Rubbing estrogen on penis-tip prevents HIV transmission?
A zoologist in Melbourne has discovered that rubbing estrogen on the tip of a human penis causes the "keratin layer" of skin to thicken, which may prevent the spread of HIV:
Dr Andrew Pask from the Department of Zoology at the University of Melbourne analysed the tissue samples from 12 foreskins and made the discovery.Link“This suggested that oestrogen could induce a thickening of the keratin layer of the foreskin epidermis in the same way as it acts in the vagina,” said Dr Pask.
“Keratin on our skin acts a barrier to viral infection. We hope to be able to enhance this protection with the use of a naturally occurring, weak oestrogen,” said Professor Roger Short of the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences who lead the research.
To confirm its effect, topical oestrogen was applied to the human foreskin for a two week trial. This resulted in a rapid and substantial increase in keratin thickness.
the latest
latest episodes
Now there's a two week test trial I want to be in! "We need you to have sex for two weeks"
"...to see if you get AIDS..."
Isn't the rate of Female-to-Male HIV transmission already extremely low?
Apparently, applying rubber on the penis gives even greater protection.
YH MTHRFCKRS! DS S VR!
Somebody is pushing for an Ignoble Prize.
#2 In some parts of the world, yes. In other parts, no. Hence the recent recommendations for circumcision. (Yes, even as a Jew, that freaked me out, and I questioned the science.)
But my main question is: Is this supposed to work better than a condom? And, is estrogen supposed to be easier to come by than a condom?
I am concerned that time, energy, and money are being wasted on what seem to me to be silly ways to slow transmission, when we have condoms. Maybe more efforts should be spent on better distribution of condoms and sexual education. And, maybe scientists should be focusing on treatments, vaccines, and maybe even cures.
This is questionable science at best. I work in infectious disease and even reporting this dubious research is somewhat irresponsible. Sure just rub estogen on me and I'm fine...
Just because one has a thickened keratin layer does NOT mean you have a significantly reduced chance of becoming infected with HIV.
Condoms and circumcision however have been rigorously tested in clinical trials and both DRAMATICALLY reduce the liklihood of infection.
I wonder if it helps tone down sensitivity, if you know what I mean?
I'm sure someone has started sending spam email based on this already :)
Interesting, but the research for possible side effects of doing such a thing seems so insurmountable that it seems the efforts might be much better spent fighting the actual disease.
same results with sandpaper
Wait a minute...
Why is a ZOOLOGIST studying HUMAN penises?
And lets not forget that this *requires* a foreskin, which is already, as pointed out in #6, a risk factor for HIV transmission.
There is no conclusive evidence of a link between circumcision and a reduced HIV risk. As it stands, there is still no medical benefit conferred by the removal of a healthy foreskin that can't equally be achieved through the application of soap and water.
Speaking for myself, I'm no more wild about the idea of rubbing female hormones on the old chap than I am about lopping bits of him off. I think I soak up enough of that stuff from the drinking water as it is.
further studies showed that rubbing estrogen on the head of the penis vigorously could also lead to orgasm.
Aww look, your willy grew a toenail.
No sex tonite, honey.
"Condoms and circumcision however have been rigorously tested in clinical trials and both DRAMATICALLY reduce the liklihood of infection."
Damn, this sort of comment is criminal!!
Condoms offert near 100% protection agains HIV.
Circumcision only give you "less probability" to be contamined.
To place the two on the smale scale is saying to people: "if you're circumcises (witch is a mutilation!) it's ok to have sex without condom"
And then you get Africa with these millions of circumcises people dying from aids...
Caution,Contains Craziness
I don't see where the article suggests this methods works only for men with an intact foreskin. However, it does present it as an alternative to circumcision, which sets off my bullshit detector. Being circumcised does not prevent HIV infection. It may reduce the risk a bit, but it's nowhere as good as proper protection. A substance with an efficacy merely equal to circumcision is worthless.
The results of this research would have only a trivial effect on infection rates if they were used. While it is possible to get AIDS from insertive intercourse, the majority of AIDS cases are due to receptive intercourse. The CDC statistics for 2006 report that 43% of AIDS cases are from male-to-male sex, 20% from male-to-female, 12% from female-to-male, and the rest from injection drug use or injection drug use with male-to-male sex. As far as the male-to-male sex is concerned, the CDC also reports that there are 50 transmissions/10,000 exposures for receptive anal sex compared to 6.5 transmissions/10,000 exposures for insertive anal sex (for comparison, there are only 5 transmissions/10,000 exposures for insertive vaginal sex).
