The foreskin, for those of you who don't have one (or, worse, have never seen or tasted one), is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and covers the mouth of the urinary tract when the penis is not erect. This is supposed to protect the urinary tract, but there has been some evidence that infections of the penile glans and urinary tract are more common in uncicrumcised men than in their circumcised brothers. Indeed, the most-often quoted reason for circumcision is for both cultural/religious and for hygienic reasons. All Jews and Muslims and some groups of Christians cirumcise their boys, often following quite detailed rituals. For a map of circumcision rates in the world, see [1] - very helpful in determining your favorite circumcised holiday destination.
Circumcision can be done using several different techniques. I looked it up on Wikipedia [2] and copied some of the below from there. It is not for the faint-hearted! For infant circumcision, devices such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen clamp are commonly used. With all these devices the same basic procedure is followed. First, the amount of foreskin to be removed is estimated. The foreskin is then opened via the preputial orifice to reveal the glans underneath and ensure it is normal. The inner lining of the foreskin is then bluntly separated from its attachment to the glans. The device is then placed (this sometimes requires a dorsal slit) and remains there until blood flow has stopped. Finally, the foreskin is amputated. Sometimes, the frenulum band may need to be broken or crushed and cut from the glans penis near the urethra to ensure that the glans can be freely and completely exposed. If this is not done early, the frenulum may come off the glans when intercourse is started, leaving a bloody mess.
People who oppose circumcision find it unnatural to remove a part of the body that was created by Nature, or by God, or both. Some people find the practice unfair to small children who can not make decisions about their own body.
Proponents counter that Jesus himself was circumcised. As a result, several churches have claimed at times to be in the possession of the foreskin of Jesus Christ, ascribing miraculous powers to 'the Holy Prepuce'. While it is strictly beyond the point of this column, if you happen to find it somewhere, let me know.
Opponents of circumcision claim the foreskin has a function during sex. It contains nerve ends that are highly erogenous, and tend to stimulate sexual arousal upon stimulation. They argue that the gliding movement of the foreskin during intercourse is important in creating pleasure for both parties, and that it reduces friction and helps to lubricate the vagina or anus. It may also make masturbation easier, as less strain might be needed to be exerted to the penis in order to get an orgasm. Other scientists refute this, saying there is no evidence that circumcised men have less fun than uncircumcised men.
What does the foreskin have to do with HIV transmission? The foreskin contains a certain type of cells called 'Langerhans Cells' (named after Paul Langerhans, the guy who discovered them back in 1868). These cells form an entry-point for HIV virions into the body, and can also be a reservoir for HIV infection once it has established itself. In addition, during heavy sex sessions, the foreskin might tear and cause bleeding, further enhancing the possibility of transmission of HIV or other diseases. Third, several sexually transmitted diseases appear to really like foreskins much better than bare willies. These diseases have been shown to help in the transmission of HIV.
The website of the US CDC [3] summarises a systematic review and meta-analysis that focuses on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa[4]. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.
A 71% lower risk for high risk men! No wonder that circumcision fans welcomed this new technology for HIV prevention. Circumcise men at risk for HIV and stop the epidemic without bothering about condoms! No need to add that there was a lot of politics involved too. People who routinely circumcise their boys were all for this new technology, whereas those who do not circumcise their boys balked at the idea.
So does this technology work for us, gay men? Is there a protective effect of circumcision during anal sex, or only in vaginal intercourse? Do we all have to line up at the circumcision clinics, and say goodbye to our Holy Prepuce?
The answer is, fortunately for those who love their foreskins, a resounding NO. The difference of gay men and heterosexual men is that gay men often have sex both ways - i.e. they use their penises to fuck, and use their anuses to be fucked. The main avenue for HIV transmission for gay men remains our beloved rectum, which is so convenient to sit on, but which is in other circumstances highly conducive for all kinds of pleasant and unpleasant organisms. The heterosexual men in the studies in Africa had only one clear entry-point for HIV - which was their foreskin. Removing that reduced their chances of infection. It did, of course, not reduce the chance of infection from them to their female partners. On the contrary - there were some reports of men starting sex too soon after their recent circumcision, with bleeding as a result; this, if anything, would increase the chance to get HIV for their female partners.
A recent review study showed that circumcision did not protect gay men from infection with HIV, overall [5]. However, circumcision may protect gay men who are exclusively insertive for anal sex from infection with HIV, the review as well as a recent Australian study suggest [6]. But this finding is based on sketchy evidence. The investigators comment: “Being circumcised was associated with a significant reduction in HIV incidence among the one-third of participants who reported a preference for the insertive role in anal intercourse”. However the numbers were very small – a larger study would be needed to see if this is important.
So should you get circumcised?
The American CDC says on its website that individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognise that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).
If you want to do it, you may like to know that adult circumcisions require 4 to 6 weeks of abstinence from masturbation or intercourse after the operation to allow the wound to heal. Also, there are several techniques for circumcision, removing a larger or smaller part of the foreskin and making a different ‘cut’ which leads to different forms and shapes of the resulting scar - with highly different aesthetic results. You can have influence on the location and the shape of the scarline, eg. just below the corona or futher down the shaft of the penis. Make sure you check out the market, and don't fall for the first guy in a white coat and a nice smile, wielding his scissors.
Nice to know: after hospital circumcision, the foreskin may be used in biomedical research, skin grafts or consumer skin-care products. Think about that when you apply that night cream before going to bed. Conclusion: current evidence suggests that circumcision is NOT an effective HIV prevention strategy for gay men. It may be at the individual level, but only if you are a) HIV negative, b) only insertive, c) REALLY only insertive, d) never lie about your sexual behavior, and e) always, always keep your rectum shut for intruding unidentified hard objects. And even then, the protective effect of circumcision remains doubtful.
Links:
1. Global Map of Male Circumcision Prevalence at Country Level
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
3. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm#ref5
4. Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review and metaanalysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70.
5. Templeton DJ, Millett GA, Grulich AE. Male circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2010, 23:45-52
6. Templeton DJ et al. Circumcision and risk of HIV infection in Australian homosexual men. AIDS 23: 2347-51, 2009.
Jan Wijngaarden has worked, in different functions and roles, on promoting HIV prevention, care and support for men who have sex with men (MSM) since 1994. He is also the moderator of MSM-Asia, an information network on MSM, HIV and human rights, with nearly 600 members from across the region. If you want to become a member of MSM-Asia, or for information requests or comments, pls contact him at jwdlvw@gmail.com.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
Ultimately, I guess its a personal decision for those well-informed of all the implications. Personally, I'm happy remaining uncut (my mum was a midwife and adamant about not letting it happen to her 5 boys). Its never ever caused me any problems and even had some advantages :).
Hahaha....he cracks me up...I love reading this article.
Personally, I would agree with finn72.
A huge part of Africa's population is HIV positive, yet that's where over 80% of men have been circumcised....
thanks for sharing it here..
Got to agree. Practicing safer sex, not getting circumcised, is what will protect you if you insist on getting busy!!!
And I was thinking, if circumclised people do bareback (no condomed) sex, the HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) still could get into the body from the mouth of the urinary or any bleeding from the intercoursing (both parties), if your partner carrys the STI or HIV. So take condoms always with you or have a wash and urining as soon as after a unprotected sex to make the less risk for STI and HIV, and take the warrying nights for the 3 months for HIV window period. You know not blood tests can show that you are infected for the first 3 months after you infected HIV.
But it does help in reducing some risks (for tops who bareback and those whose dicks are being sucked) for those who don't practice protected sex. But the point is we should not be confusing people that it's OK to practice unprotected sex in the first place. We should work towards consistent protected anal and oral sex, in which case circumcision would make negligible difference in reducing HIV transmission risk.
I think the most important area to look into is how to improve the technical aspects of condoms: how to make them tastier, thinner, stronger, and conduct heat better, at lower cost. Additionally, we should look into inventing an anal condom. Since, as I said, bottoms are at a much higher risk, they should have more control over the means of protection. If their tops don't wish to wear condoms, they should have the choice to protect themselves by wearing an anal condom.
Although the American College of Physicians website has a document that instructs on the use the female condom for anal sex (http://www.acponline.org/acp_press/fenway/how-to-put-on-a-female-condom-for-anal-sex.pdf), the document has a disclaimer saying that more research is necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness. As such, I think the gay activists should request the leading condom manufacturers to inject funds to research and invest an anal condom that is safe, effective and acceptable.
By researching into these 2 directions, we can expect to have more effective, cheaper, more sensual and more acceptable tools for all gays, both tops and bottoms, and both those who suck and those who are being sucked.
