I edited my post somewhat, FYI.

---

t shrug

I'll just keep getting Paps, tell my Dr., and keep an eye on it.

---

If your hubby is not messin' around with people who have HPV, you seem to be safe: The male role in cervical cancer.

Castellsague X, Bosch FX, Munoz N.

Institut Catala d'Oncologia, Servel d'Epidemiologia I Registre del Cancer, Gran Via s/n, Km 2.7, 08907 L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. xcastellsague@ico.scs.es

Experimental, clinical, and epidemiological evidence strongly suggests that genital Human Papillomaviruses (HPVs) are predominantly sexually transmitted. Epidemiological studies in virginal and HPV-negative women clearly indicate that sexual intercourse is virtually a necessary step for acquiring HPV.As with any other sexually transmitted disease (STD) men are implicated in the epidemiological chain of the infection. Penile HPVs are predominantly acquired through sexual contacts. Sexual contacts with women who are prostitutes play an important role in HPV transmission and in some populations sex workers may become an important reservoir of high-risk HPVs. Acting both as "carriers" and "vectors" of oncogenic HPVs male partners may markedly contribute to the risk of developing cervical cancer in their female partners. Thus, in the absence of screening programs, a woman's risk of cervical cancer may depend less on her own sexual behavior than on that of her husband or other male partners. Although more rarely than women, men may also become the "victims" of their own HPV infections as a fraction of infected men are at an increased risk of developing penile and anal cancers. Male circumcision status has been shown to reduce the risk not only of acquiring and transmitting genital HPVs but also of cervical cancer in their female partners. More research is needed to better understand the natural history and epidemiology of HPV infections in men. This paper is available too at: [link]

---

Tep, heh, I posted my second comment before I saw your edits.

---

Does she know that wives of circumcised men have a lower rate of cervical cancer?

Doubt it. Is there any evidence that that's causative? It seems like a strange correlation to me.

Well, if a higher incidence of STDs is correlated to a higher incidence of cervical cancer, it may seem a little less farfetched. Not that circumcision is linked to STD, just that cervical cancer is affected by external internal factors. What I've read indicates that the foreskin harbors the sexually transmitted viruses that are at least in part responsible for cervical cancer in women. Women who are not and have not been sexually active have virtually no instance of cervical cancer. We know that at least HPV is a cause of cervical cancer. I think a decent argument could be made that there's a correlation.

Likewise, cancer of the penis (HPV is often indicated in that, as well) virtually never occurs in circumcised men. From what I'm reading here [link] which tracks with other things I've read over the years, 1 in 600 males develop this, and 25% of the time, it is fatal. The other day, I read somewhere, that HIV rates were lower in the circumcised, as well. I don't know how true any of this is, but I've been hearing about the lower cervical cancer links since before there were internets.

---

One paper down...one to go.

---

There was a man who used to stand in front of the hospital holding signs protesting cirucmsion.

I told Brendon it was his decision with the boys since it was a guy thing. He thought I was crazy to consider not having them circumcised. I just figured I would give him an opportunity to argue against. It still made me sad when they did it, because, OUCH!

---

It still made me sad when they did it, because, OUCH!

I remember feeling very badly for Ben. I don't remember it with Chris, at all, which is funny, because that's so much more recent.

---

One paper down...one to go.

Yay!

---

Tep, heh, I posted my second comment before I saw your edits.

Plus, correlation doesn't mean prediction. If a study says that people who drink tap water are more likely to grow a tail than people who drink bottled water, what does that mean? Without the numbers, it's a useless correlation.

Maybe the tap water drinkers grow tails at a rate of 1 person per 10,000 and the bottled water drinkers grow tails at a rate of .5 person per 10,000.

Looking at the numbers, the tap water drinkers are still very unlikely to grow a tail. So the uncircumcised/cervical cancer correlation could be statistically noteworthy and yet still very very minor in practical terms.

Or, you could just STOP HAVING SEX, hussy!

---