Poll for the men: Would you get circumcised to help prevent a chance of getting AIDS?

Question

This guy did, just wondering if anyone else would do the same. What do the women think of this?

Reporter gets circumcised to fight AIDS - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130/ap_on_he_me/zambia_aids_reporter

It is NO hoax. Just because you might not like hearing about a story does NOT mean it is a hoax. Many men in Africa have been getting circumcised, this reporter is just a famous example on the ongoing fight against AIDS in Africa.

You should read the story and related links before you condemn it as dumb or untrue. It was 2 separate medical and scientific studies, one by the UN and another by a European Medical agency.

When a man is not circumcised, the folds of his skin are a breeding ground for bacteria - warm, dark and moist. Studies have proven a direct link for a lesser chance of acquiring HIV, AIDS and or other STDS.

A study published in the Lancet medical journal in February concluded that the findings of three major trials — in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda — show that circumcision can significantly reduce men's chances of contracting the virus that causes AIDS. U.N. health agencies followed up with an endorsement, but stressed that the procedure offers only partial protection and that abstinence, condom use, having few partners and delaying the first sexual experience are all among the steps that need to be encouraged.

Answer 1

I believe that all men should be circumcised for better hygiene, appearance and prevention of disease. If you are a grown man that was never circumcised as a baby then I would encourage you to ask your doctor about having the procedure done. It's great that this reporter had the courage to do so. I wish more uncircumcised men would follow his lead.

Answer 2

Nope I wouldn't. I am rather happy with my foreskin, and I am married so I don't see me getting AIDS any time soon.

First, lets question the authority of these studies. Most of the cite studies that were done in Africa. They ended the studies early when they had the results they wanted and destroyed the control group, so no further research could be done. Really unfair as they circumcised half the men, told them to not to have sex for 2 months for recovery. The control group remained uncircumcised, and a were given no instructions. So basically if they followed advice, the circumcised men were sexually active for 7 months compared to the 9 months of the uncut men. After the 9 months of the 2600 total men (1300 of each) 22 of the cut men had AIDS vs 47 uncut. They figured that was a sign and that it was wrong to not stop the study and circumcise the rest.

The one thing about this, is circumcision is old, it predates AIDS. So if these studies are correct wouldn't the predominately circumcised countries have the lowest AIDS rates? Wouldn't Isreal have the lowest since it has the highest circumcision rate and is a religious state? Well the fact is that the top 5 countries with the lowest AIDS rates are mostly uncircumcised. The US is the only first world country to circumcise most of its sons, but yet the US AIDS problem is 3 times worse than the closest first world country.

The real question is if this is true, would women get circumcised to lower the chance of getting AIDS? Researchers believe that the "reason" there is "higher" chance of getting AIDS is because of Langerhans cells present in the male prepuce (foreskin). The thing about that is Langerhans cells are present in the females prepuce (Clitoral hood and labia). So any advantage given by male circumcsion is also an advantage that female circucmsion would offer.

I am only Anti neonatal circumcsion. Adults can feel free to do anything they want with their peters.

Answer 3

These studies are crap. They took two groups of men at risk and did not correct for differing behavior (the circumcised men had significantly fewer sexual contacts during the study period) and then published the totally flawed results in the popular press.

Why would a man cut off part of his penis to MAYBE slightly reduce the chances of getting HIV instead of using a condom, which dramatically decreases the risk? Why would a man undergo this mutilation instead of taking the sensible path of staying loyal to his wife, for that matter? Condoms are the first line of defense, and anything that gives men the false idea that they are protected and need not use condoms may increase the prevalence of HIV within a few years!

In Africa HIV is spread largely by the clients of HIV-positive prostitutes. Teaching the prostitutes to use condoms would greatly lessen the transmission of the disease. In developed countries there are many fewer HV+ prostitutes. Getting your foreskin amputated will not protect you from getting HIV from a contaminated needle, which is how it is likely to spread outside Africa. The study also specifically excluded gay men; there is no indication that genital alterations would decrease HIV transmission among gay men, where the mechanics of transmission are quite different. In a few years this "study" will have been totally discredited, but the men who have been mutilated will not be able to get their foreskins back.

Answer 4

i became into circumcised final 365 days in my Nineteen Fifties. I do very very like being circumcised. I had my foreskin for over fifty years. the only element im lacking by not having that foreskin is an better possibility to get maximum cancers of the penis, phimosis, balanitis, foreskin irritations and infections, pubic hair getting caught interior your foreskin. pungent smegma cheesy smell. Circumcision is the present that keeps on giving Helmets rule, Anteaters drool Peter

Answer 5

Hell no, no way.

Even IF I believed those studies, circumcision would only be of any benefit if I planned on having unprotected sex. And if you're having unprotected sex regularly, circumcised or not, you're seriously putting your life at risk.

No thank you. I'll keep my penis whole and have safe sex.

AND WHERE IS YOUR INFORMATION THAT THE FORESKIN IS "A BREEDING GROUND" FOR BACTERIA AND DIRT? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN REGARD TO THE STUDY. THEY ONLY SHOWED A POSSIBLE CORRELATION, NO DIRECT LINK.

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING DOWN PEOPLE'S OPINIONS THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A MOTIVE.

Answer 6

The dumbest thing I have heard. How in the world can circumcision stop a person from getting AIDS? It is passed through transfer of fluids or coming in contact with fluids from an infected person. The whole thing is mumbo-jumbo.

Answer 7

Don't they realize the only reason AIDS is so prevalent in Africa is because people have regular unprotected sex and the virus transfers via bodily fluid. Having a foreskin or not has NOTHING to do with it.

Answer 8

I'm already circumcised, I suppose I really don't have much of a choice.
But I've never heard of such a link between the two. =/

Answer 9

IF you think that getting mutilated will prevent you from getting AIDS you had better plan your funeral after a very miserable death. That is not going to save anybody.

Answer 10

I had it done as a baby, I didn`t get any say in the matter.