QC FYI: Circumcision Protects Against HIV
Circumcision can help protect gay men from contracting HIV depending on their sex habits, landmark Australian research has found. But the controversial findings have sparked alarm among HIV educators concerned that homosexual men will throw out their condoms if they've had the snip, wrongly believing they are naturally protected.
"We have shown for the first time that men who predominantly take on the insertive role in sex are less likely to contract HIV if they've been circumcised," said Dr David Templeton, from the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research in Sydney. "That's very interesting, but most HIV infections are contracted in the receptive role, so what we're talking about is a risk reduction for a small group of men who didn't have a huge risk in the first place."
University of NSW researchers recruited 1,400 HIV-negative men, two-thirds of whom were circumcised, and tracked them over four years to analyse patterns in HIV infection. Over that time, 53 developed HIV.
Read the full article.
13
QC Asians
Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
aww.... you try and try to support genital mutilation but the facts simply are against you...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7656229.stm
Circumcision HIV impact doubted
There is no hard evidence that circumcision protects gay men from HIV, research shows.
African trials have shown circumcision cuts the likelihood of female to male HIV transmission by up to 60%.
But a US analysis of data on 53,567 men who have sex with other men found HIV rates were not significantly lower among those who were circumcised.
The Journal of the American Medical Association study stressed more work was needed to draw firm conclusions.
This research adds weight to the evidence that circumcision isn't an effective method of HIV prevention for men who have sex with men
Will Nutland
Terrence Higgins Trust
The US team, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta examined data on 53,567 men who have sex with men, of which 52% were circumcised.
HIV levels among those who were circumcised were lower - but not significantly so.
the article continues on the bbc website
The proposed mechanism is that risk is reduced because the foreskin is rich in langerhans cells. Langerhans cells are a portal of entry for HIV and occur in high numbers in foreskin and vaginal mucosa but relatively low numbers in oral mucosa. The risk reduction has already been noted to be minor compared to the protection provided by condom use: The zone of high langerhans cells extends beyond the area of skin typically removed by circumcision, but a condom covers everything. With a properly used condom it shouldn't matter whether there is a foreskin inside or not.
Besides discontinued condom use, the other fear is that men who are cut and positive will mistakenly believe they have a lower chance to transmit the virus, which is not the case. The protection provided by circumcision is not immunity, only a slight reduction in relative risk and it only works in one direction.
As someone pointed out, a much larger review study found the opposite was true. No gay man should be circumcised to prevent HIV. They have these things called condoms, you know. Much less pain and far more effective.
The headline you've given this story is thoroughly misleading. It would have been more accurate to state that "Circumcision does not significantly affect HIV infection rates".
As it is, you are simply endorsing a practice carried out involuntarily on children too young to understand or to express an opinion about what is an irreversible and permanent bodily modification.
If this was an ethically defensible position, we'd be tearing out babies' toenails to stop them growing in.
Circumcision is little more than male genital mutilation. It's time we recognised this and stopped promoting its practice as a substitute for proper sex education.
I'm really disappointed in QC for posting something like this. The study is clearing focused on heterosexual intercourse. Unprotected sex between two men is already a very risky practice for contracting HIV. The amount of additional risk posed by an uncircumcised man is irrelevant given the already increased risk. Condom use by gay men will prevent HIV regardless of circumcision or not.
"A small group of men"? What do you mean, dear editor? In my experience, there are plenty, plenty of tops. At least, enough 100% tops for the 100% bottoms. For guys in between, I'm not so sure.
If some bottoms are not finding tops, this is not a demographic problem...
Must read: http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/topbottom.html
Shame on you for posting this misleading article, QC. Circumcision barely affects HIV rates. Teach people to use condoms, not believe that they can prevent HIV by mutilating their genitals and removing the most sensitive parts. The penis exists the way it does for a reason - to glide smoothly, to protect the sensitive glans, etc.
If cutting off women's clits made them immune to HIV, would the whole world advocate it? No.
People are uncut in Mexico, and many, many Americans are cut, and yet HIV rates are way, way higher in the USA. Many Africans are cut, and very, very few Europeans are, and yet Africans have much higher HIV rates. Again, use condoms and don't let people ejaculate in your mouth. Don't believe that scarring up your penis is going to protect you.
QC did a disservice by its headline. The facts, the truth, is what everyone else responding to this story here in the comments are saying: These finding do not apply to men who have sex with men, as another study has found, and QC completely ignores the overwhelming evidence AGAINST circumcision as a sensible practice. It makes sense that circumcision removes Langerhans cells, no one doubts that, but circumcision also removes SKIN THAT SHOULD BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Please stop spreading biased viewpoints, and please look at the facts. People should remain natural. The foreskin is a vital, pleasurable, and beautiful thing.
If I ever have a baby boy, he'll be circumcised...no doubt. Glad I was! I always said that the things (germs, disease, smells) that could be collected in that extra flap in skin were wholly unneccesary.
Circumcise your sons, people.
Its been proven that men with circumcised cocks have a lower frequency chance of contracting HIV, yet I would NEVER have my foreskin chopped off - its there for a reason, and for those guys who don't have one and have never felt the amazing experience from having a foreskin, its just very unfortunate that you werent allowed the chance to make that choice for yourself.
As for hygiene gentle washing with soap and water daily is all that it takes, it would just the same for people who do not wash their feet or armpits - hygiene is hygiene and an unwashed circumcised cock is just as bad as anything else unclean.
This study is specific to gay men, not hetero men/couples. The study makes reference only to the tops probability of contracting HIV in regards to circumcision status. If you read the entire report they also say that it isn't feasible to have everyone circumcised, nor would it do much good, it could potentially save about 37 people (tops) from contracting HIV through anal sex, which is already a less likely way to contract HIV than being the bottom.
Also, and i know i'll get flamed for this, in my experience (being circumcised in my 20s) circ status made no difference in pleasure or sensation. In fact, I find I enjoy sex more now. But that's just my experience.
A doctor spoke at one of my public health classes about the African study. Among those having het sex in Africa the reduction in relative risk is not minor. She did note multiple problems when, because of this study, recommendation of circumcision became widespread:
1) Many men became infected after being circumcised and having sex before they healed (ouch!). It seems only a fully healed circumcision is protective.
2) Some men stopped practicing safe sex because they believed that circumcision made them immune. It seems that whenever you report a health benefit for anything, a certain portion of the population is going to swear you said it would make them bulletproof.
3) Some positive men told their female partners that they could not transmit the virus because they were circumcised. There is nothing in any of these studies that suggests any reduction in risk to the receptive partner.
btw: Her conclusion was that the best way to interpret the results of the African circumcision study was that it showed the foreskin Langerhans cells to be a more important portal of entry than was previously believed. This might indicate that these cells are a good target for future drugs; it could prove to be better to immunize or modify the Langerhans cells than to cut them off. In any case, it is always a bad idea to let those who can't read or interpret an epidemiologic study to determine health care policy based on one.
If QC is going to post that study, they also need to post this study:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081008/hl_afp/ushealthsexaidscircumcisiongay_081008030427
It involved 50,000+ men and came to a very different conclusion. If you're going to post something so controversial you need to do all your homework and add a little balance to your posts.