Circumcision as a way to slow the spread of HIV.

June 9, 2000 5:02 PM

Circumcision as a way to slow the spread of HIV. I'm posting this here mostly 'cause I want to see some people's opinions on it. I'm against the operation for any reason other than religious, myself. I think a far better way to slow HIV would be to get people to stop sleeping around, but like that's gonna happen, eh?
posted by CrayDrygu (6 comments total)

I'd much rather see adequate contraception made available in Africa than widespread circumcision, but that's going to require a fair bit of sanity on the part of the Catholic hierarchy since they play a fairly substantial role in holding back sex education programmes.

(And I speak as an uncircumcised Catholic. Which shows that my opposition to circumcision outstrips any doctrinal concerns.)
posted by holgate at 5:37 PM on June 9, 2000

The article mentions that Muslims practice Circumcision at puberty. Maybe we should consider that as a way to decrease teenage preganancies.
posted by PaperCut at 6:31 PM on June 9, 2000

Circumcision is on the wane in the US, has been for years. Of course, I don't know where Cray lives, so...my generation (born in '71) was the last one to even really have a majority of its males circumcised. I myself was not. It's generally still done at about 65% of births, but it's fairly easy to request that it not be, and many hospitals ask. In my case, my grandfather (who was a doctor) requested that he be allowed to do it...and then didn't. Don't know why.
posted by Ezrael at 7:05 PM on June 9, 2000

I am definitely kidding. I have a sick sense of humor, but personally I wish I was never circumcised. I am fascinated by the history of the practice, and how any civilized group of people could adopt the practice of genital multilation, especially in infants, is beyond me.

If the above link is true, the practice gained a foothold in america to prevent masturbation. An idea promoted by Dr Kellogg (I will never eat Corn Flakes again.) And it gained a foothold in Britain to distinguish the rich clean upper class from the dirty lower class (My Ancestry).
posted by PaperCut at 7:10 PM on June 9, 2000

As an uncut male I can say that the foreskin acts as a sort of moving sheath, leaving less chance that the skin on my unit will tear. My girlfriend works in an AIDS/HIV clinic and they found men with out their foreskin tend to have a higher chance of having tiny tears in the skin when engaging in sex. That is dangerous.
posted by DragonBoy at 10:02 PM on June 9, 2000

The real problem is that most people don't think before having sex. The circumcision issue is nonsense. If all of these horny morons out there would just slip a rubber on their dicks before having intercourse, we wouldn't have to worry about AIDS, unwanted children, etc.

PS, circumcision is not 'major surgery', it's just of piece of skin. I think it's pretty hilarious that non circumcision has become its own form of elitism.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 11:14 AM on June 10, 2000