Circumcision Doesn't Prevent Transmission of HIV to Women

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The people pushing circumcision in Africa are only interested in promoting male circumcision for its own sake (or anything-but-condoms), rather than in fighting AIDS.
There are seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Tanzania. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.
It’s not like we’ve actually tried the things that do work. In Malawi for instance, only 57% know that condoms protect against HIV/AIDS, and only 68% know that limiting sexual partners protects against HIV/AIDS. There are people who haven’t even heard of condoms. It just seems really misguided to be hailing male circumcision as the way forward. It would help if some of the aid donors didn’t refuse to fund condom education, or work that involves talking to prostitutes. There are African prostitutes that sleep with 20-50 men a day, and some of them say that hardly any of the men use a condom. If anyone really cares about men, women, and children dying in Africa, surely they’d be focussing on education about safe sex rather than surgery that offers limited protection at best, and runs a high risk of risk compensatory behaviour.
People also need to keep in mind that the U.S., a country where a large majority of sexually active men ARE circumcised, DOES NOT have a low HIV rate because of it. In fact, the U.S.’s HIV rate shows that all the African studies have been outright falsified.
Safe sexual practices are the only way to be protected from STDs, not mutilating the genitals.
The studies supporting circumcision are either outdated or were poorly done and have major methodological flaws. Newer studies have either totally refuted the old studies, or have shown that their findings are not as severe as stated. Plus, NO MEDICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD supports or recommends routine circumcision for newborn boys. In fact, an overwhelming majority of males in this world are INTACT – approximately 85% – and remain intact with a foreskin for life.

Mark Lyndon, Ash of PA 2:47AM September 08, 2009

John of XX opines that the loss of 10,000 "erogenous" nerve endings, does not necessarily translate into reduced sexual sensation and pleasure for the circumcised male?
Would loss of your fingertips result in less feeling at your fingers? I just do not understand the denial of the sensation loss caused by circucmcision. Where the person had a circumcision NOT for medical reasons, the person may share information on the point (see Korea study -- loss of pleasure in majority of cut men that had experience natural....). However, men are very much defenders of their member. The info provided by men about their member is not always honest.
Logic and knowledge about amputation indicates that natural men can detect what the sensation is and what the loss would be. The loss is about 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings. The remaining tissue simply does not have these stretch sensors and does not have the fine touch sensors. These are known to provide pleasure. When cut off, these sources of pleasure do not exist. The person to ask is the person that still has the pleasure zones. Ans.: yes, they provide so much pleasure. Removing these parts would result in no longer having that source of pleasure.

Jack of NY 4:02PM July 29, 2009

Even if circumcision does remove the proported 10,000 "erogenous" nerve endings, does this necessarily translate into reduced sexual sensation and pleasure for the circumcised male? Speaking from personal experience (and confirmed by others), the most sensitive - and pleasurable - part of the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar. Men circumcised as adults are probably the best test cases for this, and there is no clear consensus on pleasure one way or the other (cut or uncut).
It's probably best to limit this discussion to the ethical and legal issues surrounding routine infant circumcision.

John 4:50PM July 28, 2009

According to Canadaian doctor John Taylor, who did extensive studying of the erogenous nerve endings cut off by male circumcision, male circumcisions cut off at least around 10,000 erogenous nerve endings. So I think that male circumcisions cut off a lot more erogenous nerve endings than typical female circumcisions. So I think that the male foreskin is as valuable as the clitoral hood, and I think that male circumcisions do at least close to as much sexual damage as typical female circumcisions.
Many of the justifications for female circumcisions are the same as for male circumcisions, female circumcisions make things easier to clean, it's healthier, it prevents diseases, etc. Most people in the U.S. seem to think that male and female circumcisions are 2 totally different things, and that typical female circumcisions do severe sexual damage and no good while male circumcisions aren't sexually damaging and that male circumcisions have significant health benefits. I think though that both male and typical female circumcisions give little health benefit, and I think that male and typical female circumcisions are quite simular with how much sexual damage they do.

Steve of NH 9:06AM July 24, 2009

Circumcision prevents vulvar cancer, and vastly improves hygiene. Removal of the useless clitoral hood and redundant folds of labia looks better, eliminates the accumulation of foul smelling smegma, men like it, and there's no medical study proving that uncircumcised women have more sexual sensation. By some accounts labiaplasty - read circumcision - is now the third most popular surgery chosen by women in the U.S. Shouldn't it be done during the neonatal period when the pain won't be remembered? It's the healthy choice that parents should make for their daughters. I'm tired of the anti=circ nuts saying it's child abuse or some such claptrap. As parents we have to make all sorts of decisions about our children, like cutting hair, vaccinations, what to feed them, their religion, and so on. It's a parental right to circumcise your son or daughter.

