of the studies were from Africa. Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men [7]. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant. Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level. Although links between circumcision, culture, religion, and risk behavior may account for some of the differences in HIV infection prevalence, the countries in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male circumcision of less than 20% have HIV infection prevalences several times higher than those in countries in these regions where more than 80% of men are circumcised [8]. International Clinical Trials Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants’ risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision. In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study: 1) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in HIV-infected men and men of unknown HIV infection status, 2) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in the men’s female sex partners, and 3) effect of male circumcision on male-to-female transmission of HIV and other STDs. Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV-seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners. If the male’s HIV viral load was <50,000 copies/mL, there was no HIV transmission if the man was circumcised, compared with a transmission rate of 9.6 per 100 person-years if the man was uncircumcised [7]. When viral load was not controlled for, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the male-to-female transmission rate from circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men. Such an effect may be due to decreased viral shedding from circumcised men or to a reduction in ulcerative STDs acquired by female partners of circumcised men [12]. A clinical trial in Uganda to assess the impact of circumcision on male-to-female transmission reported that its first interim safety analysis showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of HIV acquisition in women partners of HIV-seropositive men in couples who had resumed sex prior to certified postsurgical wound healing and did not detect a reduction in HIV acquisition by female partners engaging in sex after wound healing was complete [13]. Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4]. Risks Associated with Male Circumcision Reported complication rates depend on the type of study (e.g., chart review vs. prospective study), setting (medical vs. nonmedical facility), person operating (traditional vs. medical practitioner), patient age (infant vs. adult), and surgical technique or instrument used. In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0% [1, 14, 15]. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection. In the recently completed African trials of adult circumcision, the rates of adverse events possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to circumcision ranged from 2% to 8%. The most commonly reported complications were pain or mild bleeding. There were no reported deaths or long-term sequelae documented [9, 10, 11, 16]. A recent case-control study of two outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in otherwise healthy male infants at one hospital identified circumcision as a potential risk factor. However, in no case did MRSA infections involve the circumcision site, anesthesia injection site, or the penis, and MRSA was not found on any of the circumcision equipment or anesthesia vials tested [17]. Effects of Male Circumcision on Penile Sensation and Sexual Function Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and function in relation to male circumcision are few, and the results present a mixed picture. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision [18]. However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change [19–22]. The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision [9, 10, 11, 16]; however, cultural differences limit extrapolation of their findings to U.S. men. HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States In 2005, men who have sex with men (MSM) (48%), MSM who also inject drugs (4%), and men (11%) and women (21%) exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact accounted for an estimated 84% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in U.S. areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting. Blacks accounted for 49% of cases and Hispanics for 18%. Infection rates for both groups were several-fold higher than the rate for whites. An overall prevalence of 0.5% was estimated for the general population [23]. Although data on HIV infection rates since the beginning of the epidemic are available, data on circumcision and risk for HIV infection in the United States are limited. In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection [24]. In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion [25]. In both studies, the results were statistically significant, and the data had been controlled statistically for other possible risk factors. However, in another prospective cohort study of MSM, there was no association between circumcision status and incident HIV infection, even among men who reported no unprotected anal receptive intercourse [26]. And in a recent cross-sectional study of African American and Latino MSM, male circumcision was not associated with previously known or newly diagnosed HIV infection [27]. In one prospective study of heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic, when other risk factors were controlled, uncircumcised men had a 3.5-fold higher risk for HIV infection than men who were circumcised. However, this association was not statistically significant [28]. And in an analysis of clinic records for African American men attending an STD clinic, circumcision was not associated with HIV status overall, but among men with known HIV exposure, circumcision was associated with a statistically significant 58% reduction in risk for HIV infection [29]. .... ....

[Steelrain]

These threads are always hilariously sad.

[SlaughterX]

I can confirm this.

So you've had your dick sucked before and after a circumcision?

[Aguirre]

i feel sorry for men who can't sheathe their penis when it's not in use.

[Sai-kun]

Dick cheese

sure, if you don't know how to clean yourself

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Make up future costs for society due to STI infection, try to get more little boys cut so your hospital can get the money.

Yeah skepticism is fine but I'm not going to doubt the researchers in this case just because they work in Johns Hopkins. I'm inclined to believe that their research was probably conducted correctly and with no biases. If other research groups find the same results, and similar dollar figures for healthcare costs, then that would make this a legitimate point.

Right now, there's no argument that can be really said by either side other than bashing cultural/religious/sensitivity/aesthetics/yadda yadda that come up in every circumcision thread.

