The Los Angeles Times recently reported on a study that found male circumcision to lower the risk of contracting HIV. Now Jews finally have something to boast from their bris besides just a pretty penis. Hello, boys of AEPi, let’s share the love!
The study showed that circumcision cut the risk of HIV infection in half, as the foreskin is composed of fragile cells more susceptible to infection in general. In fact, the article claims that the study was so successful in finding a defense against HIV that it ended prematurely to offer “a little off the top” to all the participants. Awesome, I’m always up for a free trim.
The director of the World Health Organization’s department of HIV/AIDS, named — get this, I am not joking– Dr. De Cock, says that circumcision is “not a magic bullet,” but the findings are very beneficial in a global battle against HIV. And I trust his word. He is, afterall, De Cock, doctor.
The study, however, is not perfect. I’m all for a clean-cut man, but this little tale just ain’t working for me. I’ve got a bone to pick, if you know what I mean. (And by “pick” I mean. . . well, a little wink wink nudge nudge.)
The study was conducted in Africa, a continent with a horrible track record for its rate of HIV infection. Of the continent, a little over 60% of all men are circumcised; in South Africa, where HIV infection is very severe, less than 20% are circumcised. It seems that there is indeed a correlation between the turtlenecked trouser snake and the STI, but the study neglects to take into account any other preventative measure against the virus. Dude, where are the condoms?
In general, Africa also has a horrible track record for condom use. It just isn’t done as often as it should. In Zimbabwe, where one-quarter of the entire population has HIV/AIDS (as of 2001), the government refused to educate its people about safer sex until recently. The government did not want to acknowledge the sexual epidemic and therefore did not address the cause. Condoms, for the most part, were unheard of. Taken up with one tribal lore, those who were HIV-positive believed that sleeping with virgins would cure them of their disease. No protection — that, as we all know, would ruin the osmosis of purity and miracle. The rate of infection increases. Having an uncut cock does not cause the wild spread of the venereal curse.
The study also fails to recognize the homosexual population that seems hardest hit by the virus (though, no, the virus should not be automatically associated with gay males). The sample population came from a pool of heterosexual males, so the study is inconclusive for homosexual males. How does circumcision affect the possibility of contracting HIV for all people? This question is still unanswered.
Nevertheless the study benefits a population much in need. African countries with high HIV-rates — especially those without effective sexual health programs and education — need anything they can get to combat the potent and efficiently-contagious virus. But offers of circumcision for interested males should not be the only course of action. We need a more comprehensive sex education and a wider availability (in terms of cost, variety, and venues) of safe-sex devices. Stop giving your money to the creepy Salvation Army Santas. Instead, donate your condoms to Africa. Don’t lie to yourself — you’re never going to finish that family pack. (Besides, there’re free condoms at the Tang and on your local university health worker. )
If you’re quite satisfied with your covered member, don’t feel like you have to sign up for a grand ol’ time of genital scalping. As long as you practice safer sex (i.e. always use protection), your foreskin will forego infections. Uncut knobs can be hot, too. Maybe, I guess.
Circumcision is not a solution in itself. It is a cautionary measure that now has been proven to defend against the risk of infection. Though I know you like to think it, having a snipped schlong is not a mark of God. You’ve still got to wrap it if you’re going to tap it. Male condoms are recommended, but there are other choices on the market: dental dams, latex gloves, and female condoms (and diaphragms, shields, caps, sponges, and spermicide as contraception). And there’s always plastic wrap in a pinch. Seriously.
The study shouldn’t make you jump to conclusions. You need to put down the knife, sweetums: not all meat needs to be butchered. Just take it from me — you don’t want to serve your sausage raw.
Doctor DE COCK? That is fucken GREAT LOL! And as for you, great job on being not only a Vixen, but a health-conscious vixen, you clean girl you.
Comment by Maria — December 19, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
For a lot of your readers, isn’t it a little late to be considering a little snip of this & that?
Comment by Ben N. — December 20, 2006 @ 1:23 am
Ben -
Though most men usually get circumcised as babies, there are others who choose to, for one reason or another, go under the knife later in their lives. Many times it’s for social reasons, such as feeling like they don’t fit in and being ashamed of having a “different” penis. Some do it purely for cosmetic reasons. Doctors generally don’t advise adult men to consider the cut unless there are serious health problems.
Comment by Administrator — December 20, 2006 @ 9:58 am
I will remain anonymous for this post to not entice tons of angry emails or whatever.
I find your blogpost completely absurd. To try and relate a study done in los angeles to the problems of the African AIDS endemic shows a clear misunderstanding of the situation in Africa. What makes me any more qualified on the topic? Allow me to inform you that I’m from Africa, grew up there, lived there, and was immersed in the culture there.
You take no consideration that most circumcisions in Africa are done in extremely unhygienic conditions. Many of the African tribes have rituals where men are circumcised as their passing rights to adulthood. Minor infections are almost always present and fatalities have occurred. This does little to help the AIDS problem. Also, where the foreskin might make a slight change in the men’s susceptibility, this does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change the dangers of AIDS on the women’s side, and all evidence shows that AIDS is a problem for all relationships, not only homosexual (as the stereotype was until some years ago).
