• No. Why would it? HIV is transmitted through body fluids - semen, blood, etc. Being circumcised doesn't reduce the chance of you having an orgasm, so it won't reduce the chance of you transmitting HIV. What a strange urban myth to have.
  • The theory is that an infected person could have lesions on the inside of his foreskin, thereby causing an opportunity for exposure to blood in uninfected people. Or, an uninfected person could become unknowingly exposed to blood that gets stuck under the foreskin. supporting study: opposed study: I'd say -- just do an examination before you have sex -- if you see an inflamed foreskin -- don't go near it, and send your friend to the doctor.
  • I KNOW I heard that it does--South African research completed just this year. Wish I could provide you with a link. The researchers urged it for every man, saying that it reduced infectability by about a third.
  • if the skin is retracted and cleaned underneath it doesn't make any difference
  • Yes it does. Results in several experiments show that it reduces the rate of transmission to the circumcised man by about 50%. However, I would not regard a 50% reduction as significant. If in any doubt at all, use a condom (or, of course, refrain). I would never start unless I thought it was about 99.9% safe, either because I trusted the woman or because I was using a condom. The difference between 99.9% safe and 99.95% safe (which is what circumcision would achieve) is not enough to make me let someone take a knife to my sensitive bits.
  • Better hygiene and condoms show consistent benefits in preventing the transmission of HIV, and higher rates of being effective. Circumcision has a long history of claiming to prevent or cure diseases, and as old claims are proved false, new claims are made. Just look up the reasons or history yourself. It's a surgery looking for a reason to exist.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy