Author Topic: Cut vs. Uncut (Read 10500 times)

ChaplinGuy · « **on:** April 05, 2007, 05:49:55 pm »

There has been a lot of coverage in recent weeks about the benefits of male circumcision to protect against HIV infection. I am curious to know, among the group how many males out there are positive and "cut"? Moreover, I am curious to know how this breaks down gay vs. straight - as the research continues to point to there being benefit only in heterosexual males.

As someone who is lacking in this procedure, it is easy to assume it had a role in my infection. But curious to know how many of you (hetero- or homosexual) did manage to acquire HIV in spite of being circumcised.

Val · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:54:36 pm »

Well, Brazil and France refused categorically to circuncise because there was not enough "proof" that it really could stop HIV. They are doubling the efforts for all kinds of prevention in both countries.

Val
___
___
P.S. I am so glad no one cut anything from my body without my permission...

Ann · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:58:53 pm »

Well, on the flip-side, my un-cut partner and I were together for a year and a half, not using condoms, before we knew my status and he is still hiv negative. (yes, we use condoms now) I'm not convinced that cut/uncut makes a whole lot of difference - not always anyway.

Ann

DingoBoi · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:09:27 pm »

I don't think being cut or uncut matters... especially when you are the receptive bottom

milker · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:22:03 pm »

Quote from: DingoBoi on April 05, 2007, 06:09:27 pm

I don't think being cut or uncut matters... especially when you are the receptive bottom

lol!

GSOgymrat · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:52:52 pm »

I too am skeptical of this recommendation. I know there must be some "cutting off your nose to spite your face" analogy here but I can't quite put it together. Wacking off the end of you wang just sounds like a bad idea.

pozniceguy · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:03:47 pm »

I agree ..no one should have a body part taken without permission...I like having all mine

edfu · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:04:05 pm »

Can't get link to work. Sorry.

edfu · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:17:08 pm »

Although the studies have been looking only at vaginal transmission from female to male, I do not see why the biology behind them would not be equally applicable to anal transmission from male to insertive male. One also must not forget that if the studies are accurate, it means there would be a smaller number of insertive HIV+'s transmitting HIV to other sexual partners, whether female or male.

The biology here needs to be stated clearly. The foreskin, which if unfolded would measure 20 to 30 square inches (that's 400-600 inches), contains a large number of Langerhans cells,a form of dentritic cell, as Jonathan has already pointed out. These cells are concentrated on the inner foreskin layer, which lies directly against the head of the penis. Langerhans cells are biological magnets for HIV, so the inner foreskin layer can absorb HIV up to nine times more efficiently than a woman's cervix.

Usually, Langerhans cells play a protective role. They ingest pathogens and ferry them down lymph channels along the penis to the lymph glands in the groin, to be killed by white cells. A Langerhans cell will swallow HIV as readily as any other bacterium or virus, but unlike other pathogens, HIV will reproduce thousands of copies of itself inside the belly of the Langerhans cell for the duration of its trip through the lymph system (about five days).

After reaching the lymph nodes in the groin the Langerhans cell explodes--literally--spewing tens of thousands of copies of HIV, and it then rapidly infects other immune cells before slipping into the bloodstream. And if that's not enough, the intact foreskin is also susceptible to small tears and abrasions during sex that can provide even more opportunities for HIV to enter the body.

That said, it is entirely true that the only thing that FULLY protects men, cut or uncut, from HIV is a condom. HIV can (and does) enter the body through a circumcised penis via small abrasions, preexisting STD's such as herpes, and/or the urethra.

For these reasons, I personally believe that uncircumcised men face a higher risk of acquiring and passing along HIV.

Ody · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2007, 10:11:37 pm »

I'm homosexual and was cut at birth. A fact that I express to my mother I don't like and hold agaiinst her.

The science is there to suggest and support a uncut/cut link, but I question it.

Peace health and love,
Ody

HIVworker · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2007, 10:17:30 pm »

Quote from: DingoBoi on April 05, 2007, 06:09:27 pm

I don't think being cut or uncut matters... especially when you are the receptive bottom

Kind of my first thought too...

milker · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2007, 10:31:41 pm »

My view on this.. if it's there then there is a purpose for it. Note that even though people have been cut for thousands of year there is not change in the genes so to me cutting is unnatural.

Milker.

edfu · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2007, 10:35:47 pm »

What is the purpose of the appendix?

GSOgymrat · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2007, 11:17:56 pm »

What's the purpose of men having nipples? What's the purpose of earlobes? Do I really need all my toes?

