Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Circumcision HIV news frenzy

There's been alot of press lately covering two studies in Africa that show circumcised men contracting HIV at a slower rate than uncircumcised men. Pushing aside all the debate over what this does or doesn't mean, I want to know why there's so little press attention given to contradicting studies. For example an even newer study has shown that African adolescents who are still virgins, but have been circumcised are much more likely to have HIV than uncircumcised ones because they were circumcised in unsanitary conditions with shared knives.

My only guess is that the typical American man who was circumcised at birth doesn't want to admit his circumcision is useless. He doesn't want to admit his parents made a mistake. He doesn't want to admit that an ancient ritual body mod from the Bible is nothing more than an ancient ritual leftover in modern society. He doesn't want to admit he's missing out on something special. A recent South Korean study surveyed a large number of men who were circumcised after sexual maturity, and the majority reported worse sex, but that news story was drowned out by all the "Circumcision = HIV Vaccine!" headlines.

Judging by my previous posts, I have no readers, but if you read this, please comment on why you think there's no balance in the press coverage, or whether you had even heard of the contradicting studies.