Sirius 7:21PM July 23, 2009

Eeek!
I am just writing so that all my fellow anti-circ activists realize that, although my name is Amy Rosenberg and I live in PA, I am not the one who has been writing on this blog previously. Heavens to Betsy, someone in my state has my same name and the exact opposite opinion. I am putting my middle initial in, to differentiate us!
Thanks to everyone on this board who is posting statistical, supported research. I am learning a lot from it. So, other Amy, you are saying that circ prevents by almost 100%, transmission of HIV to circumcised men? How on earth did HIV ever spread, then, in this country, in the 1980's and beyond?
But beyond all the numbers and statistics, is the simple fact that circumcision robs a male human being of his choice, and of needed sexual tissue for having a full sex life. It is a mutilation and a theft. It is a tragedy, and one of the saddest parts is that the parents make this wrong decision from misinformation and unfounded fears. And how on earth is a BABY going to get HIV, after birth? Even if someone did agree with your argument that it prevents HIV, that would only impact adult males, not babies.
Thanks again to the anti-circ voices, and those who are looking at scientific research with an critical, scientific eye for its validity. I hope that someday we can stop this tragedy.

Amy S Rosenberg of PA 11:25PM July 22, 2009

Amy!!!!!
Somebody vandalized my body. Your body is intact. You can feel everything you're supposed to. Not me. People thought the world would be better if I can't feel my parts.
Are you a feminist? All my life women screamed 'men would lop off and cover up and tie up our bodies so they can control us.' In reality it's men who got circum, not women here in the US. We're oppressed, not you.
Why do you believe in any medical benefit from circ. It serves no medical purpose, doctors have been saying 50 years. Infection rates are determined by behavior: people do or don't expose themselves to illness.
See circ for what it is. this idiotic aids in africa study is a sick way to try to resurrect this harmful procedure.
Ignorant Amy, you trot out "facts" about reducing rate of infection that are so flimsy, based on one study. It's one study, Amy. that's not a fact. I could run a "study" to prove anything, like there are benefits to having no fingers.
The theory is protection results because the skin is dried up and thicker. but it doesn't work that way. hundreds of studies tried to promote it as a cure for this or that through history, and each one debunked one after another like so many dominoes.
This is a fact: Circ was a method to deprive males of the femininly pleasures of bed, so they would engage in male pursuits like war, building, judging and learning. The sad tale in the U.S.: schools were teaching sex leads to depravity. The taught masturbation was "stupid and wrong." Ask anyone over 60 what was taught in schools before 1950. the cutting off of the erogenous flesh was supposed to discourage that.

todd of MD 12:13PM July 22, 2009

CIrcumcision was introduced in US (200years ago) to decrease sexual pleasure thinking it would prevent masturbation during Puritans. Then circumcision was supposed to reduce : hysteria, epilepsy, infections, hydrocephalus, cervical cancer, penile malignancy etc...
All these myths have been debunked so far.
Now it is said that it prevents AIDS. This has also been debunked a few days ago. (look at the news)
The funniest thing is people are still beliving all these myths. Circumcision is just a cure searching for a disease. The only people who have ever really benefited from circumcision are the American doctors who have treated the homegrown American foreskin as an annuity. Circumcision and foreskins used for cosmetic research have become a huge buiness.
20 hours ago

stop_lying of CA 8:12PM July 21, 2009

Amy wrote, "Parents have a right to choose whether to circumcise their sons."
Why should they? Why doesn't a man have the right to decide for HIMSELF whether or not HE wants to have a normal part of HIS body cut off?
Parents do not have the right to pierce their sons' genitals. Circumcision is a more severe form of permanent body modification than circumcision. Also parents do not have the right to cut their daughters' genitals even if they believe it is a religious requirement.
Amy wrote, "People have good reasons for their decision."
What reasons are compelling enough to violate a child's right to bodily autonomy?
In my opinion, culture and religion are not sufficiently good reasons to violate another person's right to bodily autonomy. Cutting the genitals of a child, whether it is a boy or a girl, is a violation of that child's right to bodily autonomy.
Amy wrote, "This reminds me about all of the problems with abortion and birth control..."
If you believe a woman has a right to make decisions that affect her own body, why do you feel that a man does not have the same right to make decisions that affect his own body?

Stan of CA 4:20PM July 21, 2009

Amy wrote, "When a protection of 40% is used with condoms or other types of viral blocking agents, it can be 100% effective."
Abstinence, monogamy with a faithful partner, knowing your partners, and using condoms can be 100% effective WITHOUT male circumcision. Since I have to use condoms for protection anyway, why on earth would I want to cut off part of my penis? I am not Muslim or Jewish.
Amy wrote, "Many tests of circumcision were found to be very close to 100% effective in preventing the transmission of HIV from infected women and men to circumcised men."
Please cite the articles that say circumcision is very close to 100% effective. As I said before, that is not true. The most optimistic projections from circumcision advocates claim that circumcision has a 40% failure rate.

Stan of CA 4:16PM July 21, 2009