Circumcision Guards Against STDs

Reader Comments
Back to article

This is sloppy research. The male foreskin does not predispose anyone to STIs, having sexual contact with someone with an STI will give you said infection. Having intact genitals does not make your body cleaner, showering and bathing make your body cleaner. Common sense, people! Women have a foreskin (clitoral hood), we don't recommend cutting if off in the USA to "save" them from contracting anything. We recommend safer sex, condom use, monogamy, and regular STI testing. Those are the only things that make sense. 85% of men in the world have a foreskin, the US circumcising culture has been a failure because we have 3 to 7 times higher rates of STIs and HIV than men in intact cultures. The foreskin is the most sexually sensitive part of the man's entire body, if you have it removed, you don't know what you are missing. His body, His choice.

Tora Spigner RN of CA 4:10AM May 15, 2013

I am a strong believer in circumcision, especially for babies. In addition to being cleaner, the health benefits are well-documented. It's like, a small pain up front will pay off a lifetime of benefits.

JC of CA 2:06PM August 10, 2012

I'm glad I'm circumcised. I travel a lot and girls like it better. Also from talking to other guys in college its more comfortable to be circumcised. There were almost all transfer students on my floor in the dorm and the guys from other countries who weren't done at birth *all* wished they were. I believe the study that circumcised guys get fewer diseases. My friends and I hook up with lots of different girls and don't always use condoms when they're on the pill and none of us has had any problems and we're all circumcised. Idk why some people are so anti I guess maybe they're bit uncomfortable or jealous that they weren't circumcised? Don't they have better things to do? Do they like having to pull overlapped skin away every time they pee or put on a condom? It sure seems like they are very biased and close minded not open to science. If it can be scientifically shown uncircumcised is better then I'll change my mind, but until then my personal experience affirms these studies and I enjoy my clean purple knob!

jaison simms of PA 8:20AM July 17, 2010

The epidemiological studies clearly indicate that circumcision reduces rate of HIV, HPV and HSV transmission. The only logical conclusion is that if the U.S. had less cicrcumcision then the transmission rates would be even higher. You can blame our behavior, our fragmented health care system, etc. on STD rates, but the evidence on circumcision is clear enough.
Currently it is up to parents to decide whether they want to have their young babies circumcised. It is the job of health care professionals to accurately discuss the pros and cons. It is entirely appropriate for them to consider the health benefits along with whatever other cultural or sociological factors the parents see as important. Parents have little trouble with this decision making so I see no point in trying to impose the views of others upon them.

Matthew of WA 12:34AM April 12, 2010

So if someone decided to do a trial on African girls and cut off part of the genitals of 50% and left the other 50% intact (sounds really humane doesn't it?) and found that those with part of their genitals removed had a 28% lower risk of HIV, would you say then that all females in the world should have part of their genitals removed at birth? Or, would you recommend that we teach people about safe sex? Stop thinking with your emotions and use some common sense. By the way, you totally missed the point on that "elective breast removal." ADULT women who are given the risks and benefits get to make the CHOICE for their own body about "elective breast removal". Just like ADULT men can when they are presented with the risks and benefits of circumcision.
I love how people who don't have an intact penis or a penis at all say that it's harder to clean. That is a myth that people without penises or foreskins need to stop spreading! Don't bring urinary tract infections into this debate - that's just silly. Most uncircumcised men have probably never had a UTI in their lives.
Funny that you say that men that have HIV might wish they had been circumcised. I can tell you for sure that men whose penis was cut too tightly, have fistulas, skin tags, or suffered excessive scarring wish in hindsight that they had not been circumcised.
This is not a medical decision. This is a cosmetic procedure. We do not have the right to force a cosmetic surgery on another human being.

Brandy of SC 10:45AM December 13, 2009

Who cares if it's voluntary for the infant? Parents have the say for medical decisions for their children. Children don't have rights almost anywhere else either, so why is anyone worried about a baby's "right" to oppose circumcision?
Even if the rate of contraction with circumcision alone is 35% lower for HIV and 28% lower for Herpes, it's still better than 0%. If we add the lowered risk of using a condom with that it's still far lower than it would be with foreskins. It's also far harder to clean if you're uncircumcised as well.
It isn't mutilation in anyway, and it's not even close to being comparable to female circumcision. Female's are much more complex than men, it's a much more invasive procedure, this simply just is not the case with infant boys.
The US for the interest of public health should mandate that all men get circumcised.

J of WI 3:03AM October 12, 2009

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. has the highest STD rate of any industrailized country in the world. Http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/std/prevent.asp Also the U.S. has the highest AIDS rate of any industrailized country in world. In most industrailized countries near 0% of males are circumcised though. So what a lot of good circumcisions are doing to prevent diseases.

Steven of NH 2:48AM March 29, 2009

It seems to me that in a culture that valued the positive function of the foreskin, it would be considered unethical to amputate healthy foreskins as part of a "scientific study". The "researchers" display their bias in their very willingness to do these amputations in the first place.Would it even be legal in the United States to conduct a study that involved the amputation of this, or any other healthy body part? Did they conduct this study in Africa to avoid possible legal complications in the U.S.?

mysticman of MN 1:40AM March 29, 2009

If a person believes that male circumcisions do little or no sexual damage, and that male circumcisions are very beneficial, certainly they aren't going to think infant male circumcisions are mutilation and they're going to think it is comparable to something like tonsillectomy.
If a person believes that male circumcisions are very sexually damaging, and that male circumcisions have little benefit, then certainly they are going to think infant male circumcisions are mutilation and comparable to infant female circumcision.
So in hindsight I don't think people should argue if infant male circumcision is mutilation or not, or what it's comparable to. If anything people should debate the benefits and harms of circumcisions.
In parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East it is common to circumcise little girls. People in those places say that female circumcisions make things cleaner, healthier, easier to clean, and prevents diseases. Just like the reasons often given for male circumcisions.
Male circumcisions are very popular in the U.S. But they're not popular in most of the world. World wide only about 5% of males are circumcised not counting Muslims and Jews. Adult circumcised males are missing about 15 square inches of very valuable penile skin.

Steven of NH 1:00AM March 29, 2009

I don't think infant male circumcisions are comparable to tonsillectomy, appendectomy, tooth being pulled, or to ELECTIVE breast removal from an adult. What infant male circumcision is most comparable to is to infant female circumcision which many people see as mutilation. People who support infant female circumcision use many of the same rationales as people who support infant male circumcision.

Steven of NH 6:03PM March 28, 2009