I should note that in sub-Saharan Africa where the majority of new AIDS cases are occurring, these statistics would be very different. But then again, estrogen treatments there would be very difficult as well. In any case, using this treatment might lead people to believe that they are safe not to use condoms which might eliminate any small gains you might get from this treatment.
This would fall under the category of a microbicide. Microbicides are any product that when applied topically prevents or reduce the risk of the transmission of HIV and possibly other STDs. You can get more (accurate) information here: http://www.microbicide.org
here: http://www.global-campaign.org/
and here: http://www.rectalmicrobicides.org/
Poster 1. Your comment displays a lack of understanding of how clinical trials work. Period. You think you are being funny but you actually come off as ignorant.
Poster 17. Be careful using percentages. They are misleading. It is true men who have sex with men are at increased risk for getting HIV (if they engage in anal intercourse without a condom). According to the sources you quote, 43% is not a majority. That means that 53% are not cases of MSM. Also, there are simply more heterosexuals in the world. So, that 20%, for male to female, is a huge number. Someone with more time can do the math.
Two things:
In my above post, it should read "57% are not cases of MSM".
Don't forget about all the receptive anal intercourse women have with men, with and without condoms.
Dept. of Zoology + human penises = does not compute
I mean I know humans are in essence animals (beasts in many cases) but where the hell did Dr. Pack get the idea to do that? Sounds like somebody might have been doing a little "self-experimentation" first.
I highly doubt this is true. Even if it is true, I highly doubt that it is highly effective. Sure, it might protect you a bit, but it's not going to protect you nearly as much as a condom. If it's not 100% perfect, no informed and rational person will take the risk.
Does anyone want to ask how the estrogen got there in the first place for him to figure out that this was the result? Did he just go through a list of things rubbing them on and seeing what happens? 'E' is quite a ways into the alphabet if that list was in alphabetical order.
I would assume it was as a topical skin treatment for some other issue. Either that, or after observing the effects of oestrogen on the vaginal wall, he lept immediately to "ooo, what does it do to penises?"
I believe some kinds of oestrogen supplements are topically applied, and some can or should be applied to the inside of the vagina, rather than as a patch on the back... either that, or it's too early in the morning and I'm hallucinating.
These researchers weren't looking for a way to reduce AIDS transmission - they were trying to develop a penis capable of hammering a tenpenny nail through a 2 x 4. As for why, I suggest viewing Real Genius (movie w/ Val Kilmer).
Damn, Eustace (@24) beat me to it.
I immediately thought, "There's a weirdo in Australia rubbing estrogen on kangaroo dicks."
I thought the point was that men with foreskins experience small tears in skin when they have sex, which is why the spread of HIV is higher. It seems like thickening the skin would negate that problem, at least a little.
But still, it is no effective replacement for using a condom.
To #14 Nothing is better then a condom, obviously.
But circumcision DOES dramatically reduce the risk of transmission all STDs. Here see a link to the CDC web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Also to say that male circumcision is mutilation is showing very little cultural sensitivity and is borderline antisemitic and anti-moslem.
Gives a new meaning to the phrase "got the horn".
God this is stupid. Why can't people just use condoms?
Holy smegma! This is dead end research. "...may prevent the spread of HIV." But condoms do prevent the spread of HIV.
Darlin Nikki, notice that the 20% of cases that are transmitted male-to-female is 20% of aids cases, not 20% of the people having sex. To there are many more people having sex, half as many cases numerically, so the transmission rate is far, far lower.
Bzishi also said that the majority of cases are from receptive intercourse, not just male-to-male. Receptive includes male-to-female cases, to it's 63% total, a clear majority.
Just to take this a bit further. Nothing is better than a condom.
That said, if you are in a location where condoms are not available, or are prohibitively expensive (a significant percentage of the world's population lives under these conditions) then circumcision is a permanent way to effectively reduce HIV transmission.
It is a part-measure, and potentially problematic in that it may encourage people to think "I'm circumcised I am fine" a dangerous line of reason.
That said, in a population that is going to be sexually active regardless, circumcision will reduce the rate of HIV infection.
#29:
"Also to say that male circumcision is mutilation is showing very little cultural sensitivity and is borderline antisemitic and anti-moslem."
That's an enormous load of bullshit.
Anti-Semitism \An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n.
Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews. The word is sometimes also applied to acts motivated by or evincing antisemitism.