Besides if you clean and practice safe sex I see no problem keepng what you were born with...Jose'Latinoboy9
I was circumcised by personal choice, in my 30s, and my only regret is not having it done earlier. I'm with Nicholus on this.
I think i should encourage my 2 little brothers, who are obvious straight, to get circumcised for their safety. My first little brother, who is still virgin, wanted to get it done but afraid to do so, i think his greatest fear is a bleeding penis(the reason he's virgin is actually afraid of bleeding during the first intercourse as he heard people say you'll bleed alot during your first shot). I have no idea about my second little brother though, but i think he won't bother since he's already fucking his girlfriend unprotected every now and then and not having any comments about his foreskin. So he's only 16+ and never listens to anyone, what can i do about it? Guess my family will have a wedding sooner or later in this year.
From what i heard, people who'd gotten themselves cut enjoyed the process, to make it more sickening, they want to have it done again if they can. I don't know about that though...
i think most of ppl got HIV/AIDS of information on ONLY media. they just believe and accept it immediately, and they don't find any scientific reference.
HIV does not cause AIDS. AIDS is just syndrome. AIDS drug cause side effect, stress is bother them, most ppl of AIDS prejudice makes killing them. so most of poz ppl r die. originally AIDS drug is failed anti-cancer drug.
Luc Montagnier, who awarded Nobel Prize 2008, he confessed HIV is simply gone if u hav good immune system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4 u should check this out.
and if u have free time, u should watch this. title is 'The Other Side of AIDS'.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-266890172132861595&ei=6l5zS77HBoi-wgPtgvS3DQ
its really good documentary. this documentary makes break the ur rules.
and if u more interested in it, i suggest u go to film festival. and this documentary name is 'House of Numbers'.
http://www.houseofnumbers.com/
i think HIV/AIDS theory will be break n gone.
in gay poz case, sperm of protein and other disease(including STD) is problem. and other case, who pregnant twice, has another antibody also some of disease,STD. thats why poz ppl got HIV+ result.
i saw many poz ppl got change test results. HIV+ to HIV-. antioxidant, early sleep, jogging, yoga, meditation, coffee enema, ayurvedic sufflement, hypnosis, happy feelings help change test result.
also circumcision is NOT HEALTHY behaviour. foreskin protecting healthy shinny glans, makes good sexual feelings, helps smooth sex. smegma is not dirty, its good component. smell is not problem, we should cleaning every day. thats all. circumcise cause higher percentage of uterine cancer.
most of doctor knows circumcision is not good. so they r don't let it to do them of son.
circumcision is business n money! just business ability
these days, foreskin restoration is popular in who circumcised man. they have regret about it.
so do u think that its right thing to do?
don't let it circumcision n HIV/AIDS makes deify.
don't be always believe doctor or scientist of opinion.
questioning is good thing.
WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT THINGS.
thank my Mother!!!
i can keep mine....
YAAAY
safe sex is the best...
FYI....just FYI...i like it both cut and uncut...hehehehehe
Read … Ten Lies About Aids : By Etienne De Harven, M.D., with Jean-Claude Roussez
Because there is no proof whatsoever that bareback sex with a guy who doesn't have a foreskin is safe.
I honestly believe that genital mutilation of any kind came with the spread of ancient cultural practices.
Though, right now, I'm just wondering why a researcher in 1868 named Lagerhans suddenly decided to analyse foreskin.
And how exactly did he do the study....I'm doubting he went into a bar and suddenly walked up to a guy and said "I'm doing research on foreskins."
As for the HIV/circumcision link. I have read that the researchers in the African study went off half cocked ( excuse the pun) and in fact by the end of the trial the differences were far less dramatic than were recorded early in the trial
But as Jan has pointed out ... the situation with gay men indulging in anal sex is a different story altogether
I'd be interested to hear how he would ethically prove his thesis.
Its unprovable, without putting the lives of human beings at risk.
Without proof a thesis is just words
He also rabbits on about healthy immune systems and genital hygiene... maybe he should go talk to some people infected with HIV who have tried every means possible to suppress the virus... and to infected muslims with their obsession about genital hygiene
Some people like the sound of their own voices and some people will believe anything without giving it a moment's analytical thought
It is however also a fact that most circumcised men were done at young age, without having had the choice. I still have to meet the first cut guy who does not regret to have had at least the personal choice how his willy should look like. Those in favor of this practice also often recommend it to be done on young age, which is in my opinion nothing else then CHILD ABUSE.
