What's in the soil?
posted by Melinda Wenner at 10:38 AM
Friday, November 02, 2007
About Me
- Name: Melinda Wenner
- Location: New York, New York, United States
I am a freelance science journalist based in New York City -- in other words, I live in the most expensive city in the world without a steady income. I have written for publications including Seed, The Scientist, the Boston Globe, Wired and Scientific American. Check out my website at http://www.melindawenner.com.
Previous Posts
- Sleep for your sanity
- Halloween posts
- Crowd Farm
- Brain Scans Show Meditation's Effects
- Family Ties
- Medicine for Mania
- Abu Dhabi sets a green example
- Science agrees with Buddha (again)
- Say goodbye to Jules
- Religion, science and hate mail
3 Comments:
The "third wave" of the HIV epidemic (i.e., among non-IV drug-using heterosexuals) never took off in the U.S. because of the lopsidedly low female-to-male transmission rate. It's just really hard to get the epidemic rolling when women can only transmit the infection back to men at a tenth of the rate.
The extraordinary HIV prevalence in Africa suggests that the female-to-male transmission rate is higher there. One possible explanation is the far-lower prevalence of circumcision in Africa. It's biologically plausible that an intact foreskin would increase the rate of transmission to men -- there's a nice, warm, protected landing pad for the virus.
And an association between circumcision and HIV prevalence does in fact exist. A recent analysis from the CDC found that areas with the highest circumcision rate have the lowest prevalence of HIV.
But as we all learned in science class, association isn't causality. What separates the men from the boys (or in this case the foreskin from the men) would be a randomized controlled trial of circumcision. And believe it or not, such a trial was done in South Africa and Kenya. The results suggested that male circumcision cut the incidence of HIV infection in half.
What would be really interesting is to know whether Foster's results hold up after controlling for circumcision rates. And if they don't (because selenium tends to be high when circumcision rates are high), another interesting question arises: why the association between selenium and circumcision?
Safe sexual practices are not only essential, but they are the only reliable and effective means for controlling and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases; even though the UN's recent (U.S.-led) studies suggest that circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV infection, the UN still acknowledges that only sex-education and sexually responsible behavior (such as using condoms) are effective and reliable solutions.
In fact, one meta-study of those UN studies suggests that 72 circumcisions are necessary in order to prevent one case of HIV infection. In conclusion, the researchers make a half-hearted endorsement of the procedure:
Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections. Its impact on a population level will require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.
Consider that last sentence again: "consistently safe sexual practices" are necessary to be protected from HIV.
More to the point, the circumcised men in the UN studies are Muslim. No doubt does this cultural affiliation have an effect on their sexual behavior and would explain why these circumcised men are at a reduced risk of HIV.
Also, consider this article that says circumcision does not decrease the risk of contracting HIV for gay men. Then consider the following study that shows many gay men engage in unsafe sexual practices.
Therefore, it is obvious that the UN studies are hindered by confounding variables and that the real solution to the spread of HIV (and other STDs) is not circumcision, but sexually responsible behavior.
Moreover, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of circumcision among the industrialized nations, and yet it has a fairly high incidence of HIV. It doesn't seem like circumcision has helped much...
Therefore, it is disingenuous for you to suggest that circumcision is actually helpful for reducing HIV infection.
-----------------
Furthermore, an endorsement of circumcision as prophylaxis is not only wrongheaded, but dangerous, because it can be misconstrued as an endorsement of neonatal circumcision.
70%-75% of the Earth's men are intact (not circumcised). Medically unnecessary circumcision is rare outside of the United States, South Korea (influenced by the U.S.), Israel, the Muslim world (68% of circumcised men), and the older generations of Canada and Australia (both influenced by the U.S.). Outside of these countries/cultures, 'routine'/ritual circumcision is considered bizarre--even backward and cruel.
Through science and medicine, the foreskin is known to contain specialized structures, muscle, a complex vascular system, and tens of thousands of highly concentrated, specialized, erogenous nerve cells and fine touch receptors. These specialized structures include the preputial sphincter, the frenulum, and the ridged band. In particular, the frenulum is a very erogenous region that is either ablated during circumcision or is underdeveloped on the circumcised penis. The ridged band's fine touch receptors complement the coarse sensory receptors of the glans (head of the penis) and it is always removed during circumcision.