Stating that a practice of a particular culture is barbaric doesn't equate to hatred of that culture. Period. Being opposed to circumcision doesn't mean you're opposed to Jews. That's the same type of oversensitive, ridiculous claim that most censorship and intolerance is based on.
Babies don't have sex. If a person wants to engage in the sorts of activities where having a foreskin becomes a risk-factor for HIV or other STDs (it is *not* a risk factor unless you are engaging in those activities), he can choose to be circumcised later in life. I don't understand how you can consider the removal of a functional, sensitive portion of a person's body without their consent anything other than 'mutilation'. Whether or not that is culturally acceptable in certain cultures is another question entirely. Many cultures have practices that others find offensive, yet they're perfectly acceptable within that community.
I don't believe in, or practice, or necessarily approve of many Jewish and Muslim (and Hindu for that matter) customs. Yet I neither hate nor oppose those people or cultures. I merely refrain from partaking in them. No borderline anti-anything involved.
This sounds to have all the legitimacy of regrowing fingers with pig bladder powder. It's worth further study, but I hope nobody is taking this seriously.
They need to specify exactly where it was applied. Outside of foreskin? Inside of foreskin? Head of the penis? Does it work on circumsized guys?
@ #29
Uhm, no. So groups trying to stop Somali females from having their clitorises removed at birth is also culturally insensitive? #35 hit the nail on the head.
#31, raisedbywolves:
"God this is stupid. Why can't people just use condoms?"
#34, voiceofreason:
"Nothing is better than a condom."
voiceofreason nailed it (*ahem*), though I don't think that was the meaning he intended.
The old expression that "using a condom is like taking a shower in a raincoat" still has a lot of validity.
Condoms, even the thin "sensitive" condoms, reduce the sensation and stimulation.
Having to stop in mid-foreplay to open and apply the condom can result in, ummm, an unwanted wilting of the appendage.
It's... distracting... when a condom breaks or slips loose in mid-intercourse.
Cut to the chase: Sex without condoms is better sex than sex with condoms.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't use condoms, anymore than you should ride a motorcycle without a helmet. But lots of bikers go helmetless, too.
(For the record: As an old, married, monogamous-in-life-if-not-always-in-thought guy, condoms haven't been a personal issue for... holy crap, THAT long?!)
ON HEAD! ON HEAD! ON HEAD! ON HEAD!
bloody mammals
@ Eustace & Bobdotcom -
A girl's gotta have her standards.
@ 27 - That comment made my day, thanks.
It's interesting to read so many people damning the science here, when I don't think we know very much about the actual science here, unless anyone's read the journal article?
2 points:
First, considering a disease countermeasure in terms of its wisdom as a personal choice may not produce the same evaluation as when considering it in terms of public health policy. Condoms, inarguably, are effective at minimizing transmission of HIV, and if you're deciding what to do with your own penis to stay free of AIDS, then do put one on. On the other hand, if you're trying to decide what to do with all the penises in a regional population with varied sexual mores and low literacy rates, the better part of wisdom is to consider and encourage all available options. Human behavioral patterns are really hard to change, especially when they're socially reinforced. So if you want to, say, get an entire population to stop smoking, telling everyone that cigarettes will kill them won't get nearly the same results as telling everyone that cigarettes will kill them, and piling on taxes to make them expensive, and offering nicotine gum, and nicotine patches, and hypnotism, etc. will. Multiple approaches, in other words.
Second, I don't know much about how this estrogen-keratinizing effect is supposed to work, but since circumcision also has some degree of preventive effect, it's notable that one of the results of circumcision is keratinization of the glans.
Er, the primary effect of circumcision is removing the reservoir for material and viruses to collect in. The reservoir that the foreskin represents is a perfect vessel for keeping the infectious std agent (viral or bacterial) in close proximity to the person. Pretty much common sense here and basic engineering.
I would suggest that keratinization has little if anything to do with the infection prevention effect of circumcision purely from a common sense perspective.
Also to say that male circumcision is mutilation is showing very little cultural sensitivity and is borderline antisemitic and anti-moslem.
We covered this territory a long time ago. Remember foot-binding in China? I don't hear very many people screaming about the cultural value of female circumcision or enfibulation. FYI, if you don't already know what enfibulation is, I recommend that you just pretend that you never saw this. Knowing it is not going to make you sleep better tonight.
male circumcision is genital mutilation. The current crop of memes called organized religion that seized on this cutting and scarring as a way to ensure their continued existence are new comers. The prepuce is a result of long evolution.