[Devolution]

i feel sorry for men who can't sheathe their penis when it's not in use.

I feel sorry for dudes who have to make it a personal issue and insult in either direction. All yo dicks is ugly until I say otherwise.

[Jburton]

From what I understood: If there is a slightly lower chance at contracting HIV for a circumcised person, then this will show up statistically if it's not too low. Reduce the number of circumcised people, and naturally the number of HIV-contractions will increase - if all things remain the same. More people with HIV will result in increased healthcare costs, even after you've included the savings of not funding circumcision and reduced number of complications related to circumcision. Decline in circumcisions could prove costly. It makes sense, but the question is if the numbers are correct, e.g the chance of contracting HIV, the cost of HIV, the cost of circumcision; and some base premises such as all other factors remaining the same, and whether or not there is another, cheaper way than circumcising people, of reducing HIV contraction rates.

Frankly those statistics are bullshit, what country was the study done?

Europe has some of the lowest rates of HIV in the developed world and the vast, overwhelming majority of men are uncut.

America is the opposite and has higher infection rates.

[Meier]

Foreskin makes oral sex considerably more enjoyable, so there.

Maybe for the dude. The lady has to deal with all the gross shit that goes with being uncircumcised though.

[Slayer-33]

sure, if you don't know how to clean yourself

It's really hard to pull back and wash there.

Rocket scientist levels of intelligence required.

lol

Maybe for the dude. The lady has to deal with all the gross shit that goes with being uncircumcised though.

I'm uncut and ultra clean

Not to mention that my cock is beautiful :)

[Hoo-doo]

Maybe for the dude. The lady has to deal with all the gross shit that goes with being uncircumcised though.

How? You realize an erect cut dick is going to look virtually indistinguishable from a uncut dick, right?

[Emerson]

To all these GAF lefties trying to take away my penile rights I have only one thing to say:

[Kinitari]

So are they saying costs will go up due to an increase in HIV infections, std etc? Am I reading that right, because if so its nonsense ..... I would think Europe (UK at least) has a far smaller rate of infections (HIV, STD) than America and next to no one gets cut over here.

Actually, pretty sure Europe and less circumcised developed countries have a higher sti rate statistically

[Danielsan]

It seems America is finally realizing the error of its ways.

Maybe for the dude. The lady has to deal with all the gross shit that goes with being uncircumcised though.

What gross shit? Just keep your dick clean like any dude should regardless of being circumcized or not.

[Magni]

Foreskins are like appendices, you should only remove them if they pose an immediate health risk (systemically operating at birth shouldn't be an option).

The main difference between the two is that foreskins also give you better orgasms.

[MasterOfPastures]

Unless medically necessary to treat a condition, circumcision should not be forced upon children.
If you wish to do so out of religious grounds, then do so under a disapproving society that will frown down at you.

Why does GAF talk about penises so much?

[planar1280]

Gaf logic is weird. All scientific studies are followed by fuck yeah science apart from foreskin gaf

[Salvadora]

To all these GAF lefties trying to take away my penile rights I have only one thing to say:

I just feel sorry tbh.

[Devolution]

Yeah skepticism is fine but I'm not going to doubt the researchers in this case just because they work in Johns Hopkins. I'm inclined to believe that their research was probably conducted correctly and with no biases. If other research groups find the same results, and similar dollar figures for healthcare costs, then that would make this a legitimate point. Right now, there's no argument that can be really said by either side other than bashing cultural/religious/sensitivity/aesthetics/yadda yadda that come up in every circumcision thread.

Let's say you could establish that the rate of transmission is a small percentage higher for uncut. At what rate is acceptable to encourage such a procedure when STI transmission can mostly be avoided via good education, contraception and testing? Is it really worth it?

[Eidan]

Gaf logic is weird. All scientific studies are followed by fuck yeah science apart from foreskin gaf

When it comes to foreskin, everyone becomes anti-vaccination advocates.

[SquiddyCracker]

Actually, pretty sure Europe and less circumcised developed countries have a higher sti rate statistically

It's kinda tricky comparing countries anyway, with the differing cultures and all.

Let's say you could establish that the rate of transmission is a small percentage higher for uncut. At what rate is acceptable to encourage such a procedure when STI transmission can mostly be avoided via good education, contraception and testing? Is it really worth it?

From a government perspective, it's all about the costs.
If good education, contraception, and testing is cheaper the circumcision, then they should obviously go for that.

[danwarb]

Fair enough. I don't know anything about the difficulty (or lack thereof) in maintaining a clean uncircumcised penis. I just know women I've been involved with have expressed relief that I was circumcised. Blame anti-uncircumcised propaganda.

