Does circumcision really help decrease the possibly of getting AIDS?

vegansoymilk · 2023-07-13T20:12:07+00:00

Not related to the health issues, my personal experience......

I was circumcised at the age of 10. When I was borne it was unlikely I would survive so my parents didn't worry about circumcising me. I managed to cling onto life. Fast forward 10 years latter because my mother's religious beliefs I was circumcised. It was painful, humiliating and unnecessary. Why the age of 10. I had to have an operation for undescended testicles so my mother demanded that I be circumcised at the same time. My father acquiesced. For a week after the operation every time I urinated It was excruciatingly painful. Because of other people's religious beliefs I put through a lot of unnecessary suffering.

GolgothaCross · 2023-07-13T18:25:12+00:00

According to the NIH, in the Uganda study, out of 4996 men, 22 circumcised men tested positive versus 45 uncircumcised. That's how they claim their 50-60% relative risk reduction.

Meanwhile, the number of adverse events (botched circumcision) was 178 men out of the 2474 who were cut. They never mention that part. The number of men whose penises were damaged by their circumcision and therefore were curtailed from sexual activity exceeds the difference. So yes, circumcision will reduce your chances of contracting HIV because you won't be having sex with a ruined dick. Great.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711844/table/T1/?report=objectonly

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711844/

You avoid HIV by practicing safe sex, not by cutting off part of your penis.

The actual number of adverse events (men whose penises were damaged) is, of course, all those who got circumcised.

AirSailer · 2023-07-13T19:29:36+00:00

NO!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36870774/

This paper summarizes the results of large population-based surveys conducted in southern African countries, the region most affected by AIDS worldwide. These surveys show that HIV prevalence among men aged 40-59 years is the same regardless of circumcision status and type. These results call into question the recommendations of the World Health Organization.

sorebum405 · 2023-07-13T19:48:25+00:00

This video exposes the flaws in those studies claiming that circumcision is protective against aids.One of the problems mentioned is that they could not tell whether or not the HIV was sexually transmitted or due to other causes like intravenous drug use.They also apparently told the circumcised men to not have unprotected sex for 4-8 weeks.The studies are clearly agenda driven,and the severe flaws found in the studies invalidate them.

However,as another user already mentioned,even if circumcision was protective against aids it is still a really shitty justification for circumcising males,because condoms and other preventive measures exist.It seems like the health benefits of circumcisions are usually exaggerated,while the risks and complications are downplayed.It is disgusting how many people are actually being disingenuous about the costs and benefits of circumcision to justify it.

MrSaturn33 · 2023-07-13T18:22:56+00:00

It doesn't. This subreddit debunks this and the other numerous lies that abound to justify it.

Current_Finding_4066 · 2023-07-13T18:04:46+00:00

This is claimed by WHO and CDC. I am sure there are studies to support it. However, even if it is completely true. It does not justify male genital mutilation. There are cheap, fast, and reliable HIV tests, condoms, and other ways to avoid contracting HIV. Not to mention that even in the best-case scenario it only decreases the chance and does not eliminate it.

Muslim sources claim that Female genital mutilation also provides health and cleanliness benefits. However, we all agree that detrimental side effects outweigh the benefits and have banned the procedure.

Only bigots can support and promote circumcision.

EDIT: Another posted a link to a study debunking WHO recommendations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36870774/

Spare_Guesso · 2023-07-13T19:50:42+00:00

Instead of mutilating oneself, just wear protection and be careful who you sleep with?

RoryTate · 2023-07-13T21:09:51+00:00

One of the major methodological flaws in the study that showed this result – and as far as I know, there is only one African study that is ever referenced when this subject is brought up – is that there was no control for the fact that the circumcised men could not have sex for several weeks or months following the surgery. So the researchers did not properly normalize for this disparity in participants. Even worse, when they had initial findings that the circumcised men were contracting HIV at significantly lower rates (unsurprising, since they were also far less sexually active than their uncircumcised counterparts), the researchers instituted a moral imperative clause and said that they were now required to circumcise all the men (because it would save lives). (Note: all medical studies have this clause in them for exceptional situations, but this decision should never have been made in such a flawed study, because it intrinsically makes the study results appear far more significant, and this can be easily misused by any researcher who wants to obtain a pre-ordained outcome.)

So the results of that study – and again, it's the only one I have heard that makes that huge claim – are not supported by a control group, and the experiment as described in the paper contains other causal factors for lower HIV rates like training on condom use, dispensing of free condoms to participants, and more.

johnnybinator · 2023-07-14T01:09:13+00:00

Fuck no. This is propaganda. Nothing more.

Matayay_1234 · 2023-07-13T19:48:15+00:00

If I cut half my arm off there are less cells in my arm and therefore I have a lower chance of getting cancer in my arm.

