How does circumcision help prevent AIDS from spreading?
The article doesn't say so I'd hoped this learned community would have some insight.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well foreskin protects the glans and keeps the skin of the glans moist and fine. Fine enough, it is postulated for the virus to transfer through.
However, if you cut off the foreskin and the skin on the glans gets rough, thicker and de-sensitised... there is less risk of infection from HIV by transfer through the glans skin. There is also loss of stimulation by a desensitised glans but hey.. never mind about that... who cares how good sex feels, right?
Now... the fact is that foreskins do not cause HIV... unsafe sex does. If you are cut or uncut and have unsafe sex, then you risk contracting HIV. As described above your risk is slightly higher if you are uncut and have unsafe sex.
Seems simple to me.. that the way to prevent HIV is to use a condom, not to cut off all the foreskins. Never the less, there is an agenda for removal of foreskins... and it is little known. The foreskin is a very good source of the human tissue required to produce beauty products.
Note in the article that one foreskin can cost as much as $100,000... so it is little wonder that people are trying to promote the increase in availability.
- Anonymous5 years ago
Seeing that the USA has a higher rate of STD's and HIV than the countries in Europe, South America, Scandinavia and most of Asia, it would appear that circumcision actually increases both HIV and STD's. Circumcision doesn't prevent any diseases or infections, the only things that circumcision prevents are complete, normal and natural sexual function and feeling. The people in the above-mentioned areas where males are rarely circumcised are not dropping dead from the diseases supposedly "prevented" by circumcision. Promoting circumcision was done by individuals in the medical profession who were biased by their religions, and who make money from mutilating infants' genitals. Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax. A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright. ERIC
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The study of circumcision reducing incidents of aids or slowing the spread is still inconclusive and as always you run into two reports. One report is that it doesn't help in reducing the incidents of AIDS while the other declares a reduction, almost making circumcision sound like a cure to HIV virus.
Biased studies have gone on since the Victorian effort to degrade males sexual pleasure so that even married men would want or desire it less.
Circumcision was to be a cure for epilepsy, stuttering, blindness, and the list goes on.
If you take a look at those behind circumcision push, even in Africa, you'll find that it's a group of pro circumcision Americans just picking a new battle ground to perpetrate their glitch.
Based on this awareness, how stacked, trustworthy or reliable is the information or reporting. Is it the same as so many years of it?
Two things are a known. 1. Circumcision degrades the male experience considerably, and consequently that of his wife as well because of his lesser appreciation and performance. The missing parts are also a determent to her experience.
2. AIDS is contracted from having unprotected sex with an infected person. With natural lubrication and fluid ejaculation into the vagina, fluids also get pushed back into the urethra which is far more vulnerable than the glans or closed side of a non circumcised penis. This also assumes that women are the carriers of HIV and not the men. Rather presumptuous?
Time needs to be the reporter, and way too soon to consider anything in terms of who already carried the HIV virus as a population medical review of before, now after would need to be carefully done, and this just hasn't been possible. It's kind of like the Iranian election. Ha ha! I see the reports as more of the same old deal from the Victorian carry over crowd pushing out into the rest of the world and the information is often carried by pro circumcision biased journals or media. As it started, Victorian prudery was the sexual pleasure and masturbation is a sin crowd, but lying was seeming quite acceptable...Kind of funny religion. Christianity doesn't support circumcision and sees sexual pleasure as a gift, but Victoria was a weird kind of a religious Zealot and it's been suggested that she was a man hating Lesbian....not putting down Lesbians because most of them just see men as fellow humans. It's a shame to put out 50 million dollars to degrade the sexual experience of a whole bunch of males in a different country based on something that has never had enough time for pre study or follow up or the ability to compare before present and after. It's just cruel and using money power to perpetrate ones bias and prejudice. It's totally cruel and an abuse of financial power and ability.
If Bill Gates has been circumcised from birth and has never been able to experience the ultimate male experience, it's no reason to to take it from others who have it, just because he has to money to do it.
Education would be way better in advising that circumcision doesn't not make you AIDS free or immune from it. Education should also be used to inform infected men that taking a virgin in sexual activity will not cure a man from AIDS.
Feeding a bunch of people would be a better idea as well.
Will female circumcision be the next experiment because of their genital mucous membranes by a rich foreigner, and is there a difference male or female?
Isn't this a classic case of paramount sexual discrimination, not that I wish to see either forced into circumcision or any other human rights violations.
Me! :- (
- e wLv 71 decade ago
Circumcision does not stop HIV/AIDS, it increases it.
Obviously they're lying about the supposed prevention.
In the USA, at the height of the HIV epidemic in the 80's, more than 80% of American males were circumcised.
