Male circumcision is a topic that always seems to stir up debate and heated reactions. So, in the interest of kicking that sleeping dog to get a reaction I bring you this story from Reuters.
In the current study, the researchers found that, over two years, circumcised men were 39 percent less likely than their uncircumcised counterparts to report any type of penile injuries during sex.
This raises the possibility that lower injury risk is one reason that circumcision lowers the odds of HIV transmission, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Supriya D. Mehta of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Why do all kinds of stories about men who have ruptured their corpora cavernosa while engaging in vigorous sex seem to come to mind?
Does circumcision reduce the chance of HIV? Well, if you believe scientists without question, then I suppose the answer would be yes. I reserve judgment. I haven’t read any of the papers, not do I expect I will.
I’m not swayed one way or the other at this point. And yes, I was cut as a baby, but I’m not one of those haters who accuse their parents of genital mutilation and ruining my life for doing it when I couldn’t stop them. I’ve got better things to do with my time than get bent out of shape about circumcision now. I’ve also known a couple of parents that had to get their boys circumcised when they were toddlers due to some health related issues. Should they be crucified too? I don’t think so.
