Changes

This article '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' discusses the claims that male [[circumcision]] reduces the incidence of STDs other than [[HIV]]/[[AIDS]]. For a discussion of the claims made regarding [[HIV]], see [[Circumcision and HIV]].

''It is not alone the tight-constricted, glans-deforming, [[onanism]]-producing, cancer-generating prepuce that is the particular variety of prepuce that is at the bottom of the ills and ailments, local or constitutional, that may affect man through its presence. The loose, pendulous prepuce, or even the prepuce in the evolutionary stage of disappearance, that only loosely covers one-half of the glans, is as dangerous as his long and constricted counterpart. If we look over the world’s history, since in the latter years of the fifteenth century syphilis came down like a plague, walking with democratic tread through all walks and stations in life, laying out alike royalty or the vagrant, the curled-haired and slashed-doubleted knight, or the tonsured monk, we must conclude that syphilis has caused more families to become extinct than any ordinary plague, black death, or cholera epidemic. Without wishing to enter into a history of syphilis, it is not outside of the province of this book to allude to its frequency and spread''.

''The absence of the prepuce and the non-absorbing character of the [[skin ]] of the glans penis, made so by constant exposure, with the necessary and unavoidably less tendency that these conditions give to favor syphilitic inoculation, are not evidently without their resulting good effects. Now and then syphilitic primary sores are found on the glans, or even in the [[urethra ]] or on the outside [[skin ]] of the penis, or outer parts of the prepuce; but the majority are, as a rule, situated either back of the corona or on the reflected inner fold of the prepuce immediately adjoining the corona, or they may be in the loose folds in the neighborhood of the frenum, the retention of the virus seemingly being assisted by the topographical condition and relation of the parts, and its absorption facilitated by the thinness of the mucous membrane, as well as by the active circulation and moisture and heat of the parts''.<ref>{{REFbook

|first=PeterCharles |init=PC

|pagespage=iii

|note=}}</ref>

With the trumped-up false claims promoted by circumcision advocates such as Remondino and Wolbarst, many military commanders, knowing that soldiers may visit prostitutes, ordered their soldiers to be subjected to mandatory [[amputation ]] of their [[foreskin]]s (circumcision).

Evidence-based medicine does not support the subjective opinion of the early [[circumcision]]-promoters.<ref name="vanhowe2013">{{REFjournal

|init=RS |author-link=Robert S. Van Howe

[[Circumcision ]] advocates had falsely claimed that the sub-preputial space was a filthy [[cesspool ]] of [[infection ]] that was eliminated by [[circumcision]]. However, Parkash ''et al''. (1982) showed that the sub-preputial moisture actually contained lytic material with antiseptic qualities that protected against disease.<ref>{{REFjournal

|firstinit=S

|first2init2=R

Smith ''et al''. (1987) found evidence that the [[foreskin ]] protected against acquisition of non-gonococcal urethritis, possibly "''by affecting the physiologic milieu of the [[glans penis]], by association with post-coital hygiene behavior, or by local immune defense mechanisms acting against the agent''."<ref name="smith1987">{{REFjournal

Cook ''et al''. (1993) reported their findings that [[circumcised ]] men were more likely to have genital warts than [[intact ]] men. The authors concluded, "''the presence of the [[foreskin ]] may confer nonspecific protection of the proximal [[penis ]] from acquisition of HPV infection''."<ref name="cook1993A>{{REFjournal

|firstinit=LS

|first2init2=LA

|first3init3=KK

Cook ''et al'' . (1994) compared the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in [[intact ]] males with [[circumcised ]] males who attend the STD clinic at the [https://www.uwmedicine.org/locations/harborview-medical-center Harborview Medical Center ] in Seattle, Washington, USA. They reported that genitally [[intact ]] men were more likely than [[circumcised ]] men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts.<ref name="cook1994">{{REFjournal