Besides providing a specialized combination of nerves, the foreskin acts as an erogenous sheath in which the shaft and glans glide and with which the frenulum and ridged band are stimulated.
These structures and nerves are essential to the complete experience and functioning of the sex act, so that their amputation results in a clear sensory and mechanical deficiency. Consider the British Journal of Urology (1999):
The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function [8]. The complex interaction between the protopathic sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis [42] and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce [45] is required for normal copulatory behaviour. The increased frequency of masturbation, anal intercourse and fellatio reported by circumcised men in the USA [81] may possibly be due to the sensory imbalance caused by circumcision. Clearly, amputation of the prepuce causes changes in sexual behaviour in human males [81] and females [82].
As for increased masturbation, it seems likely that the constant (unwanted) stimulation of the exposed glans and remaining foreskin is likely to blame.
As for empirical data, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the foreskin is highly erogenous and greatly enhances the sexual experience by providing another 'layer' of stimulation and function. For instance, the frenulum is colloquially known as the "sex nerve" in France and perhaps throughout Europe. By destroying or reducing this stretching action, circumcision removes or alters this fundamental means of sexual pleasure in the human male.
Moreover, one study shows that 6/7 women prefer partners with an intact penis, so circumcision also deprives women of some extra level of satisfaction.
The foreskin provides not just more sensitivity, but enhanced sensitivity.
Consider this:
Some colorblind men may never know they are deficient or may only find out much later in life after failing the colorblindness tests; they never knew before (or may never know) that they can't enjoy various colors and their combinations; so it is with circumcised men.
In actuality, we don't even need silly visual tests. We could examine DNA or the eye's cone cells and determine that a person is colorblind; these are physical facts.
Likewise, there is no debate that circumcision destroys sexual 'perception'. The only question is whether the REMAINING tissue (glans and what's left of the inner foreskin) is desensitized due to the conditions engendered by the amputation of the foreskin. While there is conflicting evidence as to the degree of further desensitizing, it is certainly the case that the glans and remaining inner foreskin are transformed into fully external structures---something that is unnatural for these mucosal tissues. They suffer from drying-out, subtle lifelong abrasion (simple contact with clothes), and keratinization (a response that reduces the irritation of drying-out and abrasion, but also results in a reduction of nerve stimulation).
Indeed, intact men, who find themselves to be too sensitive are often instructed to retract their foreskins temporarily in order to dull their senses.
Worse, circumcision can result in complications that exact even more physical and psychological tolls.
In short, circumcision provides no reliable or effective protection against HIV and many men enjoy their foreskins sexually, so that to remove the foreskin is to deprive a male of a unique form of sexual stimulation (and protection). It is a slight against the human rights, dignity, respect, and personal liberty of men to amputate forcibly what is healthy and valuable tissue.
Safe sexual practices are not only essential, but they are the only reliable and effective means for controlling and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases; even though the UN's recent (U.S.-led) studies suggest that circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV infection, the UN still acknowledges that only sex-education and sexually responsible behavior (such as using condoms) are effective and reliable solutions.
In fact, one meta-study of those UN studies suggests that 72 circumcisions are necessary in order to prevent one case of HIV infection. In conclusion, the researchers make a half-hearted endorsement of the procedure:
Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections. Its impact on a population level will require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.
Consider that last sentence again: "consistently safe sexual practices" are necessary to be protected from HIV.
More to the point, the circumcised men in the UN studies are Muslim. No doubt does this cultural affiliation have an effect on their sexual behavior and would explain why these circumcised men are at a reduced risk of HIV.
Also, consider this article that says circumcision does not decrease the risk of contracting HIV for gay men. Then consider the following study that shows many gay men engage in unsafe sexual practices.
Therefore, it is obvious that the UN studies are hindered by confounding variables and that the real solution to the spread of HIV (and other STDs) is not circumcision, but sexually responsible behavior.
