road.jpg Circumcision reduces a man's chances of acquiring HIV by 60%, a new study finds. In a study of just over 3,000 South African men, researchers found such a marked different in HIV infection rates they had to stop the study on ethical grounds. Evidence appears to show that the virus attaches to foreskin cells. WHO: "If male circumcision is confirmed to be an effective intervention to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV, this will not mean that men will be prevented from becoming infected with HIV during sexual intercourse through circumcision alone. Nor does male circumcision provide protection for sexual partners against HIV infection."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. There's no better substitute than keeping the foreskin clean (soap & water)-- and using condoms.

    Posted by: efr3n | Oct 25, 2005 10:45:12 AM

  2. I still ain't getting it cut.

    Posted by: Michelangelo | Oct 25, 2005 10:50:55 AM

  3. Me neither...

    Posted by: efr3n | Oct 25, 2005 10:54:10 AM

  4. And you don't need to with condoms and monogamy ;)

    Posted by: Christophe | Oct 25, 2005 11:17:53 AM

  5. Is there anything more nauseating than uncut dick? Ugh.

    Posted by: Chris in NY | Oct 25, 2005 11:52:59 AM

  6. Chris in NY asks: "Is there anything more nauseating than uncut dick?"

    Yes, Chris: HIV is quite nauseating.

    Posted by: Jason | Oct 25, 2005 12:06:02 PM

  7. Chris in NY asks: "Is there anything more nauseating than uncut dick?"

    Yes, Chris: HIV is quite nauseating.

    Posted by: Jason | Oct 25, 2005 12:07:54 PM

  8. A lot of people would disagree with Chris. Even if they didn't, I'm with Michelangelo.

    Posted by: MT | Oct 25, 2005 12:50:37 PM

  9. #1 Circumcision might reduce your chances of getting HIV, but so would #2 having your dick cut off or #3 sewing up your ass. All three things are unnecessary mutilation.

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 25, 2005 12:59:42 PM

  10. Yes this war in Iraq is nauseating....child abuse is nauseating...Judy Miller and the New York Times are nauseating. A cock that has not been cut by a surgeon to fit into some ancient religious tribalistic ritual is NOT nauseating. Just natural.

    Posted by: Michelangelo | Oct 25, 2005 1:00:08 PM

  11. altho i'm cut, and i prefer cut dick, if i ever had a baby boy i could never cut his dick.

    Posted by: A.J. | Oct 25, 2005 1:02:04 PM

  12. Sorry boys. I still like my cut dick. Call it mutilation but there's just something gross about an uncut dick to me. *Shrugs.

    Posted by: Damon | Oct 25, 2005 2:06:32 PM

  13. BTW. Bareback is pretty natural too.

    Bareback lovers unite!

    Posted by: Damon | Oct 25, 2005 2:12:05 PM

  14. The discussion is moot for condom users. I guess it is simply assumed that African men are incapable of using condoms.

    Posted by: Joe Clark | Oct 25, 2005 4:49:36 PM

  15. I know my dick sure as hell wasn't involved when I contracted HIV.

    I'm not sure why this study doesn't specify that they're talking about heterosexual transmission.

    Posted by: imconfused | Oct 25, 2005 6:39:45 PM

  16. Yeah duh!

    Posted by: John Beene | Oct 25, 2005 8:34:45 PM

  17. The only pertinent issue is the WHO statement, reminding us that foreskin or not, safe sex is the only real protection against infection.

    Personally, I see childhood circumcision and other forms of genital mutilation as child abuse.

    Posted by: Jay Croce | Oct 26, 2005 2:00:08 AM

  18. It is now 2009 we are better informed - educated on all the pros and cons related to the Uncut (Natural) verses Cut (unnatural) Penis, to the informed, regardless of cultural influences it is very obvious that the Male Penis is belonging to a human being and it is absolutely insane, with No real reason to Cut any male penis foreskin off. Not even religious teachings as in the past can warrant Cutting the male foreskin off as it all amounts to - Well - Bullshit- comes to mind.

    Posted by: gwb | Feb 8, 2009 5:30:47 PM

Post a comment


« «Quebec's Frontrunner for "Party" Leadership« «