Circumcision may increase STI rates

[hei]

Non-therapeutic male circumcision in infancy or childhood and risk of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections: national cohort study in Denmark​

• Morten Frisch &
• Jacob Simonsen

European Journal of Epidemiology (2021)Cite this article

Abstract​

Whether male circumcision in infancy or childhood provides protection against the acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in adulthood remains to be established. In the first national cohort study to address this issue, we identified 810,719 non-Muslim males born in Denmark between 1977 and 2003 and followed them over the age span 0–36 years between 1977 and 2013. We obtained information about cohort members’ non-therapeutic circumcisions, HIV diagnoses and other STI outcomes from national health registers and used Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with foreskin status (i.e., circumcised v. genitally intact). During a mean of 22 years of follow-up, amounting to a total observation period of 17.7 million person-years, 3375 cohort members (0.42%) underwent non-therapeutic circumcision, and 8531 (1.05%) received hospital care for HIV or other STIs. Compared with genitally intact males, rates among circumcised males were not statistically significantly reduced for any specific STI. Indeed, circumcised males had a 53% higher rate of STIs overall (HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.24–1.89), and rates were statistically significantly increased for anogenital warts (74 cases in circumcised males v. 7151 cases in intact males, HR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.20–1.90) and syphilis (four cases in circumcised males v. 197 cases in intact males, HR = 3.32; 95% CI: 1.23–8.95). In this national cohort study spanning more than three decades of observation, non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy or childhood did not appear to provide protection against HIV or other STIs in males up to the age of 36 years. Rather, non-therapeutic circumcision was associated with higher STI rates overall, particularly for anogenital warts and syphilis.

---

It's often falsely claimed by genital cutters that mutilating little boys' dicks to reduce their adult experience of sexual pleasure has some sort of public health benefit. The main basis is some phony studies they conducted in Africa, where they found that HIV transmission was "50% lower" (1% instead of 2%) in recently married men who were given safe sex counselling and circumcision, than in the 'control group' of unmarried soldiers and truck drivers who received no sex education.

I think this is some of the first published evidence that it doesn't do anything in the west. The prepuce has immunity functions that are obviously removed by cutting it off, but other studies have also found that circumcised men find it harder to feel sexually satisfied and engage in riskier sex behaviours.

 

[Jhi66]

Great find. I was cut as a baby back in the 60's. I am convinced that the procedure is barbaric and causes long term harm. Especially back then when they didn't use anesthesia and as was often the case was a baby's first sexual experience. (Talk about screwing up men) I have read that babies would often get an erection during the manipulation process prior to the cut. I suffered terrible night terrors as a Young man and I have hypothesized that it was related. I have no evidence, only an overwhelming sensation of a malevolence hanging over me and out of my control. I noticed that boys get night terrors 10 times more frequently then girls, back when I was looking at the data 20 years ago. It's just a hypothesis. It is probably not true. But those of us cut know that there is a desensitisation that occurs because the head of the penis is not covered. We have to f+%k harder and I feel would account for the greater rate of STI's. Yes even to the point of microtears.

 

[JamesGatz]

I use to have a whole bunch of articles saved about the billions of dollars these doctor c*nts make from selling foreskins to biotech/pharmaceutical/cosmetic companies and how much money the industry makes - I try to find them on Google now and of course can't find it anywhere ... follow the money

To think I was violated as a baby for a quick buck and these people make mental gymnastics for why violating the genitals of a baby is a "good" thing is sickening - I will never have a doctor place a hand on my future child - even when it's time for the baby to come out it will be performed by yours truly :)

 

[Jhi66]

Awesome James. I feel your anger, I am with you. I didn't deliver my boys but they didn't get cut either. The first Jewish doctor was not happy with me. It is such an injustice.

 

[hei]

Great find. I was cut as a baby back in the 60's. I am convinced that the procedure is barbaric and causes long term harm. Especially back then when they didn't use anesthesia and as was often the case was a baby's first sexual experience. (Talk about screwing up men) I have read that babies would often get an erection during the manipulation process prior to the cut. I suffered terrible night terrors as a Young man and I have hypothesized that it was related. I have no evidence, only an overwhelming sensation of a malevolence hanging over me and out of my control. I noticed that boys get night terrors 10 times more frequently then girls, back when I was looking at the data 20 years ago. It's just a hypothesis. It is probably not true. But those of us cut know that there is a desensitisation that occurs because the head of the penis is not covered. We have to f+%k harder and I feel would account for the greater rate of STI's. Yes even to the point of microtears.

It's brutal, the boy is happily lying around one minute, then he's tied down because they apparently try to kick and push their attackers away (there are even specific restraints designed just for this), and given a sugar-coated pacifier to suck on (jews drug them with wine for the religious one). Then they begin by tearing the prepuce off the glans, leaving a large wounded area which afterwards is rubbing around in dirty diapers and rubbing on the material. It's ridiculous to think that it doesn't hurt or that it's not traumatic.

The standards applied are the opposite to what's accepted for every other crime. Cutting off part of someone else's body is a grievous bodily harm. Doing it to a child is an aggravated circumstance. Drugging them so they won't fight you is an aggravating circumstance. Doing it to their genitals is possibly an aggravating circumstance. In general you can't even consent to have a grievous bodily harm committed against yourself, and there are no other cases where you can consent to having a grievous bodily harm done to someone else (how can you even consent to that?). But since we're only talking about boys it's no biggie. Just go ahead and cut whatever you want off. Absolutely barbaric.

 

[Jhi66]

Yes hei, I feel all of these things. Those who need protected the most, the most helpless the future builders of society, are thrown under the bus, forced into religious creeds they know nothing of or thoughtless parents just going with the flow. Hang in there my friends. We do better, just like those abused in childhood but who choose a different path as parents.