March 13, 2013
Circumcision May Not Protect White U.K. Gay Men From HIV
A survey of white, British-born men in the United Kingdom suggests that circumcision offers no significant protection against HIV transmission for the insertive partner (top) in anal sex between men, aidsmap reports. Publishing their findings in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from the School of Health Sciences at City University London surveyed over 17,000 gay and bisexual men both on the website Gaydar and also offline in bars, clubs and sexually transmitted infection clinics in 15 cities throughout the United Kingdom between October 2007 and February 2008.
Almost 12,000 men in the study both reported their HIV status and were white U.K. nationals (fitting the demographic parameters of the study). Among these men, 4,898 (41.5 percent) reported unprotected anal intercourse during the previous three months and also said whether they were the top or bottom (insertive or receptive partner). Tops are generally at lower risk of HIV than bottoms, though both are at risk. A total of 1,521 out of the 4,898 men (31 percent) reported being mainly (960 men, or 20 percent) or exclusively (561 men, or 11 percent) the top.
In order to most accurately determine whether the presence or absence of a foreskin affects HIV transmission to the insertive partner, the paper concerned itself with these 561 exclusive tops. One out of six (16.7 percent) of them were circumcised. Among the 97 men (8.8 percent) who reported having HIV, there was no difference in HIV prevalence if they were circumcised (8.6 percent prevalence) or uncircumcised (8.9 percent).
The study is highly limited by the fact that the ultimate study sample of men who were exclusively tops was too small to yield a highly statistically significant indicator of circumcision’s role in HIV transmission. However, it is clear that among these men, even if circumcision offered a protective factor, it would never be anywhere near the 60 to 70 percent reduction in risk found in randomized controlled studies of heterosexual men in Africa.
Echoing results from previous studies, the paper found that topping exclusively greatly lowered risk of HIV infection. Five percent of the men who said they were always the insertive partner were infected with the virus, compared with 11 percent of those who were mainly the top. This represents a 58 percent reduction in risk between topping exclusively and mainly.
To read the aidsmap story, click here.
To read the study abstract, click here
Search: British, United Kingdom, UK, anal sex, top, bottom, insertive, receptive, circumcision, School of Health Sciences at City University London, Gaydar.
Scroll down to comment on this story.
comments 1 - 5 (of 5 total)
Frederick Rhodes, Barra de Navidad, Jalisco, MX, 2013-08-29 18:11:51
Rescent studies "suggest" that the reason circumcision does not prevent HIV infections 100% of the time is because there are still mucosal cells in the urethra that are "suggested" to be the entry point of HIV in men and women, intact or circumcised. There is no actual proof of HIV entry through mucosal cells, only HIV transmition from HIV tainted semen, vaginal fluids, or blood into the blood of an uninfected person. There are no actual health benefits from ritual infant circumcision
Ron Low, Northbrook, 2013-03-19 00:49:36
Circumcision CLEARLY is not necessary nor sufficient to protect ANYONE ANYWHERE from HIV.
Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were cut at birth. Wawer/Gray reported to the WHO in 2009 that the Ugandan men they cut infected their female partners with HIV 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did.
Mister Equality, Washington D.C., 2013-03-17 19:57:46
if any of this were remotely true, the same could be said for female circumcision which also offers the same benefits. A study was even done in Tanzania that proved this. Moreover, why are we promoting genital surgery for men instead of practicing safe sex? Maybe if Jewish pedophile doctors and the Jewish media stopped this pedophilic propaganda and told the truth, we'd have less issues today. Did you know the foreskin, both male and female have agents that prevent hiv and infection? Look it up.
Chris, , 2013-03-16 04:00:43
Condoms are the only way to help prevent HIV. That and being pre-cautious about who you sleep with perhaps. No recognized professional scientist has ever claimed that amputating the foreskin should be done instead of wearing a condom, that's religious non-sense.
Chuck Anziulewicz, Spring Hill, West Virginia, USA, 2013-03-14 09:37:22
comments 1 - 5 (of 5 total)
I don't think anyone ever suggested that circumcision would lower the risk of HIV infection for Gay men. Circumcision for Straight men, however, is recommended, since their risk of HIV infection comes in the form of infected vaginal and cervical fluids and secretions in HIV+ women, especially if those Straight men have a preexisting STD such as herpes or syphilis.
[Go to top]