Oddly the HIV prevalence rate in USA (most men cut) is higher than in western Europe (most men uncut). The high prevalence of HIV in Africa purely has to do with not using the rubber (because either they cannot afford or because the pope forbade it) and with the sad fact that blood used in transfusions and needles are not always "clean".
Conclusion.. hands of the boy's penis, let him decide when he is old enough.
Its a tradition to us during summer that younger men will be circumcised. its a transition from child to teenager and of course for hygiene.
I'm glad that i am circumcised.
uncircumcised or not, always practice safe sex. we are all at risk for having STD's, HIV and AIDS. Wear condom is the way of preventing diseases.
We enjoy sex. but if we do it in the right way, it makes a difference to yourself and to the other people as well.
i'm happy to see more rational discussion on this topic!
;-)
The majority of us have had running water in our homes for a century. As a result, circumcising for reasons of hygiene is ridiculous. Ask 80% of the world's population of uncircumcised men. If you can roll the foreskin back, you can clean it in seconds.
Age related male impotence often occurs almost a decade earlier with circumcised men than with uncircumcised men. That's why so many circumcised men have to start taking Viagra around 40, because the sensitivity in the heads of their penis has been diminished due to the fact that their foreskin was removed at birth, and their heads were exposed to clothing their whole lives.
For more information, visit http://www.circumcision.org .
Circumcised gay men, be prepared for years of depression after reading material on that site. Once you realize you have lost the most sensitive region of your penis... well... it's depressing to think about. Most circumcised men go into a form of denial because they don't want to deal with the reality of it all.
Do not circumcise your children! Thankfully most pediatricians today will tell new parents that it's an unnecessary procedure.
To some people, this regardless of HIV prevention, circumcision might be beneficial, to some might be the opposite because of being absolutely unneeded. As in everything, talk to a specialist, not all is about personal tastes and preferences. Health comes first.
If a top won't wear a condom, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HIM! While studies have shown that circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV in SOME instances, the most effective way to prevent transmission, aside from abstinence, is through condom use. And I must say that the Asian countries I have visited do not get this fact, as condom use is nearly non-existent.
When the AIDS epidemic first hit the US in the early-1980s, the gay community adopted a philosophy of "We're all in this together. Only by working together can we fight this disease." Condom use became very popular and expected in M2M excounters and unprotected sex was disdained. As a result, HIV/AIDS infections dramatically diminished. Just as we know that washing your hands frequently can prevent colds and flu, we know that condom use can prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
I urge all of us around the world to remember that we ARE all in this together. When you sleep with one person, you are also sleeping with everyone he has slept with previously. Regardless of fetish, fantasy or sensation, barebacking is just plain foolish. Let's start seriously taking care of ourselves and of each other.
Please:
1. Get tested for HIV/AIDS regularly and always know your status.
2. Always discuss status prior to having sex.
3. Always be honest when discussing HIV status.
4. ALWAYS use a condom.
Through sexual education and by caring for each other by using condoms, we can stop the worldwide scourge of HIV/AIDS.
If only I could convince the rest of the stupid world.
There are a few explanations. Among them are: genetic (perhaps, because it's found that certain Europeans have genes that are less prone to HIV infection); sex education in school; legalization and regulation of sex workers.
#37 commented: "If a top won't wear a condom, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HIM! While studies have shown that circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV in SOME instances, the most effective way to prevent transmission, aside from abstinence, is through condom use. "
Yes, I agree. For now, before any clinically and FDA-approved anal condom is invented and marketed, gays should stick with the male condoms. Protected oral and anal sex should be consistently and correctly practiced.
But I think that if an anal condom is invented and made available it MAY surpass the male condom in STD reduction. It has been put forth that, for heterosexual penetrative sex, female condoms are better at preventing some STIs than the traditional male condom. This is because they cover more skin, which is the main way skin-to-skin STDs, such as herpes and warts, are contracted. It may also be more acceptable to tops who dislike wearing traditional condoms.
Most importantly, an anal condom should be more hygienic. Bottoms who don't clean themselves properly before anal sex may dirty their tops' condoms. The stool on a condom may stain both partners' bodies and the bed when the top withdraws his dick. On the other hand, if an anal condom is available, it would stay inside the bottom's anus throughout the entire session, so such staining could be prevented.
But, as of now, since there isn't any FDA-approved anal condom, we should stick with the traditional condom. It should be used every single time correctly.
it's same like becoming bald one day..