I also wonder if any research regime employed in linking circumcision to lower AIDS rates allowed for fewer sexual contacts due to decreased sexual pleasure and therefore desire?
Foot binding, female circumcision/enfibulation
DO NOT = Male Circumcision.
Many, many, many people do not equate male circumcision with mutilation.
Many, many, many circumcised males have perfectly enjoyable sex. To both of you above speaking for circumcised males, are you in fact circumcised males? If not, perhaps you should not speak for them.
While I think enfibulation is a very disturbing practice, I do not pretend to speak for women who have had this procedure done to them.
VoiceOfReason, Takuan, Antinous, Ivan256, TTCFCL, and anyone else planning to jump onto the male circumcision argument:
It is true that there are people whose religion compels them to circumcise their male children, and that criticizing the practice is therefore insensitive to those people.
It is also true that there are people who regard male circumcision of one's children as unethical mutilation, and that arguing for the practice is therefore insensitive to those people.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that any pro-or-con discussion of male circumcision will offend people. If you don't wish to offend people, you will therefore refrain from having such a discussion.
Avram, I'm glad you said that before I weighed in. This is a bloody powderkeg, isn't it? I have strong opinions about circumcision, but I think I'll keep them to myself.
what is wrong with offending people? Needless offense, malignant offense, stupid offense are all to be avoided, but offense per se?
C'mon, put yer dukes up! Get out here and fight!
Proposed: Male circumcision is something intelligent humans can leave behind in their continuous social development and progress.
I on the other hand, have no particular problem with offending people. Voicing opposition to the Iraq war pisses off lots of people, but I certainly have no intention of shutting up about it.
Voice of Reason,
Typing something in caps doesn't make it truer.
This just in:
Not having sex with infected people prevents HIV infection.
newsflash:
monogamy is not lethal
I won't attempt to wade into the circumcision morass, except to note that those who would even attempt to equate male (penile) circumcision with female (clitoral or clitoral/labia) "circumcision" (i.e., genital mutilation) should seriously question the value of their elementary and secondary school educations, specifically in the areas of biology, anatomy, critical reasoning, and logic.
Seriously, if you cannot discern a difference between these procedures (and for that matter, circumcision and footbinding), you are simply being disingenuous, and any arguments you may advance suffer as a result.
nope,ain't talking about ritual, barbarous female genital mutilation - talking about ritual, barbarous male genital mutilation. I am willing to kick the lungs out of any who defend slashing away at the genitals of young girls in the name of filthy, male dominated religions - but that is a different thread. Unless everyone wishes to open that issue here too?
Watch your conflations.
Watch your conflations? Check the mirror, pal.
Is it too much to ask that you argue honestly? Tossing around words like "barbarous" does little to advance your arguments. And as you probably are well-aware, but too dishonest to mention, an overwhelming number of U.S. circs are done for other than religious reasons. You are aware that both Judaism and Islam are minority religions whose adherents are a very low percentage of the U.S. population? Yet the U.S. has a large percentage of circed males, way more than can be attributed to religious rationales. So why not address this, rather than continually dragging out the religion canard.
I guess it is possible that all these non-Jewish and non-Muslim parents are circing their boys because they hate their newborns and wish to make them sexually miserable in later life. Except of course, these boys grow up to be perfectly fine and enjoy sex after all. Whoops, there goes that argument. OTOH, we know the outcome for female victims of genital mutilation; they cannot enjoy sex, they have health problems in many cases, etc. But I am sure that to your keen intellect, it's all the same, right?
Any non-religious circumcisions are being done with the overt and tacit support of the organized religions that use surgically marking their members.
The two are not separable.
I don't care if parents are stampeded into taking a knife to their new-born boy's penis because some self-promoting priest or ignorant "doctor" is standing behind them, threatening damnation or disease. My contempt is democratic for the both of them.
And we will leave aside female genital mutilation for the moment, shall we?
I would suggest that keratinization has little if anything to do with the infection prevention effect of circumcision purely from a common sense perspective.
Fortunately, we have the scientific method to help us differentiate common sense from knowledge.
I really don't know how circumcision produces its anti-infection effects and your hypothesis sounds completely believable. And for all I know, there's wads of evidence to support it. I was just noting an interesting effect these two interventions have in common, which is keratinization. That's where new hypotheses come from, and they're handy to have around if common sense doesn't work out.
gee, let's see: keratinized protein (AKA "scar tissue") is denser and therefore more impermeable to fluid bourne virus particles. "Science"? Sure as hell ain't rocket science.
