Comments on: Circumcision doesn’t protect gays from AIDS virus

By: John S

John S — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:28:18 +0000

I don’t know why so many are so against circumcision. No it many not protect you from HIV, but I have never met anyone that wanted to sew their foreskin back on if they could. I do however know men that went on their own to be circumcised. Most of them were in the military, where they could get it done under their medical coverage. Every one I knew wanted it done because it was so much more esthetically desirable. Though I certainly agree with them. One (straight)friend told me he had never met a girl that found circumcision disgusting, but had run into many that wanted no part of oral sex with uncut men. I don’t recall any of them claiming hygiene being the issue, just appearance, but who knows. Foreskin does provide a warm moist accommodation for odor and undesirable God knows what else.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:01:21 +0000

RobertoCucina,

There are Europeans who are uncircumcized and that doesn’t make them any less Christian or church going, etc. Some want to be circucized and some don’t. But I agree to automatically do so to a male baby as so often here in the USA is when he can’t refuse is not right.

By: robertocucina

robertocucina — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:17:29 +0000

If circumcision is so right, then why is it that only the U.S. and semitic societies (Israel and Islamic countries) practice it while the overwhelming majority of countries do not automatically circumsize boys at birth? Its nothing more than sexual mutilation and primitive, all based in relgious judaic and islamic ritual, a rite of passage, nothing more. I find it ironic that sexual mutilation of women in third world countries is decried by the west, yet circumcision isn’t. Its beyond hypocrisy.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:19:37 +0000

…and, silly me, I hadn’t considered “lying.” DUH!

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:16:45 +0000

Did they ever find out why the presence of foreskin leads to a higher transition rate in heterosexual men? Does it have to do with foreskin or hygiene? In other words, does the foreskin offer an easier route of transmission? (Probably not…or we’d see the same statistics for gay men, and we aren’t seeing that.) Or is it that the foreskin can trap fluids with HIV, increasing the time needed for it to enter the bloodstream?

I don’t think enough solid thinking has been put into this dynamic. It seems like some have been in an impulsive rush to CUT!

By: Kelson

Kelson — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:07:18 +0000

What happened to soap and water? Skin it back, soap it up and wash it fast.

By: fillefantome

fillefantome — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:21:43 +0000

Honestly, I find the idea of the CDC advocating for routine infant circumcision repellent. People have been trying to justify circumcision medically since it was popularized as a deterrent to masturbation in the mid-19th century. The “medical reasons” have run the gamut—a clear case of a solution looking for a problem—and an astounding number of very bad scientific studies have been conducted in support of circumcision. One example: the study concluding that circumcision prevents UTIs in infants, based on a comparison of UTI rates in intact preemies–preemies being prone to UTIs–versus circumcised full-term babies.

Another example: the Africa studies being used as evidence by the CDC for this new drive, where (even ignoring the issue of cross-cultural applicability and a generally flawed study) the men circumcised for the study were educated about safe sex practices while the intact men were not. Surprise, surprise, they were then less likely to contract STIs! Condoms prevent the spread of HIV and other STIs, NOT circumcision. For the CDC to use this type of study as justification for encouraging trusting parents to routinely remove a functionally important piece of their male infants’ bodies is very, very wrong in my opinion.

By: Mijo Skoro

Mijo Skoro — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:07:20 +0000

According to the article, “Circumcision “is not considered beneficial” in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.” – So how are they going to screen which baby boys are gay and straight????!!!
Support Intact’s view that the removal of the healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent is child mutilation!

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:54:37 +0000

If gay men were at 15% gay dating websites like Match.com would have far fewer repeated choices of the same men one already didn’t want and many more fresh photos and descriptions to choose from. Our county gay men’s group would be twice as large as it is with new guys joining all the time. AND THERE WOULDN’T BE ONLY TWO OPENLY GAY MEN IN CONGRESS. There would be maybe about 8 of them beside just Jared Polis and Barney Frank. TED KENNEDY JUST DIED AT 77 TODAY OR YESTERDAY. There goes our progay lion of the Senate for all kinds of minorities. On his way to the grave. Forever silenced. When will a gay man or a lesbian become the lion of the Senate for our own community?

At 15%, there would be about 28 million gay men. Enough to have gay men and their partners out and visible on many more street corners in the USA and jamming more ocean beaches with many more gay men and their partners and with some with their kids at say Rehoboth Beach, DE (DC’s summer capital) than one sees already. I don’t rightly know what percentage of men are gay men as you tend to have more gay men jammed into the big cities on and near the coastal fringes of the country than anywhere else

But I feel that after 44 years of living in the same nice Maryland county next to Northwest DC that 15% seems too high. If that number were so, I would see many more gay couples in the stores and restaurants than I do even these days of increased local population.

By: greenwrangler

greenwrangler — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:51:41 +0000

Circumcision is just another bad American idea. Mothers who cannot take an extra 10 seconds to wash their son’s foreskin are just lazy. Boys and men who cannot take an additional 10 seconds to wash daily are just lazy. There really is no point to male circumcision other than laziness in taking care of personal hygiene. Plain and simple, baby boys should not be mutilated. The creator didn’t add foreskin just to look pretty, it helps protect the glans. As you can see from the statistics, AIDs and HIV prevention hardly have any correlation to circumcision. Keep the extra skin and enjoy better and safer sex.