At this point, a man can make his own choice. In general removal of body parts should not take place without the informed consent of the owner.
My foreskin was stolen from me at infancy, just because "it was done". I DO resent it. However, I have come to live with the situation as there isn't anything I can do about it.
In my view, arguments today that it is cleaner to be circumcised just don't hold true? Have these people not heard of soap and water.
As for the HIV issue, there is no issue if the participants practise safe sex. For casual sex, condoms are an absolute necessity. For committed partners, then condomless sex is something they undertake after they have discussed the issue and commit to each other.
If we were not meant to have a foreskin, why has nature not caused us to evolve so that we no longer have one.
Studies conducted in 3 trials showed a 60% protection against HIV infection in straight men.
But as Jan pointed out, because gay men take it both way, circumcision does not work, unless you are 100% top, then you could expect some protection, notwithstanding the fact that viral load in the vaginal fluid and anal secretions are not the same either...
By the way, how dare those who never had a feeling of sexual stimulation with the foreskin say that it is not good and must be removed? I'm on the way to get back what I lose. I really want to know it would be so unpleasant as they say or not.
You have been misinformed by right-winged-Christian-funded pseudo-documentaries that deny any connection between HIV and AIDS that have been universally slammed by the international medical community. Luc Montaigner has himself claimed that he was quoted out of context by the documentary filmmakers. And the docus fail to highlight the fact that a few of the individuals they featured, who denied their HIV/AIDS condition, eventually died or resorted to treatment. House Of Numbers director Brent Leung is a dangerous man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Numbers
http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/house-of-numbers/
There is no vaccine for HIV.
And there has been no evidence that a HIV+ person could become HIV-. It's all nonsense cooked up conspiracy theorists.
HIV and AIDS and the threat they cause to one's health are very real.
The only cure is prevention.
Use condoms, no matter if you're cut or uncut.
I view circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation !
Which as we all know has been condenmed by the UN & Womens groups world wide.
So are we gay males to be discriminated against yet again ? ?..........circumcision is genital mutilation.......and that can NOT be denied !
Its a fact !
So should it not ALSO be condemed for the primitave and barbaric pratice that it is ?
For all those who have been abused as a child......you have my sympathy.
And as with all other forms of child abuse.......the perpitratiors ........the doctors the priests etc [ God no wonder an intellegent civilised man can have no part of such so called religions ! ] yes and even the loving ? ? ? ? parents [ I am going to mutilate my son ] should be prosecuted ! !
I advocate safe sex........But one other fact I think has been missed by the commentators here.
I have had both safe sex and un-safe sex.....the later only with my partner in a monogamous relationship.
I am top/versitile.........and I find un-protected sex both as the top and as a bottom far far far more pleasurable with an un-circumsised partner.
So let's criminalise the disgusted form of child abuse !
there is no guarantee against HIV, or any other sexual transmitted diseases, nothing is 100%, not even condoms, as they can break, to be 100% save, don't have sex at all.
I've came across an article in our local magazine today where a five-year old boy as been circumcised and his penis were so mutilated that he will never have a normal sex life or penis for that matter and that is just cruel and sad.
I say stick to your guns - if it wasn't intended to be there, it wouldn't have been.
In the end it all depend on what you like and want, unless there are medical and hygiene issues involved.
OMG, this is really education. Am I ignorant of the foreskin? The bit of front skin is different then rest skin of while cock?
G…… Should we all go to cut it off? But is that the length of foreskin is individually right ？
The problem is how much it has to cut it off？how much Cm or Inch is the right length has to cut it off that will write off the cell? (If only the foreskin is a ‘criminal’) ？
Is that only HIV virions will be into the body or other Viruses such as flu virus, dysentery, periodontitis Etc？?
Paul Langerhans discovered a certain type of cells at foreskin in1868, does he also proved HIV virions will into the body as well？
It is funny that lots of circumcised men are regretted. Why if it is good as “some doctor” said？
Is circumcision that good or just is more of a religious, politic and business ？?
Or Doctor said, doctor said?
But I know some doctors said totally the opposite.
So who we should believer？
We had enough “doctor” that tells us what we have to do, what we mustn’t do. Why I have to spend our money to make some doctors happy.
What ever I know what I have to do with my skin,
Leave it along. Just fuck off. We have been scared enough.
請先登入再使用此功能。