Guess what, the HIV rate in the USA was and is much higher than those countries in Europe, Scandinavia, South America and most of Asia, where males are rarely mutilated by circumcision.
In Pakistan, where more than 90% if males are circumcised, the HIV rate is 400% greater than that of neighboring India, where the vast majority of males are not circumcised.
Yet they conveniently ignore that fact.
And in the countries where males are not mutilated by circumcision, they don't have high rates of penile cancer, uterine cancer, and infections---totally disproving the lies, propaganda and old wive's tales about the so-called benefits of circumcision.
As a matter of fact, recent research shows that the foreskin has Langerhans cells, which have known antiviral and antibacterial properties.
Until recently, the function of the appendix wasn't known, either, and now the reasearch shows that the appendix helps to regulate the bacterial levels in the digestive system which help us to digest our food.
Removing healthy and normal parts from the human body is never a good idea.
And mutilating the penis by circumcision is neural and vascular damage, which always diminishes sexual sensitivity and function.
Circumcision is penis damage.
A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MichaelLv 71 decade ago
The foreskin contains a type of specialist cell that is apparently more vulnerable to infection.
However, you should be clear that circumcision does not offer anywhere near as good protection as contraception. And only in Africa is it recommended as a preventive method, because of the bigger prevalence of HIV there. In developed countries where we have access to hygiene and contraception, it is useless.
Also, the USA which is mostly circumcised has more HIV and STD infected men than many European countries which do not circumcise. It all depends on the individual's hygiene and sexual practises.
Think of how much contraception and education about the dangers of unprotected sex could've been provided with that $50,000,000...Source(s): http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/
- cut50yearsagoLv 61 decade ago
It seemed to reduce the rate of infection because for a couple of years after a male is "circumcised" his wounded penis will be too tender for rough-dry sex, he will more faithfully use condoms for the comfort they would give his wound.
After a couple of years when he has toughened up the scar and his glans he, like most US "circumcised" at birth males, will shun condoms because of the low sensitivity; then the infection rate will not only rebound, it will skyrocket.
Those "studies" were ended early so they could avoid that rebound of infections in their findings. A thirteen month study is not long enough for the "circumcised" men to fully recover.
How does "circumcision" help? The only way it can help is that a man will be too sore to use his penis for a few months until it fully heals.
Of course that will not matter to those who choreographed the "studies" by the time it will be shown to be a sham they will have gotten male infant genital mutilation started in much of Africa. That is their goal, to spread mutilation everywhere, even though it offers no real protection from anything.
- H5Lv 71 decade ago
A couple of studies in Africa found slight difference in HIV acquisition between circumcised and intact men, the theory being that when you remove the foreskin, the glans becomes harder and drier, therefore less vulnerable to infection. Unfortunately, it also becomes far less sensitive!
Further studies in the USA and amongst homosexual men failed to duplicate the findings. Additionally, the original studies have been heavily criticised. So at the moment it's uncertain, but some people are very keen to show the are making progress and finding solutions, so they will just about run with anything. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
Another interesting fact - at least one study so far has shown that circumcised men are more likely to have condoms slipping off, and obviously condoms protect against HIV, yet that hasn't been factored in yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7727577?dopt=Ci...Source(s): Paloma D, both Australia and Scandinavia are non-circumcising parts of the world, and Australian doctors have repeatedly rejected the HIV evidence as being applicable to newborns at least. Additionally, 85% of HIV cases in Australia are by homosexual transmission, and an Australian study found circumcision made no difference to homosexual transmission. The fact that you are a Muslim makes me doubt your neutrality, and talking about "d ick cheese" is just immature, because women get smegma too and no man or woman who washes daily will ever get a visible build-up.
- ConnorLv 71 decade ago
You will find out that there are many studies that say the same thing, but still to this day no medical professional has been able to specificly state why.
They have theories like the foreskin is more delicate and prone to mirco tears durring sex and this is a portal for the virus. Or that there are more white blood cells under the foreskin to prevent disease but since HIV attachs white blood cells it makes an uncircumicsed man more prone.
There are theories like those but none have been proven as an actually reason why.
So I have the same question you do. Looks like we are going to have to wait a few more years till scientists can answer that question.
Untill then I don't believe circumcisino does jack to prevent STD's. I'm sticking to a condom.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Okay, time for a little reality check...
-Nation that performs more circumcisions than any other: United States
-Nation with highest industrialized HIV/AIDS infections: USA
No, it doens't help slow or stop spread of HIV/AIDS.
Circumcision is not a cure all .. never has .. never will.
Circumcision has no health benefits and is not suggested or advocated by any medical societySource(s): http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
- DaleLv 61 decade ago
Not really, it may help, but by no means can it prevent AIDS from spreading