There is none, but not all penises are the same.

You can get circumcised at any time if it's necessary, can't get uncircumcised. For most people I think it isn't necessary. Mine would not be so pretty circumcised.

[Devolution]

Maybe for the dude. The lady has to deal with all the gross shit that goes with being uncircumcised though.

Haha you haven't a fucking clue.

[News Bot]

These threads are always hilariously sad.

Men are notorious for being very sensitive about their dicks. Doesn't really matter what the subject is. Their mental age will decrease quite a bit as long as dicks are involved.

[Kinitari]

Foreskins are like appendices, you should only remove them if they pose an immediate health risk (systemically operating at birth shouldn't be an option). The main difference between the two is that foreskins also give you better orgasms.

If an appendix was as easy to remove at birth as foreskin, would totally sign my kid up.

Also, the latter is not fact! In fact, i think there have been studies that show minimal to no sensation loss

[Tinkleberry]

I'm gonna put an end to the cut vs uncut debate that has plagued neogaf.

Can an circumcised man ever choose to be uncircumcised? Nope

Can an uncircumcised man choose to kill the nerves in his cock and be circumcised? Yes



One has an option, the other is forced.

It's like asking someone from Canada if Canada is better than the US.

[nVidiot_Whore]

Frankly those statistics are bullshit, what country was the study done? Europe has some of the lowest rates of HIV in the developed world and the vast, overwhelming majority of men are uncut. America is the opposite and has higher infection rates.

You just bashed a study done by Johns Hopkins and then threw out completely irrelevant correlations to refute the study? (as well as other studies done by reputable medical and research orgs)

The data suggests that there is an increased chance of HIV infection.

If you PERSONALLY avoid dangerous sex, it's not a problem.

But when measuring a population of people....

... things start to change.

Any given parent could look at the data and say "My child isn't a high risk child so this study doesn't matter to him" but to children born to at-risk parents it's probably good to recommend that Medicaid and other orgs encourage circumcision if this data can be backed up.

[Jburton]

How? You realize an erect cut dick is going to look virtually indistinguishable from a uncut dick, right?

I know, but as I said ...... An uncut man is really the only one qualified to comment on how dick in its natural state works.

Anyone circumcised from birth has no real idea, except for what others tell them .....and if they were circumcised from birth, what would they know?

A man with a foreskin only has to pull it back for a couple of minutes to see what a cut cock looks like.

[Hoo-doo]

Actually, pretty sure Europe and less circumcised developed countries have a higher sti rate statistically

Nonsense. Sort by prevalence and you'll recognise the US having a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS than almost any European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...revalence_rate

[Devolution]

If an appendix was as easy to remove at birth as foreskin, would totally sign my kid up. Also, the latter is not fact! In fact, i think there have been studies that show minimal to no sensation loss

Who cares about arguments in which sensitivity is subjective. You're still mutilating a kid who can't get that part back. Let them get all the info necessary and make that decision when they're older.

[MWS Natural]

Got circumcised when I was 18. Do not miss it one bit.

MY MAN

[Darklord]

Maybe for the dude. The lady has to deal with all the gross shit that goes with being uncircumcised though.

Damn, I guess I'll have to stick to gorgeous Australian and European women who many would probably only see uncut dicks.

[Salvadora]

Who cares about arguments in which sensitivity is subjective. You're still mutilating a kid who can't get that part back. Let them get all the info necessary and make that decision when they're older.

Pretty much. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Frankly those statistics are bullshit, what country was the study done? Europe has some of the lowest rates of HIV in the developed world and the vast, overwhelming majority of men are uncut. America is the opposite and has higher infection rates.

Wow. lol. So you disagree with nearly every scientific study done?

Also from the Journal of the American Medical Association:

In addition to HIV, male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of other heterosexually acquired sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Two trials demonstrated that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring genital herpes by 28% to 34%, and the risk of developing genital ulceration by 47%. Additionally, the trials found that male circumcision reduces the risk of oncogenic high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) by 32% to 35%. While some consider male circumcision to be primarily a male issue, one trial also reported derivative benefits for female partners of circumcised men; the risk of HR-HPV for female partners was reduced by 28%, the risk of bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and the risk of trichomoniasis was reduced by 48%.

Bullshit right? Because Europeans are circumcised and stuff...

Pretty much. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

So wait until what age? 18? After >50% of people are already having sex? When it's a more difficult procedure with more risks? that would be pretty stupid.