December 12, 2011
Is there a relationship between cervical cancer and men that have not been circumcised?
Category: Pap Smear & Cervical Cancer
I have read there is a higher incidence of cervical cancer amoungst women that have intercourse on a regular basis with men that are not circumcised.
11 Responses to “Is there a relationship between cervical cancer and men that have not been circumcised?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Not if the man is monogamous.
Circumcision helps men who sleep around a lot, as it provides a fold of skin for sexual disease to lodge if the man does not clean himself.
If a man is clean (washes down there) he is not a risk
If a man is not sleeping around, he is not a risk
December 12th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
No, the larger the number of partners the greater the risk, regardless if they are mutilated or not.
60% of college age males test positive for some type of HPV (not all cause cancer) “circumcised” status makes no difference, condoms do!
Certain tribes from the Mid-East have a low susceptibility to cervical cancer so their practice of male genital mutilation has little to do with the claimed “benefit”. There is an Asian culture in which all males are “circumcised” but the women there suffer one of the highest cervical cancer rates in the world.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Having sex with an uncircumcised man is not a risk for cervical cancer, but an uncircumcised man or one who is circumcised years after birth, is far more likely to get penile cancer than a circumcised man is. Penile cancer is fairly rare however.
December 12th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Actually that is false.
A long time ago they did a study about how Jewish women had a lower incedence of cervical cancer than non Jewish women. They conculded from that, that because their husbands were circumcised most likley that was the reason why there was a lower chance. However they found out that it was because of their healthier lifestyle by what they ate because of their religion.
The reason why people say this is because HPV is one of the major causes of cervical cancer and some studies have shown correlations between uncircumcised men being more of a risk for getting HPV for women. However that claim makes no sense because most HPV is spread through the use of condoms. HPV is spread from genital skin n skin contact, and therefore a condom provides little rotection against HPV. Well if most HPV is spread through the use of condoms and the foreskin is covered up by a condom then what does it matter if he’s circumcised or not? It doesn’t. Plus because HPV is spread by more ways than just a penis coming in contact with a vagina then why does haveing a foreskin increase someones risk if the foreksin has nothing to do with spreading or contracting the disease?
It has nothing to do with one another.
Also a lot of people say it’s because of the “bacteria” that gets trapped under the skin. The “bacteria” that people seem to be talking about doesn’t really exist as they speak of it. Smegma accumulates under the foreskin and that actually has stuff in it that helps fight off bacteria. And there is always bacteria in everything, but it’s good bacteria, without that kind of bacteria people would get infections all the time or have problems with their bodies functioning. So really what they are talking about is smegma.
Females produce 9 times as much smegma as males, so smegma can’t really be the reason for the higher risk because women make a lot more of it than men.
I do’t understand that claim because scientificly it doesn’t make much sense to me.
To me it’s like saying circumcised reduces a mans chanes of getting penile cancer.
An infant male is more likley to die of a circumcision than the penile cancer it self.
Cervical cancer is rarest cancer amoung women, so to say they have a lower risk of sleeping with a circumcised partner is errelevent.
You changes of getting cervical cancer is 0.00369%, so even if having a circumcised partner lowered your risk, what’s it going to lower it to? Not very much because your chances of getting is are so far beyond slim.
The whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me. And even if somehow it DID lower your chances, it’s almost unoticable or irrelevent.
-Connor
December 13th, 2011 at 12:21 am
If a woman is having sex on a regular basis with multiple partners without contraception, then the men’s circumcision status is essentially irrelevant.
Cervical cancer is usually caused by infection of the HPV virus, although most of the time HPV does not escalate to cancer and it usually takes at least 10 years to do so. This means regular screening will identify any precancerous changes in the cervix.
If men use a condom, this reduces the risk of a woman becoming infected with HPV.
Vaccines which protect against the strains of HPV that are most likely to cause cervical cancer have also been developed and licenced.
Other factors which may increase your risk of cervical cancer are smoking, a weakened immune system, poor genital hygiene, and promiscuous sexual behavior.
