Circumcision and HIV

[attackbake2]

So I'm a 20yr old guy, admittedly I don't used this site too much but I was wondering if anyone on here had more understanding or information on this subject than I did. I'm a 7.5 by 6 (yeah yeah I know I don't have pics sue me I'm not making it up) and I'm uncut. I've not been too upset every at people who think it's dirty, make jokes, etc. Usually it just doesn't come up, or I bite my tongue, because it seems in upstate ny where I live most guys are cut. Regardless, I'm not too worried about self image and have never gotten a complaint, perhaps I haven't gotten my share of Bjs, but honestly no real problems.

My question relates to me browsing some recent studies from the American Urinary Journal (not sure on their title, but it's legit) with a study showing that being circumcised decreases the chance to pick up HIV by 60%. I had seen stuff like this before, but I remember digging deeper and finding that a lot the studies done in Africa were bogus, for example they were keeping the Circ'ed guys in housing away from women to make sure they healed and were given free condoms, etc. When the control was just left to have sex. What I had read seemed to make sense to me, if you use a condom, are clean, practice safe sex, you have a much lower chance to transmit/receive. But it didn't seem like circumcision did squat. Comments?

This new study apparently has "proved" that there are cells that are covered/more prevalent in a foreskin that pick up HIV easier. I'm simplifying the science, and if I need to supply links I can. But they really were all for massive circumcision drives, and they seem to realize that the healing period is also an important part of that. But I'm really just wondering if this is real science, I mean arg, I don't want to put up with people going on and on about how uncut is just no good. It seems to me like environmental, socioeconomic and demographics play a much larger role in this. Does anyone know of a uncut/cut transmission study in the western world? Maybe I'm totally wrong, and honestly, if I am, too bad I'm staying uncut for personal preference. I just would like to know if anyone has any data/info to get an idea if there is any effect on HIV from being cut.

Also, apologies if there are threads on this issue. I didn't see any recent ones. And yeah, I'm not really looking for a debate on how good/awesome/sensation filled being cut or uncut is, just what I was talking about above.

 

[Incocknito]

I don't have any scientific information.

What I will say is that there are certain people with a vested interest in circumcision. Doctors for example make a lot of money out of performing circumcisions and selling the foreskins.

It would be convenient and lucrative for them if circumcisions were carried out on a much larger scale.

Mass circumcision will never happen in places like the UK and other European countries. We have common sense. If something we are born with was bad for us, we wouldn't be born with it.

That's my view on the subject.

As for the social pressures you mention...that's because you are in a minority. Practically any other Western country you went to, you would be in the majority.

Personally, if a guy was making fun of my dick I'd ask him why he was taking the time to look at it so closely.

 

[attackbake2]

lol, that's exactly the reaction I've given to anyone who gives an odd look. I'd like to be well informed enough to attack someone who just generally bashes being uncut, and I'd like to know if they actually have proof =P

Location as you point out, is totally part of the attitude. I have family in Canada and up there the ratio is apparently something like 25% cut 75% uncut, according to a nurse I'm related to. I'd like to think I still have my european roots, but I'm honestly not embarrassed about having it. Really just trying to see if anyone else was angry about being called HIV prone. Or people barking up the wrong tree trying to fix the high levels of transmission in certain areas.

 

[reallybigshoe]

A quick search in google wielded some interesting results!

A few quick basic notes.

Aside from the many flaws in the African studies and the way they were presented to the public, the "Circumcision Prevents HIV" theory doesn't add up, for 3 primary reasons:

• Langerhans cells (found in the foreskin) actually form a natural barrier against HIV (and other STDs). If you take away the Langerhans cells, you are stripping the body's natural first line of defense.

Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmissio...[Nat Med. 2007] - PubMed Result
​

• Majority-circed USA has higher rates of HIV and other STDs than non-circing Europe. If circumcision was truly as effective in preventing HIV as the African studies suggest, half of the sexually active men in Europe should be HIV positive

• HIV rates vary radically from tribe to tribe in Africa (regardless of circumcision practices, ritual or medical), and the results indicate it is hygiene and sexual practices which determine the spread of HIV, not circumcision status.

I also found this interesting....