Also, the foreskin serves a vital role in keeping the penis glans health. Any circumcised penis loses a degree of sensitivity to handle the large amount of nerve endings which are left in the open by removing the foreskin. I cannot see any reasonable reason why diminishing your sexual capabilities are desirable above using a condom, which has statistically at least an order of magnitude better chance of preventing AIDS.
Those two arguments completely ruin your approach both in the western world and in Africa, so I see little reason left why I would subject myself to be butchered for the sake of having a statistical probability of only 50% to not contract AIDS… 50% will NOT change the good habit of wearing a condom OR making sure both you and your partner are HIV negative. By spreading the idea that by a “simple” circumcision you can take away some of your risk, you are sure to entice many young couples into risky sexual contact since they believe that they have some degree of safety “built in” (or should I say “cut out”).
And lastly, a circumcised penis should never be confused with a medically healthy penis - that is a COSMETIC or RELIGIOUS decision, NOT a medical reason. If you think a circumcised penis is “more attractive”, leave it at that. It won’t change the fact that a man with HIV will give it to you through sexual contact, or if you have HIV, you still have a responsibility to let the man know this, and not trust on the idea of his cosmetically altered penis to “protect” him.
Comment by Agitated — December 22, 2006 @ 1:46 am
This comment goes out to the previous commenter. I find your blog post completely absurd. Please notice that Christine does not actually relate circumcisions to the AIDS epidemic. She merely references the study as a jumping off point into the problems in Africa. I believe that if you pay close attention to what she is saying, you will find that she realizes how ridiculous it is to suggest that the AIDS epidemic may possibly be curbed circumcisions.
However, as not to disrespect you, I do realize that you may have a gut reaction to how ignorant much of the world is to the problems in other, less fortunate parts of the globe. There are oblivious people in this world who continue to make the situation worse by spreading their partial-truths to others, but believe me, Christine is not one of them.
Yes, there is a serious problem and no, circumcision is not a magic bullet. But we have to respect few people like Christine who are doing their part by occasionally digressing from their usual web log topics and trying to do some good in this world by educating others.
Comment by John Henry — December 22, 2006 @ 2:10 am
Agitated -
I appreciate your concern, but I believe you have entirely misread my post.
First, if you had read my post thoroughly, you would have noted that “the study was conducted in Africa” (paragraph 5), not Los Angeles — The LA Times simply reported on the study. It was deisgned to help combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
Yes, tribal circumcisions are dangerous, but the circumcisions offered through the study were not done in tribal villages. They were performed at health centers under the supervision of the medical group that conducted the study.
I, too, have roots in Africa. I did not pull the Zimbabwe account from thin air — the my entire maternal family hails from Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Believe me, I know.
And yes, the foreskin can protect the glans of the penis, but as the study reported, the “foreskin is composed of fragile cells more susceptible to infection in general” (paragraph 2). Circumcision, in this case, was NOT a cosmetic procedure.
In my second to last paragraph, I say that “circumcision is not a solution in itself.” I am NOT advocating circumcision alone as a cautionary measure against HIV. I call for a “more comprehensive sex education and a wider availability (in terms of cost, variety, and venues) of safe-sex devices,” which involves condoms (paragraph 8 ). I even end the post with the disclaimer: “The study shouldn’t make you jump to conclusions. You need to put down the knife, sweetums: not all meat needs to be butchered. Just take it from me — you don’t want to serve your sausage raw.” Granted, it’s euphemistic and light-hearted, but it still means that circumcision is not the solution for everyone and you still need to wear a condom.
The way you’ve read my post makes me believe you didn’t read it at all. I invite you to re-read it and notice the points that you’ve missed. I’d hate for someone to walk away from my blog being misinformed — that is not my goal at all.
Comment by Administrator — December 22, 2006 @ 11:19 am
all of those other methods (spermicide, diaphragm…plastic wrap) except perhaps the dental dam, are used to prevent pregnancy, not HIV.
Comment by Anonymous — December 22, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Anon - Thanks for pointing that out. I was simply listing safer sex supplies, and I realize I should point out that not all safer sex supplies (such as those used as contraception) are effective at preventing the spread of STI’s.
Comment by Administrator — December 22, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
daaaaaaaaaaamn, guys! take it easy on christine. she was not - despite the title of the post - advocating circumcision to protect from AIDS. in fact she took measures to disqualify this young and wobbly perspective. Agitated - you are correct in asserting that circumsicion in itself can be and often is dangerous, and she admitedly prefers circumcision for aesthetic reasons. personally, i agree that uncut is better because it retains sensitivity that is really lost when the foreskin is removed, and it can lead to complications. but what she wrote was not in the least bit offensive or presumptuous. she’s not an authority, but she’s providing information for the rest of us to be simply more educated on the topic of sex. she’s not claiming to be a scientist, but appreciate what she’s doing.
Comment by nena — December 24, 2006 @ 9:56 pm