Does circumcision increase the risk of HIV?

[wingeddancer]

My youngest brother is not circumcised. My older brother is. Moreover, my older brother and his wife are physicians and have told my mother that circumcision decreases the risk of contracting HIV. They say that in Africa grown men are lining up for the procedure. I also read this conclusion online (on the PBS site). Now my mother is worried about my youngest brother getting HIV (we just found out he is gay). I tell my mother, in my opinion, this is an American study and is not true. I say that if this were accurate, the Europeans would have a higher rate of HIV than Americans (the Europeans are not circumcised). I want to get your opinion on this topic. Am I correct? What have you all read? Should my mother be concerned about my little brother?
Thanks

[phoebemommy]

You're right. Those African studies make no sense. They're pretty well debunked if you google around, but unfortunately the debunking doesn't make the major media like the studies themselves did. I wish I could remember a really good web page I saw that broke down those studies, but I didn't bookmark it. I do remember that a bunch of clinical flaws were pointed out. The one that stuck in my mind was the fact that the men in one of the infamous African studies weren't actually verified as circed or intact, but instead entered into the study as circed or intact based on their tribal affiliation -- if their tribe typically circed, then they were counted as circed, whether they were or not.

But your logic is the most compelling. Why is AIDS so prevalent in the USA if so many men here are circed? Makes no sense.

[bandgeek]

I personally don't believe the studies, for the reasons you stated. If circ really decreased the risk, America wouldn't have so much of a problem with hiv rates, and the rest of the world would. Instead, it's the other way around (with the exception of Africa, where other bigger things are to blame, like lack of education and myths about laying wih a virgin cures it, ect.).

I've also read somewhere that having sex with a circ'ed partner increases the risk for *women*, but nobody seems to care about that.

[LadyMarmalade]

Many studies have shown that the chance of HIV transmission in circumcised women is much less than the rate in intact women. But do you see people lining up to have their daughter circumcised?

I've read studies which show it's the opposite - being with a circumcised man actually increases the risk of HIV infection. I can't remember all of the biology behind it, but I remember being intrigued about why circumcision is 'helpful' (with regards to HIV) for women but not for men.

Circumcision aside - my sons (and daughters if I ever have any - very unlikely though) will be taught about safe sex. It's much more effective and less traumatic than slicing up their genitals.

[wingeddancer]

I meant to title this "Does circumcision decrease the risk of HIV?" not "increase". Type-os are what happen when one is watching their 7 month old. I didn't mention that my sister-in-law was an infectious disease doctor who works with AIDS patients. Also, she does AIDS research. Hence, my mother takes her opinion seriously. I still don't believe the African study. Thanks phoebemommy for telling me that the studies aren't taken seriously. I will have to do a search. Yet, mommies don't get lots of time for research. Hence, I would appreciate it if anyone can send me a link to an article that criticizes the African studies. My mother really worries about my brother and I want her to be at ease.
Thanks again

[kldliam]

IMO- if you don't want HIV, you best be careful where you stick it. The USA has graves and graves FULL of circ'd AIDS victims.

It's also been said that we could cut the HIV rate further by circ'ing our girls too...would she do that?

EDUCATON and safe sex will protect her intact son, not chopping off his foreskin. YOU CAN STILL contract HIV with a circ'd penis....it is NOT fool-proof!

[SleeplessMommy]

In the 1950's and 1960's, 90% (and up to 95% +) of US males were circumcised. Gay males aquired HIV infection through unprotected sex, despite being circumcised, and having circumcised partners.

The American males who got infected in the late 80's and early 90's were mostly circumcised. (see stats above) So it did not do them one darn bit of good.

[Lula's Mom]

Apparently this thread, which I can't take time to re-read right now, had good information in it, because I saved it for just such an occasion as this. I imagine the links are good; they always are from these mamas. Hope you find something helpful in there!

[wingeddancer]

Thanks Lula's Mom. This is what I was looking for.

[Prensa]

the only thing that will protect you from HIV is a condom

it would be so dangerous to think you were protected simply because you are circumcised

[Lula's Mom]

You are very welcome! There's this too: http://www.docguide.com/news/content...2571CD005207D9

[phatchristy]

You've already got some great information there...one thing I would point out that I don't think anyone has yet to point out, circumcised men are much less likely to wear condoms...mainly as they don't feel hardly anything when wearing them. I had wrote about that in a thread a week ago about a man who was circumcised as an adult who said that he could no longer practice "safe sex" because otherwise he found it extremely difficult to orgasm and he could feel practically nothing when using a condom.

[Galatea]

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

The study was methodologically flawed, and no reputable journal would publish it so the author paid to have it published in a non-peer-reviewed journal. Then he paid for publicity, which is also not done in real science.

[camomof5]

Just sounds like another US story to get everyone to circ the boys so everyone can feel good and look the same.