November 2, 2009

Study: Men With Larger Foreskins Are More Likely to Contract HIV

Men with larger foreskins are more likely to become HIV positive, according to a new Uganda-based study as reported by Reuters. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University’s Rakai Health Sciences Program in Uganda said their findings—published October 28 in the journal AIDS—support the argument that circumcision is a viable HIV prevention method for men.

The investigation followed 965 Ugandan men, all of whom were initially HIV negative. Researchers observed a direct correlation between foreskin size and HIV infection risk.

“Mean foreskin surface area was significantly higher among men who acquired HIV,” researchers wrote. Study authors believe that the foreskin has many immune cells called dendritic cells, and that HIV can enter the body through these cells.

While multiple studies show that circumcision helps prevent female-to-male HIV transmission, the procedure does not protect female sex partners from contracting the virus.

NEW! Scroll down to comment on this story.

Previous Comments:

Marlon Woodward, San Francisco, CA, 2009-12-22 22:30:10
Having been left intact by my parents, I am eternally grateful for their foresight. Pun intended. I am HIV+ and I can tell you for a fact the route of transmission was other than through the foreskin/dendritic cells. What a load of crap. How one can extrapolate the results of one study in Africa to apply to all males in beyond me. How about some real science once in a while, and not fascination with promoting a barbaric form of mutilation / moneymaking for practicioners of the procedure.

Jeffrey, Lakeland, 2009-11-22 21:46:44
Good 2 know foreskin is at the forefront once again ...as said ,circumcision helps prevent female-to-male HIV transmission!

Richard, Miami, 2009-11-10 10:44:39
Why stop at the foreskin? If we REALLY want to prevent the spread of HIV, let's just cut off the entire penis altogether!

Mike arnold, Nicholasville KY, 2009-11-07 13:26:15
Yet another unscientific study to promote male genital mutilation. Seems odd to me the study is never conducted in the US where the majority of HIV+ men are circumcised. I am HIV+ and circumcised as are most of the poz. people I know can only think of 2 that are uncut. Also might mention I know a sero discordant couple and the positive one is cut the negative one is uncut! When are we going to join the 21st century and realize a foreskin is neither a birth defect or cause of HIV!!!

TMK, Providence, 2009-11-06 15:43:18
I agree with Drew. New "medical" reasons for promoting circumcision never stop even though, as Sam said, don't prevent anything. Prophylactic mastectomy would save a lot women from breast cancer but it certainly is not a valid reason to promote the procedure. SOme women, however, choose to have mastectomies when they are at high risk of developing cancer. One's personal degree of risk should be up to them & not made by parents who do not want to teach hygiene or doctors with an agenda.

Glenn, Boston, 2009-11-04 10:02:47
Sam, I'm not trying to make assumptions about your sexuality, but I think I have a general answer to your point. This circumcision issue is mainly in regard to female-to-male transmission. The foreskin can trap female fluids and allow these fluids to be absorbed into your body. For a gay man, it's not much of an issue because there are other ways that another human being's fluid can get inside you.

Sam, Birmingham, 2009-11-03 18:37:39
This is hogwash. I'm not sure the motive for "researchers" to keep pushing this theory, but the point is moot. Everyone I know is cirsumsized and so am I and we all have HIV. How do you explain that? What's the point if someone uncircumsized has a higher chance of getting HIV; I'm circumsized and I contracted it.

Drew Wood, , 2009-11-03 14:37:16
I have repeatedly seen these African foreskin studies extrapolated into reason to circumcise in the US. I question the validity of extending the results without considerations in the difference in lifestyles practices between the two cultures. After as many of the "medical" reasons that have been given for circumcision, I am always skeptical. I've even had a doctor tell me the only reason she recommends it is it's an easy $200/15 minutes work.

Timothy, Nashville, 2009-11-03 12:00:57
Great. There's already discrimination between Neg/Poz, HIV/full blown Aids, Detectable/Undetectable. And now cut/uncut? There are already people who are hesitate about being with someone who is Uncircumsized, this information, as helpful as it is intended could also be damaging. From someone who suffered for years being rejected because of an uncut penis, this takes me back to a time that I had hoped to forget.

David, Atlanta, 2009-11-03 10:17:57
Another crap study from researchers looking for a way to advance their pro-circumcision stance. They're obsessed with foreskin and medical procedures. To call circumcision a "prevention method" is rather extreme.

Michael, , 2009-11-03 10:01:48
I totally think that this is wrong. I believe that the risk is the same no matter if you are circumsized or not. Just depends on how much unprotected sex you have especially with those you do not know well. I think this is there way of trying to push the procedure unto newborn boys and I think that is wrong.