Circumcision’s HIV protection bottoms out
Gay men considering adult circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV infection could end up being bottoms, suffer sexual dysfunction, and gain no benefit at all, new Australian research suggests.
Dr Limin Mao from UNSW’s National Centre for HIV Social Research has examined the Health in Men survey of around 1000 gay men in their mid-30s and 40s, two-thirds of whom were circumcised, for whether circumcision had an impact on sexual performance or condom usage during anal sex.
Circumcision has been proven in reducing the risk of heterosexual men becoming infected from an HIV-positive woman from vaginal sex. But our main finding is that, circumcised or not, gay men are just as likely to use condoms, Mao said.
There is no current evidence as to whether circumcision can protect homosexual men, either as a top or a bottom, but there has been significant interest in whether the procedure could play a role in curbing the HIV epidemic in western countries’ gay communities. In Australia the number of boys being circumcised is now around 10 percent.
Gay men are concerned about sexual dysfunction, premature ejaculation, as well as old arguments that circumcision reduced masturbation or sexual desire, Mao said.
In our study we found gay men who were circumcised at infancy didn’t report having some kind of negative or positive impact on sexual dysfunction.
However, nearly all men who were circumcised after infancy reported some sexual dysfunction, erectile problems or premature ejaculation, and one in five reported some complication as a result of the circumcision. Particularly they were twice as likely to be bottoms.
Rather than reducing the risk, these men were far more likely to become infected if condoms were not used with a HIV-positive male partner, she said.
If male circumcision does take place, our study confirms that infant circumcision is much safer, she said, but added that more research was needed into the younger generation of uncircumcised gay men.
They’re coming from a generation where circumcision is really down, but also given the interesting findings from Africa, we need to know whether they are thinking about circumcision and whether they want to forgo condom use.
Hehehehe I am circumcised, When you are circumcised your penises is clean absolutely. damn i dont know where in the world you called circumcised people weird. LOL you are wierd maybe because you are afraid to cut your penis skin by a scissor LOL.. Just kidding guys. dnt get man i am just being real here XD
Hey guys, to me the circumcised penises look absolutely weird, exactly like curved penis. Another thing to consider is your ability to feel – you’re limiting yourself with a circumcised penis
Brian is right. To me, a circumcised penis looks abnormal. The the glans of the penis is more membrane than skin, and hence designed to have a covering (when the penis is flaccid).
The glans of a circumcised penis soon loses its normal soft purple hue, becoming lustreless and pale – i.e. more protectively skin-like to withstand friction against underwear. Almost certainly, this will reduce its sensitivity with time.
Michelangelo’s “David” statue displays the normal penis, despite David having been a Jew. I suppose a circumcised penis would have upset artistic sensibilities too much, so that the historical inaccuracy yielded to aesthetics.
It most certainly has not been proven that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV. The U.N. studies suffered from many confounding variables; virtually no one in the medical world considers the results useful—especially in the developed world.
Consider that the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision as well as the highest rate of HIV among developed nations. Only safe sexual practices are capable of preventing the spread of HIV.
I’m stunned by Nick’s comment.
Firstly I’ve seen a number of circumcised penises. Generally they show substantial acar tissue, the head is often wrinkled & can be desensitised, as it lacks its protective cover & sometimes the shape of the penis is distorted by the scarring. There is nothing ‘civilised’ about their appearance or condition. They are ugly & circumcision is an archaic practice of mutilation. I’m puzzled as to why having a foreskin means a man is dirty or filthy. People can be dirty or clean whether or not they have a foreskin. I’m straight, so don’t generally find penises attractive, they look OK to me uncircumcised, occasionally attractive, but generally the scarring of circumcision makes them ugly. Outside of religious precepts, I personally can’t understand the practice.
I prefer a circumcised man! Thank God Australia has many! Uncircumcised penises are just grotesque. Dirty and filthy, I can’t stomach them!
I prefer the civilized look of a penis, circumcised, compared to it’s primitive counterpart. If you think that’s barbaric, you are just ignorant. The procedure, when done by a profesional (Doctor or Mohel, etc), takes very little time and the risks are few. I chose to be circumcised, and I have no problem having erections, I HAVE NO PREMATURE EJACULATION, I actually last longer, and I love it and so do my partners!
Aussie, get back on the VIP list and get it snipped!
Thye smartest thing you’ve ever said Oliver xox
I also think it is cruel and has a bad effect on sexual function and should be banned just like any other human rights violation.
I think circumcision is cruel and unnecessary.