Circumcision may not curb gay HIV transmission

[FreeState]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B65W320101207

In a study of more than 1,800 men from the U.S. and Peru, researchers found that overall, the risk of contracting HIV over 18 months did not significantly differ between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Over the study period, 5 percent of the 1,365 uncircumcised men became HIV-positive, as did 4 percent of the 457 circumcised men, according to findings published in the journal AIDS.

All of the men in the study reported having sex with other men and were considered to be at increased risk of HIV infection because they were already infected with the genital herpes virus (herpes simplex type 2), which can make people more susceptible to HIV.

..snip...

The researchers did find some hints that circumcision could be protective among men who primarily had insertive sex with other men. Among men who said they'd had insertive sex with their last three male partners at least 60 percent of the time, circumcision was linked to a 69 percent lower HIV risk. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, which means the finding could be due to chance.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. It's time.

:popcorn:

[racaulk]

2. Seriously.

Nothing against the OP, but circ threads are always destined to become flame wars here at DU.

Gimme some of that.

:popcorn:

[FreeState]

5. I posted the OP mostly because I firmly believe knowledge is power

Its beyond dangerous to tell all men that circumcision lowers there risks of sexual transmission when it does not. The only ways to lower your risk is to use a condom or abstain.

[racaulk]

6. Oh, I know and I agree.

My comment was largely about DU, not your OP. DUers seem incapable of discussing the topic of circumcision like adults. I predicted that this thread would devolve quickly like so many before it, but I'm glad that I have been wrong (so far). Perhaps having this thread in the GLBT forum (as opposed to GD, for example) has helped to shield it from the flames.

Thank you for posting this. I rec'd the OP, by the way.

:hi:

[msongs]

3. yes it's time ... to use condoms 100% of the time oral and otherwise nt

[FreeState]

4. +1 n/t

[lightningandsnow]

9. The risk of oral HIV transmission is very, very low.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-transmission.htm

It can happen, but it's rare. I mean, there are other STDs you can get much more easily from oral, but let's be realistic. It's up to people to decide whether the risk of unprotected oral is worth it for them, and if you choose to have unprotected oral sex, there are ways to make it safer, like not brushing your teeth before, not getting semen in your mouth, and making sure there are no cuts or sores in your mouth.

Full disclosure: with the partners I've had, who have all been either friends or people I was dating, I've generally chosen not to use barriers for oral sex. I practice other harm-reduction strategies, which I won't go into for fear of TMI. ;)

We need harm reduction, not overkill. Some people aren't going to use condoms at all if they get the message that unprotected oral sex is just as dangerous as unprotected anal or vaginal sex.

[Mojorabbit]

7. I am tired but

this statement makes no sense to me,"69 percent lower HIV risk.That difference, however, was not statistically significant"
I mean, 69 percent isn't a small percentage and it would seem to me to be significant?

[ForeignSpectator]

8. How would that even work? I mean why should it?

Wasn't this a myth from the start to give circumcision another 'good' reason besides the
religious?

[qb]

10. The entire premise of routine prophylactic surgery is absurd.

When done without the patient's consent it is criminal.