Bassett ''et al'' . (1994) investigated the factors associated with HSV-2 infection in heterosexual men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, Australia. They reported that, "''we found no evidence of the presence of an [[intact ]] [[foreskin ]] being a risk factor for HSV-2 infection''."<ref name="bassett1994">{{REFjournal

|first3=Neil J. |init3=NJ

|first4=Peter R. |init4=PR

|first5=David W . T. |init5=DWT

|first7=Anthony L. |init7=AL

Donovan ''et al''. (1994) also surveyed men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, {{AUSC|NSW}}, [[Australia]]. They reported:

''In this clinic-based prospectively collected survey we found no association between male [[circumcision ]] status and STDs that are common in our population. Perhaps importantly, our study group was relatively racially homogeneous, lack of [[circumcision ]] was not a marker of lower socioeconomic status (using the index of education level; Table 2), and we controlled for a major parameter of sexual behaviour (lifetime number of sexual partners)''.<ref name="donovan1994">{{REFjournal

|first3init3=NJ

Laumann ''et al''. (1997) used data from the ''National Health and Social Life Survey'' (NHSLS) (1992) to report on the effects of male [[circumcision ]] in the [[United States]]. With regard to STDs, Laumann ''et al''. reported:

|first=Edward O. |init=EO

|first3=Ezra W. |init3=EW

[[Robert S. Van Howe |Van Howe]] (1999) carried out a review of the medical literature concerning sexually transmitted infection. He referenced no fewer than 104 published papers in his review and concluded:

''What began as speculation has resulted a century later in 60-75% of American boys being circumcised with no clearly confirmed medical benefit. In the interim, no solid epidemiological evidence has been found to support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs or to justify a policy of involuntary mass circumcision as a public health measure. While the number of confounding factors and the inability to perform a random, double-blind, prospective trial make assessing the role of circumcision in STD acquisition difficult, there is no clear evidence that circumcision prevents STDs. The only consistent trend is that [[uncircumcised ]] males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [34]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs''.<ref name="vanhowe1999">{{REFjournal

|first=Robert S. |init=RS |author-link=Robert S. Van Howe

Dave ''et al''. (2003) studied data from the 2000 ''British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles'' (Natsal 2000). They found "''no significant associations between circumcision and being diagnosed with any one of the seven specific STIs.''"<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=S SSS

|first2init2=A MAM

|first3init3=K AKA

|first4init4=C ACA

|title= Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey |trans-title= |language=English

Frequently overlooked when considering the effect of circumcision on sexually transmitted infection is the riskier sexual behavior of circumcised men as compared with intact men. Following [[amputation]] of the highly erogenous [[foreskin]], circumcised men have significantly reduced sexual sensation, so therefore engage in a wider range of sexual practices in their quest to obtain sexual release. Hooykaas ''et al''. (1991) reported that the sexual behavior of migrant circumcised men is more riskier than that of intact Dutch men.<ref>{{REFjournal

|firstinit=C

|first2init2=F WFW

|first3init3=M MMM

|first4init4=G JGJ

|first5init5=R ARA

}}</ref> Laumann ''et al''. (1997), in a study of American men, reported that

Michael ''et al''. (1998) compared sexual behavior in Britain with sexual behavior in the United States. They reported that condom use was "significantly higher" in the United Kingdom where most men are intact as compared to the United States where most men are circumcised.<ref>{{REFjournal

|first=Robert T. |init=RT

[[Robert S. Van Howe |Van Howe]] (1999) commented:

''Beaugé suggests that the loss of [[penile skin ]] from circumcision frequently results in tightened [[skin ]] over the erect penis. This increases friction during intercourse and increases the likelihood of abrasions through which a pathogen can be introduced systemically, making the circumcised penis more likely to contract an STD. The increased likelihood of circumcised men engaging in active anal sex may also increase a circumcised man's susceptibility to STDs''.<ref name="vanhowe1999" />

Professor [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe ]] (2013) has provided a magisterial systematic review and meta-analysis citing 199 documents relating to circumcision and STDs. [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]]'s paper appears to be conclusive. His meta-analysis concludes as follows:

|author-link=George Hill |publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]]

|trans-title= |language= |last= |first= |author-link= |publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]]