Circumcision and HIV
» Sexual Health
Not being competent to judge such research I'm agnostic. I'm sure the anti-circumcision activists aren't.
The study, released in July, found that circumcision can reduce by about 65% the risk of men contracting HIV through sexual intercourse with women. The randomized, controlled clinical trial enrolled more than 3,000 HIV-negative, uncircumcised men ages 18 to 24 living in a South African township. Half of them were randomly assigned to be circumcised, and the other half served as a control group, remaining uncircumcised. After 21 months, 51 of the uncircumcised men had contracted HIV, compared with 18 of the circumcised men, and the procedure prevented six to seven out of 10 potential HIV infections
Policymakers Should Discuss How To Promote Circumcision if Proven an Effective HIV Prevention Method
Comments
While I do not dispute what appears to be the facts of HIV/AIDS and Circumcision, I feel it is a huge case of overkill in the extreme. No one would EVER suggest the genital mutilation of a woman in order to prevent disease. YET, we allow and are now even suggesting that we should use it as a disease control. This is ludicrous! Sexual behavior is the cause of disease NOT a bit of skin. Education is the only thing that can make a difference. We seem to treat male genital mutilation so lightly as to suggest we can use it to help in the spread if AIDS. Yet what IF it were shown that FEMALE genital mutilation were effective in the prevention of disease would there be an outcry?? You bet!!! No-one in their right mind would suggest that we should mutilate the genital of a woman for ANY reason, yet we allow ourselves to think that this insignificant little piece of skin on a males dick is superfluous and that it is BETTER to be circumcised that not. I find the whole concept of genital mutilation - male or female to be offensive and disgusting. Education and behavior modification is the key for the long term NOT chopping off skin.
Posted by: sven | July 19, 2006 3:41 AM