Jingthing posted a very interesting article about studies done in Africa on circumcision and HIV transmission. Here is a link to the article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...amp;type=health
I, for the life of me, do not understand how a foreskin makes a difference in HIV transmission. According to the article, “Doctors theorize that circumcision might protect against HIV infection because the foreskin is rich in a type of white blood cell that is a favorite target of the AIDS virus. In addition, some studies suggest that circumcised males are less likely to have other sexually transmitted diseases, which cause sores that serve as gateways for HIV to enter the bloodstream.” This sounds like hogwash. Why are circumcised males less likely to have STD’s?
I tend to side with the opposition and here is a quote, “Anti-circumcision activist Marilyn Milos, a nurse who is executive director of NOCIRC in San Anselmo, said that while the trial results were interesting, "anybody who believes that circumcision will protect them from HIV is obviously making a deadly mistake.''
What is your opinion? Do you think Thai boys are more likely to have STD’s because they are uncircumcised? Are they more prone to acquire HIV because they have a foreskin?
0
Circumcision used to prevent HIV?
Started by MonkeySee, Dec 18 2006 01:01 PM
1 reply to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 335 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 03:41 PM
MonkeySee, the only thing I can speculate is that SOME guys with foreskins may be less than fastidious about keeping the area clean and might be more susceptible to let bacteria and whatnot (including HIV whatnot) incubate?
I've read that the alkalinity in soap is deadly to microbes and bacteria (and viruses?). A circumsized fellow could more easily saturate the area with soap than a careless, uncircumcized one? Just guessing!
The only thing that brings that "theory" to mind is that in pre-AIDS days there was a commonly spread idea that if you immediately washed your penis with warm sudsy water after sex, and made sure some was worked into the urethral opening and then urinated right afterward, that you would lessen your chances of STDs. I don't even know if that was true, but it stuck with me.
Another thought I had was maybe after full penetration, when an uncircumsized penis begins to withdraw, the foreskin begins to re-surround the head and grab more mucous/secretions and push them against the possibily abraded skin of the head? I realize that's really going out on a limb, but just grasping for an explanation! After all, I've heard first-hand reports how immediatetly after an adult circumcision the head was SUPER sensitive, and gradually lost that sensitivity. Is there some other uniqueness to a penis head that's normally sheathed in a foreskin that an exposed circumsized one doesn't have, besides just nerve sensitivity? More able to admit bacteria/viruses, perhaps? Again, just speculating out loud here!
And doctors/nurses here that could comment?
I've read that the alkalinity in soap is deadly to microbes and bacteria (and viruses?). A circumsized fellow could more easily saturate the area with soap than a careless, uncircumcized one? Just guessing!
The only thing that brings that "theory" to mind is that in pre-AIDS days there was a commonly spread idea that if you immediately washed your penis with warm sudsy water after sex, and made sure some was worked into the urethral opening and then urinated right afterward, that you would lessen your chances of STDs. I don't even know if that was true, but it stuck with me.
Another thought I had was maybe after full penetration, when an uncircumsized penis begins to withdraw, the foreskin begins to re-surround the head and grab more mucous/secretions and push them against the possibily abraded skin of the head? I realize that's really going out on a limb, but just grasping for an explanation! After all, I've heard first-hand reports how immediatetly after an adult circumcision the head was SUPER sensitive, and gradually lost that sensitivity. Is there some other uniqueness to a penis head that's normally sheathed in a foreskin that an exposed circumsized one doesn't have, besides just nerve sensitivity? More able to admit bacteria/viruses, perhaps? Again, just speculating out loud here!
And doctors/nurses here that could comment?
