• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk' 60%...

IGBT

Lifer
Text

When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head of the penis becomes less sensitive and so less likely to bleed, thereby reducing the risk of infection.



However, after 18 months, the number of new HIV infections in the control group was 49, compared with 20 in the treatment group.

The researchers decided at this point it would be unethical to continue the study.

It was stopped and the uncircumcised men were offered circumcision.


 
how much lower would the risk be if you whacked off the whole thing?
like a unich, you know, removed it
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
how much lower would the risk be if you whacked off the whole thing?
like a unich, you know, removed it

..I thought unich's only removed the tea bag?? 😕

 

But is a lower risk of contracting HIV infection (which is fairly low for heterosexual males in first world countries, anyway) a sufficient justification for circumcision? It might be in Africa where there are very high levels of HIV among heterosexuals, but in the first world (USA, Europe) I'm not so sure it is.

 
Originally posted by: Argo
I don't understand, they actually infected those men with HiV?

Nah, they just monitored the two groups, and found one group got more infections. Also, after about 18 months, when the results became clear, the researchers halted the study and offered the circumcision procedure to the uncircumcised men.

 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
how much lower would the risk be if you whacked off the whole thing?
like a unich, you know, removed it

A eunuch only gets his testes cut off 😱
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm

But is a lower risk of contracting HIV infection (which is fairly low for heterosexual males in first world countries, anyway) a sufficient justification for circumcision? I'm not so sure it is.


It would be to me... especially if the choice had already been made for me.
 
I would figure its kind of a given that circumcision would help reduce bacteria growth and infections in general
 
I'll keep my foreskin, and not have sex with people with HIV. Keep in mind that the odds of woman -> man transmission are very very low. Why would my peen bleed anyway? That would have to be some really rough sex.
 
Common sense would lead me to believe this indeed would be the case.

Whether it's an agrument for circumcision is another story.. I guess obviously it would be, but..

meh.
 
What a dumb research. You'll have the same affect as circumcision if you masturbate 5 times a day for a week.
 
Ground floor of a multipage flame war that POPS UP EVERY FVCKING MONTH.

you guys sure are obsessed with penises 😕
 
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Ground floor of a multipage flame war that POPS UP EVERY FVCKING MONTH.

you guys sure are obsessed with penises 😕

muhahaha, I love when you get pissed off multiple times in these circumsizion threads..

and don't think I forgot about you calling me the worst poster on here you little ******.
 
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Ground floor of a multipage flame war that POPS UP EVERY FVCKING MONTH.

you guys sure are obsessed with penises 😕

muhahaha, I love when you get pissed off multiple times in these circumsizion threads..

and don't think I forgot about you calling me the worst poster on here you little ******.

You have been replaced in the recent months... sorry 🙁
 
Originally posted by: kogase
I think I'll just avoid having sex with women who have HIV and keep my foreskin.
well they don't wear shirts emblazoned with a scarlet "H" so how can you be sure someone isn't infected?

 
Back
Top