Moreover, the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision among industrialized nations (not considering, say, Israel), and yet the U.S. HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized nation. It doesn't seem like circumcision has helped much...
Therefore, it is disingenuous for you to suggest that circumcision is actually helpful for reducing HIV infection.
-----------------
Furthermore, an endorsement of circumcision as prophylaxis is not only wrongheaded, but dangerous, because it can be misconstrued as an endorsement of neonatal circumcision.
70%-75% of the Earth's men are intact (not circumcised). Medically unnecessary circumcision is rare outside of the United States, South Korea (influenced by the U.S.), Israel, the Muslim world (68% of circumcised men), and the older generations of Canada and Australia (both influenced by the U.S.). Outside of these countries/cultures, 'routine'/ritual circumcision is considered bizarre--even backward and cruel.
Through science and medicine, the foreskin is known to contain specialized structures, muscle, a complex vascular system, and tens of thousands of highly concentrated, specialized, erogenous nerve cells and fine touch receptors. These specialized structures include the preputial sphincter, the frenulum, and the ridged band. In particular, the frenulum is a very erogenous region that is either ablated during circumcision or is underdeveloped on the circumcised penis. The ridged band's fine touch receptors complement the coarse sensory receptors of the glans (head of the penis) and it is always removed during circumcision.
Besides providing a specialized combination of nerves, the foreskin acts as an erogenous sheath in which the shaft and glans glide and with which the frenulum and ridged band are stimulated.
These structures and nerves are essential to the complete experience and functioning of the sex act, so that their amputation results in a clear sensory and mechanical deficiency. Consider the British Journal of Urology (1999):
The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function [8]. The complex interaction between the protopathic sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis [42] and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce [45] is required for normal copulatory behaviour. The increased frequency of masturbation, anal intercourse and fellatio reported by circumcised men in the USA [81] may possibly be due to the sensory imbalance caused by circumcision. Clearly, amputation of the prepuce causes changes in sexual behaviour in human males [81] and females [82].
As for increased masturbation, it seems likely that the constant (unwanted) stimulation of the exposed glans and remaining foreskin is likely to blame.
As for empirical data, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the foreskin is highly erogenous and greatly enhances the sexual experience by providing another 'layer' of stimulation and function. For instance, the frenulum is colloquially known as the "sex nerve" in France and perhaps throughout Europe. By destroying or reducing this stretching action, circumcision removes or alters this fundamental means of sexual pleasure in the human male.
Moreover, one study shows that 6/7 women prefer partners with an intact penis, so circumcision also deprives women of some extra level of satisfaction.
The foreskin provides not just more sensitivity, but enhanced sensitivity.
Consider this:
Some colorblind men may never know they are deficient or may only find out much later in life after failing the colorblindness tests; they never knew before (or may never know) that they can't enjoy various colors and their combinations; so it is with circumcised men.
In actuality, we don't even need silly visual tests. We could examine DNA or the eye's cone cells and determine that a person is colorblind; these are physical facts.
Likewise, there is no debate that circumcision destroys sexual 'perception'. The only question is whether the REMAINING tissue (glans and what's left of the inner foreskin) is desensitized due to the conditions engendered by the amputation of the foreskin. While there is conflicting evidence as to the degree of further desensitizing, it is certainly the case that the glans and remaining inner foreskin are transformed into fully external structures---something that is unnatural for these mucosal tissues. They suffer from drying-out, subtle lifelong abrasion (simple contact with clothes), and keratinization (a response that reduces the irritation of drying-out and abrasion, but also results in a reduction of nerve stimulation).
Indeed, intact men, who find themselves to be too sensitive are often instructed to retract their foreskins temporarily in order to dull their senses.
Worse, circumcision can result in complications that exact even more physical and psychological tolls.
In short, circumcision provides no reliable or effective protection against HIV and many men enjoy their foreskins sexually, so that to remove the foreskin is to deprive a male of a unique form of sexual stimulation (and protection). It is a slight against the human rights, dignity, respect, and personal liberty of men to amputate forcibly what is healthy and valuable tissue.
Post a Comment
<< Home