Originally Posted by readytobedone
sorry if this has already been discussed, but the article says:
"But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."
how is it that circ protects straight, but not gay, men? does your foreskin know whether you're having sex with a man or a woman? REALLY?
The "receptive partner" (male or female) of an infected male receives a viral load in the ejaculate. Of course if a condom is used correctly, risk is very close to zero. The anus, apparently, is 5 times more likely to be infected per act
than the vagina. HIV grew so rapidly in the gay community because of unprotected intercourse, multiple partners and IV drug use *in a small portion of the gay community.* The "insertive partner
" (male) is at risk for infection if there is an open wound or sore on the penis, allowing an entry point for the virus. (allegedly, the foreskin itself acts as an open door to the virus.) The "pro circ" movement claims to slightly reduce the 5 per 10,000 risk for the insertive male, and no reduction for the receptive partner. (I have not seen any exact number on what the new risk is claimed to be.) In fact, I believe one study suggested infection was more likely for the receptive partner of a circed male - intercourse is less gentle.Infection risk for non-condom protected activity
(source: wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
Receptive anal intercourse 50 out of 10,000Insertive
out of 10,000
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse 10 out of 10,000Insertive
penile-vaginal intercourse 5
out of 10,000non-sexual transmission
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67 out of 10,000
Blood Transfusion 9,000 out of 10,000
There are several huge problems with the circumcision craze in Africa (and proposed circ craze in the USA)
* Needle sharing and "receptive" intercourse are currently major sources of transmission - these will not be fixed by circ. Women receive only (alleged) "indirect" protection.
* The suggestion of (self) protection for the circed partner will make them less likely to use condoms for their partner's protection
* A circed male, not yet healed, has an increased risk of infecting his partner.
* A circed infant won't be sexually active for 12-18 years - any "benefit" is delayed.
Anyway, the "fix" offered by circ is pretty lame compared to the know risk reduction provided by needle sharing programs, condom usage and eduction. I am really disappointed that the CDC is even considering this.