this seems, i dunno...

you're not the only one. i yelled into the other room to DH, "you've got to be kidding me! front page, first article, NYT: [insert title here]" it did seem really dramatic for NYT. I was surprised. plus, for those people who are swayed by headlines and don't really dig for info...oh dear.

I hope this doesn't sound classist, but I believe that in many countries the governing rule is, circumcision is for people with money. It used to be that way in the west (not including Jewish circumcisions) until the last century when the class gap closed a bit.

People with money are usually educated. Educated people don't usually fall into class chasms of health and superstition.

So, If you have a poor country...
Human Development Index Available data indicates that Uganda's human development index is one of the lowest in the world.
GNP is less then $300 USD
Kenya's GNP is slightly higher at $350 USD per capita.

Lets take two countries at the bottom of the scale to determine whether or not AIDS rates are higher in circumcised males. Uh, am I the only person to think that maybe since it is a non-comparable country, there are a few more variables involved?

Maybe instead of studying them under a microscope we should help pull them out of poverty. Educate, offer health care or at least condoms...oh wait, they don't have oil wells, nevermind.

I have discussed this research (it is not brand new) with a pediatric urologist who is against routine circumcision. She was awesome. She probably has had her baby by now, but she was going to the birth center I was training at for her pregnancy, even though she was a resident at one of the biggest hospitals in the country. Or, maybe precisely because of that.

I was privy to a fascinating argument...the midwife (Shari, an orthodox Jew) arguing for circumcision and the pediatric urologist arguing against it. She did acknowledge that there does seem to be a slight protective effect in communities where we are talking AIDS rates of 40% or higher (I need to check the numbers, please don't quote me). Her argument was, so what if they are circumcised in that situation...it is in no way as protective as abstinence and condoms, and who the hell would tell their kid that since you're circumcised, you don't have to practice safe sex.

As a public health issue, however, I can understand doing anything to stem the rise of AIDS in African nations with high rates of unsafe sex occurring in the general population anyway, but I would hope that condoms and abstinence would be pushed even to circumcised men. Sunflower the unflower

My Tinfoil Hat

i just posted the article, didn't see this first. sorry.

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." - Nietzsche

I just did some research on this topic having been in surgery ( for my pediatric rotation)on several circumcision resections that seemed totally cosmetic and unnecessary and like homage to the great penis ( would we have several hours of surgery paid for by insurance to make sure that the labia look just right?) So I had to look for research that showed that this was bad practice. And I came across a lot of peer reviewed articles that stated that uncircumcized males had higher rick of HIV, HPV and penile cancer. The thinking about it is that the STI's can be prevented without surgical intervention and circumcision does not negate risk of infection. If your son is not practicing safe sex then yes he runs higher risk of infection of these STI's than those who have been circumcised however circumcision is not a prevention for infection.

links to articles:
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0036-36342003...
Male circumcision, penile HPV, and cervical cancer

A recent piece of evidence confirming the importance of men in HPV transmission and cervical carcinogenesis comes from the IARC multicentric study on male circumcision.6 This study compared penile HPV DNA prevalence in circumcised and uncircumcised men to estimate a woman's risk of cervical HPV infection and that of cervical cancer according to the husband's circumcision status. We found that circumcised men were about three times less likely to harbor HPV in their penis than did uncircumcised men. Consistent with the venereal nature of HPV infections, we found that male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner. As shown in Figure 5 among monogamous women, circumcision status of the husband was associated with a reduced risk of cervical cancer, particularly and most strongly, among women whose male consorts had engaged in high-risk sexual behaviors as measured by an early age at first sexual intercourse, a high lifetime number of sexual partners, and sexual intercourse with women that were prostitutes. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5, using a computed sexual behavior risk index revealed a statistically significant dose-response relationship between increasing husband's sexual behavior risk and cervical cancer risk reduction linked to circumcision in their wives. These findings confirmed for the first time the long-suspected hypothesis claiming that male circumcision might reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female partners and underlines the importance of the male in the risk of HPV acquisition and cervical neoplasia in the female partner.

http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/74/5/368
OBJECTIVES: Globally approximately 25% of men are circumcised for religious, cultural, medical, or parental choice reasons. However, controversy surrounds the procedure, and its benefits and risks to health. We review current knowledge of the health benefits and risks associated with male circumcision. METHODS: We have used, where available, previously conducted reviews of the relation between male circumcision and specific outcomes as "benchmarks", and updated them by searching the Medline database for more recent information. RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses. CONCLUSION: Further analyses of the utility and cost effectiveness of male circumcision as a preventive health measure should, in the light of this information, be research and policy priorities. A decision as to whether to recommend male circumcision in a given society should be based upon an assessment of the risk for and occurrence of the diseases which are associated with the presence of the foreskin, versus the risk of the complications of the procedure. In order for individuals and their families to make an informed decision, they should be provided with the best available evidence regarding the known benefits and risks.

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/77/3/258

I should also say that I personally am against routine circumcision and I have had girls but had I had a boy I would have not circumcised him.

"Happiness is good health and a bad memory" --Ingrid Bergman

I know. sigh. My pro-circ dh triumphantly sent me this. Like my decision to ever keep a male child intact will surely be an HIV death sentence now. I fucking hate this article, in a way. It's meant to be something to help countries suffering from a high incidence of HIV. But, easily appropriated as a pro-circumcision argument by anyone. The lower standards of hiegiene in those countries, combined with being intact, may contribute to the higher incidence of male hetero HIV infection. But here, we already have better AIDS education and higher hiegiene standards in our homes, which I think balances out any higher HIV risk that being intact might bring.
~~~
Huge Wonder parody kids shirts
Rockosaurus Rex kids' rock