Using circumcision as a preventative method is pointless.
It is also worth remembering that less than 0.01% of women are diagnosed with this disease each year.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Well my wife and I have been married for 22 years and she didnt get cancer yet, although she has been complaining a lot lately. Do you think she might have a problem?
EDIT:
The “doctor” who said “Circumcision helps men who sleep around a lot, as it provides a fold of skin for sexual disease to lodge if the man does not clean himself”
You need an education on STD’s… and it seems also in anatomy… but I accept your advice otherwise.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:45 am
Not true. According to the American Cancer Society:
“The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.”
I believe one of the studies was done in a Jewish community, they had lower rates of HPV because they were more religious and didn’t sleep around, compared to the other people. So nothing has ever been proven and honestly I doubt there’s a correlation, it doesn’t really seem to make sense.
Even if it did, that would be no reason to circumcise a baby. Monogamy, safe sex, the Gardasil vaccination and regualar pap smears are far more important in preventing cervical cancer.
Harriet
December 13th, 2011 at 1:44 am
No, none at at all. Michael is 100% correct as usual and I have little to add to his answer. As Michael has correctly said, whether or not the penis is circumcised is quite irrelevant with regards to HPV.
70% of cases cervical cancer cases are caused by HPV.
HPV is a virus spread through sexual intercourse and sexual contact by both men and women.The foreskin itself has nothing to do with HPV. By the age of 65, 70% of us will carry the HPV virus (there are different types.)
To limit your chances of contracting HPV you need to limit the amount of sexual partners you have, that said- you can has just one partner and still contract HPV. It is however fair to say that the more partners one has, the more likely they are to contract HPV. Condoms offer some protection- best guess is that they offer 50% protection against STIs. You have to remember that the condom only covers the penis, the rest of the genitals are exposed, which could make contact with the vagina. HPV is spread through sexual CONTACT as well as intercourse.
In the US, many wrongly believe that being circumcised prevents infection and the spread of STIs, there is NO truth in this at all and absolutely NO reliable evidence to back it up. This is simply a myth and I am delighted to see that the circumcision rate in the US has now dropped to about 40%. More people are realising that there is little need for this barbaric procedure that is of NO benefit whatsoever.
With the new HPV vaccine, hopefully we will see cases of cervical cancer decreasing in the future.
EDIT
To the Cancer Reg- That is utter nonsense!
December 13th, 2011 at 2:35 am
That’s another old wive’s tale which was promoted by the medical community to try to get more males circumcised.
Doctors make money from circumcision, and are highly biased, as many of them belong to the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males.
Circumcision does not prevent disease, and in fact circumcision makes men more susceptible to HIV, HPV and bacterial infections, as well.
The foreskin contains Langerhans cells, which have antiviral and antibacterial properties. This is relatively new research, and completely disproves the ridiculous notion that HIV is prevented by circumcision.
In the USA, at the height of the HIV epidemic, 80% of men were circumcised, yet the rate of infection was and is higher than any of the countries in Europe, Asia, Scandinavia and South America where males are rarely circumcised.
The HIV transmission rate in Pakistan, where more than 90% of males are circumcised, is 400% more than that of India, where the majority of males are intact, unmutilated and whole.
All of these ridiculous tales have been disproven, but there are provincial people who still believe them, and parrot phrases heard from their grandmothers about “it’s cleaner,” or “it prevents disease.”
Circumcision is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on the male sex.
A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.
ERIC
December 13th, 2011 at 3:16 am
no really its just the pro-circumcision gang grasping at straws, they want every baby cut for any reason true or false cos it makes them rich, its like every other std related issue if you have multiple partners look after yourself and get a check over regularly.hpv is out there but there are a whole host of other nasties out there with it and some of the others are hard to eradicate or fatal so please wear protection .circumcision does not protect against the others either that’s why the u.s. has some of the worst sexual health history in the west
December 13th, 2011 at 3:47 am
No relationship Whatsoever. End of Story