Keratinized does not mean scar tissue:
Sci-Tech Dictionary:
keratinized tissue
(′ker·əd·ə′nīzd ′tish·ü)
(histology) Any tissue with a high keratin content, such as the epidermis or its derivatives.
And the fact that a foreskin is a potential reservoir for infectious agents is a scientific fact.
This just in: Not having sex with infected people prevents HIV infection.
not suitable for work where they don't have penises or know what they are
http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm
Awesome. The inevitable flame wars that break out whenever somebody mentions circumcision fascinate me, because it seems like the passion expressed on either side is far out of proportion to the actual impact of circumcision on health and quality of life, for better or worse. It's not that there's nothing there to argue about - if you feel that it's unnecessary mutilation, I can understand wanting to see the practice stopped. But even so, it's an unnecessary mutilation that leaves the vast majority of circumcised men capable of normal and gratifying sexual function. On the other hand, if you feel that it's a valuable countermeasure to health risks, I can understand urging that the practice be continued, but compared to condoms, health education, and a socioeconomic environment that supports sanitation and hygenic behaviors, its positive effects are minor. If you want to fight about it, compare the real costs on either side. On the circumcision side, those costs would be the fortunately few, though certainly terrible, incidents of botched circumcision that cause impairments; the worrisome but largely unknown effects of surgery on newborns, and the presumed but unknowable partial loss of sensual experience during sex. (It's worth mentioning, too, that these costs should be weighed differently when discussing infant vs. adult circumcision). On the anti-circumcision side, the costs are higher rates of STD's, penile cancer, and a number of uncommon problems involving abnormal growth of the foreskin. I don't know how much circumcision effects the incidence rates of these things; that's something you'd want to know, and something you'd want to weigh differently for different risk groups.
One thing that probably makes it harder to have a reasoned argument on the subject is that the risks weigh heavier on an individual bases, while the benefits accrue more on a population scale. If you're the poor bastard who got his willie ruined during a botched surgery, it doesn't make you feel better to know you're one in 100,000 (or whatever). On the other hand, the anti-infectious benefits of circumcision are surely greater in a population where it's a majority practice, which you could argue justifies social pressure (e.g., religious rules) for everyone to accept the risks.
...wait a minute.... reasoned arguments... facts...restraint... SHE DOES'T EVEN HAVE A PENIS! GET HER!!!
Charles Guarino,
Very impressive. You've now accused two of BBs most regular commenters of being dishonest, disingenuous and poorly educated. What on earth could be going on in your head to make you think that's a good idea?
well, I AM dishonest, disingenous and poorly educated- but I have the advantage of knowing it (and I'M GOOD AT IT TOO!)
So much for science and reason...
lots of science and reason here, (they're just pining) What is it with you lot? A few compound fractures,a eye or two gouged out and you all act like the Huns have stormed the ramparts. Buck up, get those facts polished and buckle on your arguments.
"Keratinization
The glans (penile head) is normally an internal organ protected by the moist mucosal tissue of the prepuce (foreskin). Without the foreskin, the glans is exposed to the outer environment (air, soap, clothing, sun, etc.). The glans dries out and develops several extra layers of skin (keratinization).1 Compare the dry, cracked appearance of the glans of a circumcised penis (upper right) with the moist mucosal end of the glans of an intact penis (lower right). The unnatural dryness of the circumcised penis can cause abrasion and bleeding during sex, whereas the moistness of the intact penis makes sex more comfortable, especially during penetration. For women with circumcised male partners, the problem of 'vaginal dryness' during sex may also be partly attributable to the unnatural dryness of the circumcised penis.
Besides removing the densely nerve-laden foreskin, circumcision removes 50% of the penile shaft skin and associated nerve endings.2 The exposed glans then keratinizes, causing further loss of sensation. Many circumcised men in the Awakenings survey3 reported that desensitization caused them to abandon or bypass the subtler pleasures of genital foreplay in favor of immediate intercourse, which would offer them greater stimulation. They often hurried through intercourse, however — often needing extraordinary and sometimes violent thrusting — to obtain sufficient stimulation for both pleasure and orgasm. Other men reported frequent reliance on behaviors offering more stimulation than vaginal sex (e.g., oral sex, anal sex or masturbation) or compensating for diminished quality of sexual response with quantity (sexual compulsivity).
Eventually, keratinization occurs even after adult circumcision. It can also occur in intact men with short foreskins or those who habitually wear their foreskin in the retracted position.
