Circumcision does not equal immunity
Recently there has been a significant amount of debate around the benefits of male circumcision. Its combative role in the struggle against the HIV/AIDS epidemic has been proven by considerable factual evidence .
Various studies have shown that it reduces a man’s risk of contracting HIV by over 50%, and shows substantial evidence that the risk of transmission from circumcised HIV-positive men to HIV-negative women is lower than from uncircumcised HIV-positive men.
Conclusive proof that all men should be circumcised. But maybe not. circumcision is no joke. It involves the mutilation of the most sensitive part of a man’s anatomy.
According to an anonymous male who was circumcised at 16 years of age, urinating feels like “being stabbed in the penis by hundreds of hot needles”. For a few weeks after, erections cause the circumcised man extreme discomfort, and he cannot engage in sexual behaviour for up to six weeks after the procedure. It has also been reported in some cases that sensation is decreased, resulting in sex not being as pleasurable as before.
That’s taking for granted that it is done surgically. If it isn’t, a whole new range of risks arises, such as the possibility of contamination from unhygienic conditions, or the operation being administered incorrectly, both resulting in damage to the penis. If something goes wrong, the physical pain, compounded by the psychological trauma, is immense.
The challenge, therefore, is multi-faceted. If we are to encourage circumcision as a means of reducing HIV infection, are we not communicating that people can now get the chop and engage in unprotected sex? Condoms are 100% effective if used correctly, regardless of whether the penis within is circumcised or not. Also, there is no evidence that circumcision inhibits infection from anal sex, so homosexual men have nothing to gain from the procedure.
It seems nothing short of optimistic to expect that men who already choose not to protect themselves will assent to such a traumatic procedure, and then suddenly take on protective sexual measures in conjunction.
Surely many men will misinterpret the findings and see circumcision as a painful but worthwhile price to pay for a lifetime of unprotected sex.
Also, considering the after-effects of the operation, how we convince men to acquiesce to circumcision, out of traditional and religious practices, will be difficult.
Another challenge is to alter the practices of traditional circumcisions to make them more sterile. Circumcision is a medical procedure that requires sanitary conditions to minimise the risk of infections, and the ideology of traditional circumcision stands contrary to the medical variety in that boys are sent out into the bush and circumcised (without any sterile equipment for miles), where infections often occur. No anaesthetic is provided – pain is encouraged as a trial of maturity.
The incentive to encourage male circumcision seems to be to effect a compromise. Perhaps men who refuse to use condoms may seek circumcision as a preventative measure, and in doing so reduce the infection rate. Ideally, they should be circumcised and always wear a condom – but to expect that is improbable.
Still, one can’t help but feel that more harm will come of the incentive than good through projecting the message that male circumcision is a substitute for using condoms - Ricky Hunt.