The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection

"Both the public and the medical community must guard against being overwhelmed by the hyperbolic promotion of male circumcision and must receive these new studies with extreme caution. There is contradictory evidence that male circumcision is not as effective as proponents claim. One study found that male circumcision had no protective effect for women and another study found that male circumcision increased risk for women. Grosskurth found more HIV infection in circumcised men. Barongo et al. found no evidence that lack of circumcision is a risk factor for HIV infection. A study from India found little difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men in the conjugal relationship.55 A study carried out in South Africa found that male circumcision offered only a slight protective effect. A study carried out among American naval personnel found no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between non-circumcised and circumcised men."


and although this is off topic, I also found this interesting

Why Masters & Johnson's Circumcision Study is Flawed

A few quick quotes from the article. It's a little bit rough but whatever...

"Their limited study, however, tested only for exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral and dorsal sides of the penile shaft and glans. New research has determined that nearly all of the fine-touch receptors in the penis are in the ridged band of the foreskin."

"There are virtually no fine touch receptors in the penile glans and the only part of the male body with less fine-touch receptivity than the glans is the heel of the foot."




More to the OP. I believe, like has been stated before, you are only being mocked because you are in the minority, If you were here in Australia it is your mates who would be mocked endlessly for being cut (I know my one mate who is cut gets teased all the time) but then again our circumcision rate it something like 6% these days, as opposed to Northern America's 50% (I think).

 

[deleted15807]

Oh my God not again. The search function will reveal tons and tons and tons of similiar threads. Standy-by for launch.

A quick search in google wielded some interesting results!

Nevertheless it doesn't affect satistaction.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107101013.htm

 

[ScorpioSlut]

Not that I'm disagreeing with you about doctors having something to benefit from promoting circumcision.....

but that phrase is playing a lil fast and loose with the biological workings of the human body. We are born with plenty of things that are potentially bad for us. For example I was born with breast cancer cells....doesn't mean I'll get it 100% but they definitely aren't good for me. People are born with diseases all of the time and they certainly aren't good for people. And if you want to focus more on body parts just stop and consider your appendix....if things go wrong a pretty much useless part of your body can kill you. Is it possible that the OP's studies are true....yes...however like you I don't have any scientific knowlege of it but it's not all as simple as you seem to make it.

. We have common sense. If something we are born with was bad for us, we wouldn't be born with it.

.

 

[attackbake2]

thanks for the input, sargon I actually had looked much of the material reallybigshoe put up, but not all. I had come to the conclusion a while ago that the evidence had suggested that it really was up to "safe sex" (I hate that phrase) practices to decrease transmission. But the recent study seemed mainstream, and honestly I don't care much about myself personally, my ego is rather durable. It's just I thought, and seemed to have been confirmed that idea of circumcision to combat hiv transmission is a load of bunk, and that studies supporting such a lie are more or less manipulated.

 

[B_Morning_Glory]

I don't have any scientific information.



. We have common sense. If something we are born with was bad for us, we wouldn't be born with it.

That's my view on the subject.


what about people who have to have their gal blatter removed but are born with it healthy? also their are those with kidney problems but where born with good ones, others get cataracts latter on but had none when they where born, also skin cancer, the list could go on an on here.
their are sometimes problems when born that circumcision can help an it should be done. other wise if you don't like circumcision then leave it on.

it simply just don't and wont work the way you are saying here tho.

 

[B_thickjohnny]

what exactly or where exactly is the "ridged band"? Sorry for being ignorant but I'm cut and though my BF is uncut he doesn't know what this is either. Is it the outside of the foreskin? The photo here is from a Google search. The arrow is apparently pointing out the ridged band. If it is on the outside, how can it be any more sensitive (the so called touch receptors) than mine?

 

[B_thickjohnny]

Here is my cut cock. Is the "ridge band" now where my circ scar is?