Commercial-Voice9983 · 2023-07-13T23:16:37+00:00

Nah its some old bs . Don't circumcise unless for religious purposes or something . It may keep your dick a little more clean but it's not worth it man

ConestogaCreek · 2023-07-13T21:50:12+00:00

No. Complete fabrication.

nambivpn · 2023-07-14T03:32:48+00:00

There is no relationship between circumcision and probability of getting AIDS. Foreskin is just a part of the body. It neither helps nor prevents transmission of HIV.

phoenician_anarchist · 2023-07-13T18:53:48+00:00

You don't need alternative research, brother; Every study making that claim that I've read was complete garbage, even worse than what Feminists come up with! It's just one of the things that pro-circumcision people trot out in order to justify butchering babies...

Just think for a moment, about how HIV is transmitted. It's a bloodborne pathogen, but, the amount of blood required is minuscule to the point that you can't even necessarily see it (or know that you're bleeding). In the case of sex, it's usually through "micro tears" which happen, in part, due to friction (which is one of the reasons why it's more prevalent within gay men, more delicate tissue which does not self-lubricate) so how, exactly, will removing the foreskin reduce HIV transmission? Especially compared to a condom! If anything, it would increase transmission rates (especially to women) since one of the main functions of the foreskin to slide and reduce friction. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This goes over some of the problems, it's old but it still stands.

Cybralisk · 2023-07-14T01:38:36+00:00

Only in the sense that without foreskin there is less area for the virus to enter your body but your chances of getting HIV are already miniscule and that's if your partner is confirmed HIV positive.

omega_dawg93 · 2023-07-14T04:47:10+00:00

get tested.
make sure your lady is tested.
make sure your lady is faithful.
pray that your lady is faithful.
CARRY your own condoms if YOU aren't faithful... and wear them properly.

03Randomguy · 2023-07-14T14:10:59+00:00

The reality of it is no, many countries that have low circumcision rates also have low HIV rates for example Australia and England.
America has a high rate of circumcision and a higher rate of HIV.

The study that is cited to support circumcision was funded by a circumcision device manufacturer. The circumcised men were told to abstain until fully healed and given condoms and education on the use of condoms. The control group was not. The study was cut short before any meaningful data could be gathered.

Basically a floored & biased study which is overly cited as evidence.

CurryAddicted · 2023-07-14T17:19:59+00:00

No. Anyone with half a brain can see that the countries with the highest percentage of RIC also have the highest percentage of HIV and AIDS. You don't really see it that much in majority intact countries.

urgobull · 2023-07-13T17:36:40+00:00

Where are the reaserch/studies links?

CRobinsFly · 2023-07-13T23:51:00+00:00

Giving it the benefit of the doubt, it might but arguably AIDS is still quite rare in The West. So essentially we'd be taking extreme countermeasures(as genital mutilation is) to mitigate something that is, at most only a minor problem(I am not intending to minimize people with AIDS by this statement).

Every man I know who is uncircumcised, feels good or neutral about it. Aside from some smegma if you cannot get a daily shower in, there really aren't any downsides imo. Maybe it looks a little weird and not symmetrical, but one has to remember that humans evolved this way - women have loopsided breasts and labia minora.

On the flipside, I have had several men tell me they were envious of an uncircumcised penis, including my own father, who said he specifically demanded the hospital not circumcise me as a newborn which they were going to do by default. Comments such as "your head gets so dry and chafed sometimes it's uncomfortable", "I feel as though it has contributed to a desensitization of my glans".

Then you have the women who actually really like the extra "friction and volume" of an uncircumcised penis.

Medically, if you're wanting to do something to control risks of cancer and disease as a man, get Gardasil. I did in my mid 20s and have yet to have seen an HPV symptom despite having plenty of unprotected sex with women who knew (and warned me) that they had HPV.

Your_Agenda_Sucks · 2023-07-14T04:33:41+00:00

Sounds like gen-z-brand science. The only brand where data is whatever you read on reddit.

intactUS_throwaway · 2023-07-14T11:18:39+00:00

It's on the same level as those sparkly stones woo-woo stores sell for measles.

Stinky_Stephen · 2023-07-14T14:10:24+00:00

At the very VERY best their benefit is outweighed by how less likely circumsised men are to use condoms, and even then the claims that they decrease the risk of transferring STIs is dubious.

A much better way of stopping the spread of STIs is condoms.

hendrixski · 2023-07-16T07:29:02+00:00

Lol no.

If circumcision were about reducing STDs then it would not be done to little children who are like 18 years away from having sex.

AND

Even if it did decrease the risk of aids, that would not be a justification to modify the genitals of little children prior to the age of consent. If circumcision reduced the risk of AIDS then you would circumcise young adults who make an informed decision once they're sexually active.