Imagine how different female sexual response would be if the clitoral hood (female foreskin) and the labia were removed. Exposure of the clitoris to the constant effects of the outer environment would approximate the effects of male circumcision."
"....look, I'm just here for an argument."
"Oh - this is abuse .... you want room 12-A, next door."
Yah, I gave up when science and reason left the room. A little abuse is good, but full blown ranting, where's the fun in that?
Regarding #67
Just out of curiosity, where is that reference from? I come from a scientific background, so I am highly skeptical of anything that isn't properly referenced (and, ideally, peer-reviewed!)
the repeated use of the word "unnatural" in the material quoted in 67 raises a red flag
As an uncircumcised male I thought I'd weigh in on the tangent here in the comments.
Tho' the thought of circumcision makes me wince & nauseous, if an adult decides to have their own foreskin or clitoris removed willingly I have no objection. However, doing either to an unwilling non-understanding infant is wrong, wrong, wrong. Any decision to permanently alter a person's body through surgery or otherwise should be made by the person who will have to live with their alteration.
from that most holy of all Scientific Sources; the previous link I posted, (trumpet fanfare, cherubs etc.) a personal injury litigator's website. TRA TRA TA!!
#70 please note that my main post was from the CDC web site. Takuan's diatribe was probably from the extremist noharm.org web site she linked to earlier.
hey, you said "extremist". Prove it.
and that, Evil Jim is the "nub" of the matter. Taking advantage of powerless children, making choices for them that can't be undone are dubious in the first place. No child was ever genitally mutilated for his or her own sake. It is always done for the adults around the child.
I just stopped by to enjoy the comments...
oh and oh yeah, you said "diatribe", ain't mine and it ain't loaded.
the repeated use of the word "unnatural" in the material quoted in 67 raises a red flag
well, that's them unnaturalists, always seizing on unnatural justification for waving blades around.
I really just posted 71 to prove that I can write a short comment. But as long as I'm talking about myself, I'll also note that in 61, "bases" s/b "basis," and "justifies" isn't really the right word.
But nobody cares, so let me do something more interesting and give us something else to fight about: Evil Jim, I don't believe that you really believe what you think you believe. Making decisions for children that may have lifelong consequences, physical and otherwise, is pretty much a parent's job. Elective surgery might seem like a special case until you consider how many other decisions a parent might make for his child that can easily have far greater *physical* consequences long term than circumcision.
And whether you meant it to be or not, this form of argument against nonconsentual circumcision is effectively a back-door argument against circumcision as a whole, since it's a considerably more serious surgery for an adult, with a different set of risks affecting the likelihood that he would choose it.
is this (trip) necessary?
"Other circumcision-related damage may include:
Meatal stenosis: The normal meatus (urinary opening) in an intact penis is a long slit. When the infant's penis is deprived of its protective foreskin, the meatus can become ulcerated (irritated) by urine, feces and abrasion from diapers. Ulceration can lead to stenosis (narrowing) of the meatus. If the stenosis is severe and impedes urination, a boy may need a meatotomy (surgical reopening of the meatus).
Bowing/curvature of the penis: Uneven removal of tissue during circumcision can cause skin to be tighter on one side of the penis than the other. Bowing or curvature during erection can result. Curvatures can also be congenital (from birth) or the result of Peyronie's Disease.
Skin tags: These are portions of the foreskin that remain after an uneven circumcision.
Hemorrhage, infection, penile amputation, gender reassignment and death are other self-evident forms of damage.
For additional photos of dramatic, yet common, circumcision damage, visit:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html"
dramatic, yet common, circumcision damage
can you put some numbers to that "common?"
can you put a number to how many you think are OK to have? and why? I bet if we go look at the pictures together, there will be a name attached to each one.
How many people shall we mutilate for vanity and silliness? People as in children unable to give consent.
Wow- it's amazing what a guy will do to avoid wearing a condom.
Now, if you could find me a pill that would increase kertinization of the vagina and anal/rectum area, I'd be impressed. But it's the "catcher" not the "pitcher" that usually is the most at risk for HIV infection.
It is a powder keg, isn't it?
In regards to those going on about foreskins being a reservoir for disease etc - google 'showers'. Unless you're Pigpen, it shouldn't be an issue.
Personally, my view is go with whatever you want. I don't like the custom of circumcising babies though...if we wouldn't tattoo them, then doing something else that is irreversible to someone who obviously cannot provide informed consent doesn't sit right with me. YMMV.