 

[SirConcis]

Here is what I know. The inner foreksin (the portion of your foreksin that is against your glans when your glans is covered) is not very thick, and the HIV virus can easily latch on to some of the receptors which are near the surface of the skin. Once circumcised, the inner foreksin thickens, building a barrier that makes it *harder* for the HIV to reach those receptor cells. They are currently doing research to find out how long it takes for a recently circumcised inner foreksin to achieve a good level of protection. Circumcision is only effective for those having vaginal sex. If the female is infected with HIV (such as prostitutes in africa), then the added thickness of the circumcised inner foreskin lowers the chance that you will catch HIV via your penis. For gay sex, the major point of catching aids is the anus. Circumcision of a guy's penis does not make his anus more resistant to catching aids, nor his mouth. So when having gay sex, circumcision reduces only the odds of catching it via the penis, but it does not affect catching it via anus or mouth (think blow jobs etc). This is why in countries such as the USA, where AIDS is prevalent amongts GAYs and drug users (for whom penis is not involved since it is via needles for injections), the rate fo circumcision doesn't make much of a difference. But in countries where AIDS is transmitted via heterosexual sex (mostly via prostitutes), circumcision makes a big difference because it reduces the odds of a circumcised male catching it from a prostitute during a quickie. While a circumcised gay male stands less chance of catching Aids vis his penis if he has anal sex, he will catch aids no matter what his circ status if an infected guy penetrates his anus and dischrches any liquid (sperm, precum).

 

[D_Jerry_Atric]

AttackBake2-Just use condoms and safer sex, it's more effective than getting your cock cut.

Also keep in mind that you can get HIV from women. I know a lot of hetero men (at least the ones I've met) think that you can't or that they are not at risk for HIV at all but it's not true.

 

[attackbake2]

agreed beardedwoof, I'm hearing this go both sides. and that just seems to be the way to go, I would never consider personally getting cut in the attempt to prevent HIV. But hey, if it works I guess it's a good thing, I'm just not sure if there is data to show that, I'm really just curious if anyone knows if there something solid behind it, or if the debate is just spinning without and real conclusion.

Agreed though, I'm very picky about sex and always am careful with women, I guess I didn't really state that I'm not really into the homosexual side of things, but my tendency is to err on the side of caution.

 

[ScorpioSlut]

Sorry to disappoint but with most things like this it will always be controversial and it may be a long long time before any definitive answer will come. As Beardedwoof and others have said the best way to prevent anything is to be aware of your sexual life and the consequences it may have if you don't take precautions. Condoms are always the safest bet even though they aren't foolproof. But I'd say it's a safe bet not to go around changing your body just to prevent something......that would be like having your appendix removed because you're scared of getting appendicitis.

agreed beardedwoof, I'm hearing this go both sides. and that just seems to be the way to go, I would never consider personally getting cut in the attempt to prevent HIV. But hey, if it works I guess it's a good thing, I'm just not sure if there is data to show that, I'm really just curious if anyone knows if there something solid behind it, or if the debate is just spinning without and real conclusion.

Agreed though, I'm very picky about sex and always am careful with women, I guess I didn't really state that I'm not really into the homosexual side of things, but my tendency is to err on the side of caution.

 

[justcurious80]

"that would be like having your appendix removed because you're scared of getting appendicitis."

thats a great way of putting it. thanks

 

[SirConcis]

There is definitive proof that circumcision significantly reduces the rate of heterosexual men in africa catching AIDS. Whether it is the best solution, the most cost effective or one which may be widely implemented is a different question. (training enough people to circumcise millions of men is not an easy task). Condoms may be cheaper and are more effective if worn. If a male will wear a condom every time, then circumcision yields no statistical advantage because the condom supercedes the smaller advantage of circumcision. But if you have a male population who will too often forget to wear a condom (or refuse to wear one) then circumcision provides significant help in reducing spread of AIDS. Outside of africa, circumcision does not really yield statistical reduction in spread of Aids because aids is generally transmitted differently.

 

[attackbake2]

thanks for being so helpful. No resources, and thanks for talking to me like I absolutely no idea what I'm doing. I didn't say once that I was interested in getting anything done to myself, in fact said the opposite. I'm pretty disappointed in this thread, I was hopefully going to locate someone with more than overview knowledge, this has concisely failed. Unless someone had actual information or knowledge, just don't respond.

Also, work on reading comprehension maybe?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Bake, have a look see:

YouTube - UN HIV Circumcision Study: A Fraud?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

what exactly or where exactly is the "ridged band"?

Foreskin :: Prepuce :: Ridged Band

 

[Icky]

Utter piss. It's the same as cutting off your earlobes to protect against going deaf.