I'm not hacking off body parts without a REALLY good reason.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2007, 12:06:44 am »

I guess I'm the only one whose parents have a somewhat legit reason for circumcising me.

Go, Jewish heritage, go!

edfu · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2007, 12:10:33 am »

Your toes help you walk upright, though they might contract tinea. The main difference is that you can't contract a potentially deadly sexually transmitted virus through your nipples, earlobes, or toes.

milker · « **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2007, 12:17:48 am »

I'm 100% jewish and uncut. Yes there could be another post about this.

Yes we have foreskin, nipples, etc. You would think that nipples would have disappeared after millions of years of no scientific reason for being there. Same with foreskin, in a different scale. We lost our tails because the evolution made it so. When it's time to lose our foreskin i'll go with it. Until then I'll keep it.

Milker.

Bucko · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2007, 02:10:31 am »

I'm cut and poz, and am convinced that I've either been poz forever or have contracted it as a top. My circumcision didn't help me, and I sincerely with I hadn't been.

My preference for uncircumcised partners is legendary. So anything I say about the procedure will be tainted. But I am very skeptical about this being the tremendous answer to AIDS in Africa. That just doesn't seem right.

Brent
(Who believes that condoms work better)

CJWAUS · « **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2007, 02:24:50 am »

If it was suggested that lopping off part of the female genitals would reduce the chance of catch or passing some disease, every feminist organization in the country would scream about it. As such why is it so okay to mutilate the male genitals?

aupointillimite · « **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2007, 08:57:40 am »

Quote from: CJWAUS on April 06, 2007, 02:24:50 am

If it was suggested that lopping off part of the female genitals would reduce the chance of catch or passing some disease, every feminist organization in the country would scream about it. As such why is it so okay to mutilate the male genitals?

I am no fan of male circumcision and really do think it should be stopped... but the two really are apples and oranges. Male circumcision does not, in any way, reduce sexual function.

The most non-invasive form of female genital mutilation is where the clitoris is cut off.

There are other forms... the most severe involving sewing the labia together...

Its point is to deny women sexual pleasure... either mostly or completely.

I know that male circumcision reduces sensitivity somewhat... but it's nothing... nothing compared to FGM.

bear60 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2007, 11:40:45 am »

I saw a headline that New York City was considering getting into promoting circumcision. The implications are mind boggling, dont you think?

RapidRod · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2007, 01:32:15 pm »

This is something I don't have to be bothered with. Doc took care of that when I was two days old.

ACinKC · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2007, 03:28:27 pm »

Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 05, 2007, 06:52:52 pm

I too am skeptical of this recommendation. I know there must be some "cutting off your nose to spite your face" analogy here but I can't quite put it together.

They did the wrong procedure on you!

And being a TOTAL bottom, my circumcision played ZERO role in my becoming infected.

red_Dragon888 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:08:23 pm »

Quote from: milker on April 06, 2007, 12:17:48 am

I'm 100% jewish and uncut. Yes there could be another post about this.

Yes we have foreskin, nipples, etc. You would think that nipples would have disappeared after millions of years of no scientific reason for being there. Same with foreskin, in a different scale. We lost our tails because the evolution made it so. When it's time to lose our foreskin i'll go with it. Until then I'll keep it.

Milker.

nipples are for foreplay.

red_Dragon888 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:12:42 pm »

Quote from: bear60 on April 06, 2007, 11:40:45 am

I saw a headline that New York City was considering getting into promoting circumcision. The implications are mind boggling, dont you think?

more money for doctors

frenchpat · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:41:07 am »

Quote from: edfu on April 05, 2007, 10:35:47 pm

What is the purpose of the appendix?

Hi,

last time I checked it seemed to be involved with some immune function, but obviously not a major one...

Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 05, 2007, 11:17:56 pm

What's the purpose of men having nipples? What's the purpose of earlobes? Do I really need all my toes?

Nipples appear at a foetal stage when your sex is not quite determined... then stay on as you develop into a boy so they can be stimulated later in life

The purpose of earlobes is to concentrate the sound towards your eardrums, kind of the reverse function of the pavilion of a gramophone. Without them you wouldn't hear as well.

Toes? I once read a fairly serious report stating that with man using locomotion a great deal less than we used to we might end up losing our small toe. Hasn't happened yet though...

Pat

Jeff64 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:42:11 pm »

My parents had me cut as an infant. For that I will never forgive them.

Jeff

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Cut vs. Uncut (Read 10500 times)