Impact on HPV and HIV transmission

Some people here suggested that routine infant circumcision could be justified on the grounds of reduced transmission of HSV (which causes cervical cancer in females, among other issues) and HIV.

However, recent studies (discussed right now at 9th IAS Conference on HIV Science) cast some doubt:

" First real-world data, from CAPRISA, show women of recently circumcised partners have 22% reduced risk of HIV and 15% HSV "

(there seems to be some typo issue there, some sources report this as HPV others HSV ?)

While 22% is better than nothing, it's far from anything that counts as real prevention!

While that percentage may not seem important to you, a reduction of that sort translates into a LARGER reduction in transmission from the affected women to more men, which further reduces the prevalence over time.

which further reduces the prevalence over time.

Transmission will depend more on sexual and social customs and mores. Societies that 'allow' a fairly promiscuous amount of sexual activity will of themselves show larger risks and rates of transmission. Risk activity determines transmission.

Otherwise why would Europe not have significantly higher rates due to a low instance of circumcision?

I often wonder if there would be less disease spread by males who are uncircumcised if they would just clean under the foreskin better. I personally am against circumcision of a baby just because I think it should be the boy's decision whether or not to be circumcised rather than his parent's decision, it's his penis and he should have the right to do whatever he wants with it. Although that being said, it's also the parent's duty to teach their children how to properly clean themselves which includes pulling back the foreskin of uncircumcised boys, cleaning the anus with soap and water, and douching the vagina especially as their daughter enters puberty and starts having menstrual cycles. Maybe some parents are too embarrassed by having to teach their son how to pull back his foreskin or maybe they're afraid that their son might become aroused when pulling back his foreskin and they think it might lead to him learning to masturbate at an early age, really, come on people, your sons and daughters are going to learn about masturbation no matter what, why try to make them think that it's a bad thing. Heck, I even think that by teaching your kids about masturbation (okay maybe not actually showing them how to do it) would help reduce teenage pregnancy, if boys and girls can take care of their own desires in a safe place like their bedroom or bathroom perhaps they might feel less inclined to go out and search for sex on their own and risk an unwanted pregnancy... anyways, those are just some of my thoughts...

Eboy24: I actually wonder whether transmission in uncircumcised males would be reduced if they washed their penis, especially under the foreskin, straight after sex...

Heck, I even think that by teaching your kids about masturbation (okay maybe not actually showing them how to do it) would help reduce teenage pregnancy,

Statistics show that countries with extensive sex education programs in school - like the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries - all have far lower teen pregnancy rates than in countries with no sex ed or US states that have imposed abstinence-only sex 'education'.

Parents can't really teach as much as a good and well thought-out scholastic class can. They can give a good example, be open and willing to listen, not quick to judge, understanding and not uptight. But the actual teaching, the nuts and bolts of things, that is not really a job for parents, it's a job for teachers who have learned the proper skills and techniques, the correct terms and words for all kinds of sexual subjects.

Some people here suggested that routine infant circumcision could be justified on the grounds of reduced transmission of HSV (which causes cervical cancer in females, among other issues) and HIV.

However, recent studies (discussed right now at 9th IAS Conference on HIV Science) cast some doubt:

" First real-world data, from CAPRISA, show women of recently circumcised partners have 22% reduced risk of HIV and 15% HSV "

(there seems to be some typo issue there, some sources report this as HPV others HSV ?)

While 22% is better than nothing, it's far from anything that counts as real prevention!

@Pecan_nutjob maybe you are a bit confused about HSV and HPV? HPV is Human Papilloma virus and some strains of it are most likely to cause cervical cancer. The HSV 1 and 2 are the Herpes Simplex Viruses. Maybe some of the sources are talking about cervical cancer and other ones are talking about genital Herpes?

Eboy24: I actually wonder whether transmission in uncircumcised males would be reduced if they washed their penis, especially under the foreskin, straight after sex...

I think that has got to be important. It will not matter as much for me because sex is only with my husband and his foreskin is washed properly (i love to do it when we shower) but I think when women have got different partners it is going to matter more.

Amethyst: Yes, I know the difference between HSV and HPV. I'm confused because that sentence talks about one of the two, but the person who quoted it was talking about the other virus.