For those who were wondering (#10 and #21 in particular) Dr Pask actually specializes in Reproductive Biology, and the lab where he works is known for their work conducting expression studies to study the development and differentiation of mammalian gonads.
No doubt Dr Pask was approached by Professor Short to conduct the studies because of his expertise, not because of any particular curiosity on his part.
I'm sure he would be rather amused to hear what people across the world are saying about him.
@ #81 piminnowcheez
Elective surgery might seem like a special case until you consider how many other decisions a parent might make for his child that can easily have far greater *physical* consequences long term than circumcision.
Yes, part of a parent's job is to make decisions in the child's best interest but that should include teaching them how to properly wash their willy. As stated by other commenters this is key to reducing many of the risks that circumcision allegedly eliminates. We don't remove tonsils or the appendix of an infant even tho' those organs might cause problems down the line. In short, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
And whether you meant it to be or not, this form of argument against nonconsentual circumcision is effectively a back-door argument against circumcision as a whole, since it's a considerably more serious surgery for an adult, with a different set of risks affecting the likelihood that he would choose it.
The nonconsentual argument is important to me as well. I could never have forgiven my parents if they had chosen to nip my tip. I'm ever thankful they left me the option to decide what to do with my body. Adults who wish to do this to themselves are still adults & able to weigh the risks involved in their decision.
Anyway. I'm not trying to change your opinions. This is just a more thorough view of my stance since it's a rather volatile subject.
Comment #27 rocks.
I find circumcision arguments restful. It's a complex, contentious, divisive biological issue that has connections to both sex and religion, but I don't have to think about it.
My comment at #79 was cut off, so...
the repeated use of the word "unnatural" in the material quoted in 67 raises a red flag
Perhaps if we just tape your eyelids open for a day or two, it would give you a more sympathetic view of the phrase 'unnatural dryness'.
but Teresa, what would you do as a mother if you awoke from a difficult birth and discovered your child had been circumcised without your knowledge and consent? (I'm guessing machine gun)
how is this different?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/04/crocodile-scarring-r.html
Since we're discussing transgender hormonal swapping, have you heard about the African tribal men who eat bovine menstrual matter and grow enormous testicles? Yes, there's a picture. NSFW. Warning: I am not going to buy you a new keyboard. Click at your own risk.
it's a rickroll, isn't it?
No, it really is what it says. Although the picture would be the perfect graphic for a Nasty Boyz PrillRoll.
To #86, do you routinely wash your foreskin immediately following sex? And outside of the developed world, is access to clean water and soap available immediately following intercourse?
Nr. 38:
Sex is better without condoms? Yeah, of course it is. Sex is also better with someone you communicate your needs to honestly, someone you trust, without time constraints or distractions, when a strong mutual attraction is involved, when you haven't had too much to drink... You get the picture.
But we don't live in an ideal world where everyone is in an ideal situation sexually. We make do with imperfect sex in a large variety of ways.
And in a world where "taking a shower in a raincoat" can protect you from contracting a horrible, horrible disease and passing it on to others, uh, I'd say you'd better get used to the raincoat unless you're in a monogamous long-term relationship.
Simple cost/benefit analysis, no?
Circumcision it's not that bad, you guys. I'm not, but my boyfriend is, and I assure you he has a lot of pleasure in sex.
Apart, I think the jews law about having to get your prepuce off, it's got to do with hygiene. Sometimes people don't like to think for themselves, so an order it's a quick way to "help".
And when you live in a friggin' desert, and there's not much water available to clean yourself, all the water you can save will be useful later. And a cut dick is easier to keep clean, enabling yourself to fend off some infections.
#98 Precisely.
so? who lives in the desert?
In case this discussion isn't dead yet, here is some general background on the practice of circumcision (since the HIV topic is long gone) excerpted from Panati's fascinating book "Extraordinary Endings of Practically Everything and Everyone."
[a]ncient people circumcised males to rejoice in their sexuality, not to shun it.
Early man believed that nothing good in life was free; a god or goddess had always to be paid for beneficence, present and future. A man's sexual prowess was viewed as a gift from the god of fertility, and to maintain virility he felt compelled to sacrifice a small part of the instrument of propagation, the smallest part possible. The excess skin at the tip of the penis seemed a fair payment.