Ruvikthewolf · 2023-07-18T17:41:41+00:00

No. The figures from those studies are heavily flawed. The 70% figure is RELATIVE Risk Reduction. To put it in layman’s terms, say you have 2 groups of 100 people. One group had 10 people that got HIV, and the test group 3 people got HIV. That’s a 70% relative risk reduction. HOWEVER, in the studies from these figures, the test groups could not have sex for 6 weeks because of the healing time, while the control groups were still out engaging in unprotected sex during that portion of the trial. This is called Lead Time Bias. Then, when the researchers got the results they wanted, they terminated the study several months early (Premature Termination Bias). Combined, these biases alone have the effect of drastically inflating the actual results of a study. In some studies, the circumcised group was also counseled on safe sex practices and given condoms, while the control groups were not. This skews the results even further. These are just a tiny handful of the MANY flaws and biases that have been pointed out by seasoned academics who have examined these studies beyond a casual glance.

Current research has shown near zero effect long-term in these areas after over a decade of heavy circumcision campaigns, and in some cases, the circumcised population has shown HIGHER HIV rates per capita. Condoms prevent HIV, not cutting off a part of a person’s body, plain and simple.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/abs/ageincidence-and-prevalence-of-hiv-among-intact-and-circumcised-men-an-analysis-of-phia-surveys-in-southern-africa/CAA7E7BD5A9844F41C6B7CC3573B9E50

BuxomFishwife · 2023-07-19T13:19:45+00:00

https://youtu.be/xDzzaXPwEhs

Lolocraft1 · 2023-07-13T20:48:21+00:00

It’s an indirect cause

It’s because many men do not think about washing their genitals properly, which high up the chance of STDs. However, since circumcised men are, well, circumcised, water and soap go de facto underneath the skin, because they’re no skin. While an uncircumcised man need to actually know about this, stretch the prepuce and wash

Conclusion: Wash correctly and you’ll be fine. If you’re a parent, TEACH your kids how to properly wash themselves, instead of cutting part of their skin

OldTrapper87 · 2023-07-14T17:31:51+00:00

I'd really like to know what type of crack the WHO and UN is smoking.

In 2007, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and WHO recommended voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) to reduce the risk of men acquiring HIV infection during heterosexual exposure. The recommendation was based on strong evidence from randomized controlled trials showing an approximately 60% lower risk.

LongIsland1995 · 2023-07-14T19:26:46+00:00

FUCK NO! Large studies from Canada and Denmark found no reduction in HIV prevalence among circumcised men.

The "cut to stop HIV" thing is a bullshit campaign promoted by religious zealots and circumcision fetishists who want circumcision to be as accepted as possible so it doesn't die out.

And even if circ did reduce HIV (it doesn't), it should only be a choice of the penis owner and not the parents.

lordtyp0 · 2023-07-13T18:07:46+00:00

The who study had interviews that explained it in Africa. Those who were circumcised couldn't get laid because the people thought they looked wrong.

That being said, microtears happen and more skin means more area that could tear.

arrouk · 2023-07-13T19:44:29+00:00

Statistically, yes, but it isn't substantial, iirc.

The fact is man's cum is the main transition medium and unless you are taking loads you have an extremely low risk, even sleeping with an infected woman without protection is a low chance.

Hiv and aids is also easily controlled by medication now, meaning even an infected man would have such a low viral load that it can not infect another person.

Jay-Ames · 2023-07-14T18:44:00+00:00

Common sense says; No way in hell!

Oneioda · 2023-07-14T20:01:09+00:00

Not the MAJORITY of research. Just the set of African trails back in 2007-ish. Everyone is just referencing those. Other studies of data do not show that sort of change.

Realistic_Practice16 · 2023-07-13T22:34:29+00:00

It does, but so do condoms, abstinence, PreP, monogamy, etc etc.

Itcouldvehappened2u · 2023-07-14T15:52:46+00:00

We all learned in third grade, that when you put some water on a peice of bread and put it in a dark cupboard, it grows mold. Think of an uncircumcised penis as a dark cabinet, and there's your answer.....

Joe_Immortan · 2023-07-14T00:12:57+00:00

Yes, if you live an unhygienic lifestyle

RennietheAquarian · 2023-07-30T13:29:42+00:00

Nope. The Philippines and Pakistan are seeing huge increases in HIV. These studies are published by those who profit from circ, just like the studies promoting red meat as “beneficial” are promoted by the meat industry.

Title	Does circumcision really help decrease the possibly of getting AIDS?
Author	TheSpearist
Upvotes	87
Comments	92
Date	July 13, 2023 4:15 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14yp2uq/does_circumcision_really_help_decrease_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/does-circumcision-really-help-decrease-the.1225204 https://theredarchive.com/post/1225204