Hence, ritual circumcision originated as a symbolic offering of the entire male member. Among all ancient societies that practiced the surgery, the excised foreskin was dedicated to the fertility deity and sacrificially burned. Egyptian writings and drawings from around 5000 B.C. attest to this custom, as do primitive tribal practices in which boys were circumcised not at birth when they were sexually immature, but at the onset of puberty, or just prior to first intercourse. ... For centuries the practice belonged to the sacred initiation rites of manhood and marriage. Circumcision was the fee a man paid up front (so to speak) for lifelong reproductive license.
Why, then, circumcise a newborn? Who pushed the puberty rite back to infancy?
In addition to a coming-of-age ceremony, circumcision also served as a man's tribal mark of distinction. The cut of circumcision was a visible band that announced the loyalty of a man, identified him for life with his group, and for the Hebrews it became a covenant between man and God. It was such loyalty connotations that in time pushed the practice back to infancy. Semitic peoples began to label a newborn a member of their tribe and to forge his covenant with god soon after birth.
The word "circumcision" comes from the Latin for "cutting around," and the once exclusively Semitic ritual, though ancient, was not routine until recent times. In fact, a non-Jewish male born in the United States or Europe prior to 1900 would definitely NOT have been circumcised. It simply wasn't done.
Routine circumcision was adopted gradually, and as a result of two factors: the Victorian era's strictures against masturbation and the medical community's belief that odious form of "self-pollution" could be restrained by removal of the foreskin. Nineteenth-century doctors convinced parents and preachers that the presence of a tight, gripping foreskin put a male in a state of almost perpetual arousal. The issue of cleanliness initially played no role in the matter. ... Circumcision arose in modern America and Europe as a deterrent to sin; only later did we affix to the surgery a health rationale.
That is quite a write up, what is the source? Also, along with not eating pork or shellfish, circumcision, and many other traditional practices do in fact have health-based origins.
and now we know to cook pork well and not eat red tide oysters
I like my cut willy. My friend who had to get his snipped during college said it is different, but not really bad. Why make a big deal out of it, I've yet to see a scientific study that shows I have decreased pleasure... which can't be defined scientifically, unlike the stimulation bit that is always pulled out, about nerve endings. Orgasm isn't in the nerve endings, it is in the brain, and I'll be happy with my orgasms (until someone tries to cut out that portion of my brain). If you want to complain about society stifling men and their sexuality, why not focus on the lack of teaching and general knowledge of multiple male orgasms, as that has had a much greater impact on my sex life than a little snip that happened so long ago that I don't even have a fuzzy memory of it, and only comes up in those awkward first moments of a new lover, or internet bulletin boards.
Granted, I would have liked to have the full thing till I was old enough to decide myself. I do like the thought of a coming of age ritual, instead of a from birth bit. Would be more of an ascetical choice that way, and be part of my persona along with any piercings or tattoos I choose to have.
#5: I took you up on your comment, and recommended the authors of the study for an Ig Nobel prize (www.improbable.com). I recommend other boingboingers to do the same!
---
To IG NOBEL NOMINATIONS
c/o Annals of Improbable Research
PO Box 380853
Cambridge MA 02238
USA
e-mail marca@chem2.harvard.edu
Dear colleagues,
I hereby nominate Andrew J. Pask, Kerry J. McInnes, David R. Webb and
Roger V. Short
of, variously,
1 Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia
2 Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research, Clayton,
Victoria, Australia
3 Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4 Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria,
Australia
5 The Dean's Ganglion, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and
Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia
for the next Ig Nobel Prize, on the basis of their ridiculous article
Topical Oestrogen Keratinises The Human Foreskin and May Help Prevent
HIV Infection
published in PLOS One ( article reference
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002308 )
...
I suspect that one or more of the authors have had a piece or pieces of
their genitals chopped off, and are envious of the vast majority of the
world's male population who are able to experience pleasurable
sensation which they are denied [see Sorrels, Morris; James L. Snyder,
Mark D. Reiss, Christopher Eden, Marilyn F. Milos, Norma Wilcox and
Robert S. Van Howe. (2007). "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult
penis". BJU International 99: 864–869.] They obviously wish to deaden
sexual sensation in their targets.
Regarding the prevention of HIV transmission, common sense tells us that
condoms are cheap, harmless, and will work much better than the
method proposed, with far fewer deleterious side effects.
With very best regards,
sincerely,
Alastair Jenkins [www.gfi.uib.no/~jenkins]
[who has fortunately avoided any medical or surgical "treatments" to his
relevant nether regions]
86,
I think the main point is not doing any unnecessary surgery on babies. You can do whatever you want when you grow up.