Not true, HIV is not a joke and everyone should be protected and yes please be safe and wear a condom.
posted by willie0320 on 30-Sep-2008 20:16
Circumcised Gay Tops 'Less Likely To Contract HIV'
If you wanna tap it, you should wrap it.
Date: 30-Sep-2008
It has been reported that circumcised gay men are less likely to contract HIV when they are in the 'top' role. Read the article below, and VOTE in our POLL: Does this kind of research send the wrong message?
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Circumcision can help protect gay men from contracting the virus that causes HIV/AIDS, researchers in Australia have found.
"We've shown for the first time that men who predominantly take on the insertive role in sex are less likely to contract HIV if they've been circumcised," David Templeton, from the University of New South Wales, told an international gathering in Perth.
The Sydney-based researcher said his team studied 1,426 HIV-negative men, two-thirds of whom were circumcised, and tracked their HIV infection over four years.
While circumcision did not reduce the HIV risk overall, the study found men who predominantly took the insertive role had an 85 percent reduced risk of contracting HIV if they were circumcised.
Templeton warned against any notion that circumcision provided protection, noting that most HIV infections were contracted in the receptive role, not the insertive role.
Circumcision provides some protection because it removes the foreskin which is prone to lesions, which in allow the virus to enter the body through the penis.
Wearing a condom during sex is still the only way to ensure you or your partner does not contract HIV.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Circumcision can help protect gay men from contracting the virus that causes HIV/AIDS, researchers in Australia have found.
"We've shown for the first time that men who predominantly take on the insertive role in sex are less likely to contract HIV if they've been circumcised," David Templeton, from the University of New South Wales, told an international gathering in Perth.
The Sydney-based researcher said his team studied 1,426 HIV-negative men, two-thirds of whom were circumcised, and tracked their HIV infection over four years.
While circumcision did not reduce the HIV risk overall, the study found men who predominantly took the insertive role had an 85 percent reduced risk of contracting HIV if they were circumcised.
Templeton warned against any notion that circumcision provided protection, noting that most HIV infections were contracted in the receptive role, not the insertive role.
Circumcision provides some protection because it removes the foreskin which is prone to lesions, which in allow the virus to enter the body through the penis.
Wearing a condom during sex is still the only way to ensure you or your partner does not contract HIV.
3 comments, 15297 views, last reply:1-Oct-2008 22:51
Comments:
definitely very dangerous research.
seriously, why bother? Until/if hiv/aids has a cure, people who aren't in a (tested) monogamous relationship shouldn't be engaging in this kinda activity. i may not have thought through every scenario, so someone tell me where this study comes in handy?! Someone reckless fool wanting to play russian roulette with their cock and other men's lives?
the press has a right/duty to report, but the smh and dna, you should be really careful reporting this.
posted by McMeaty on 1-Oct-2008 10:13
I remember this headline coming out around 3 years ago. I remember seeing it on the news and I remember my mother calling me after she'd also seen it and telling me I was at greater risk because I was uncircumcised.
Yes it's true, it may make an uncircumcised top 85% more likely to contract HIV than a circumcised top. That's not the point though. The risk of getting HIV from topping is so incredibly low it's not funny. That is also not the point.
If you don't wan't HIV, wear a condom if you're topping, or get your partner to wear a condom if you're bottoming, it's just that simple.
posted on 1-Oct-2008 22:51
Less HIV For Snipped Gays?
Do you think this kind of research sends the wrong message to sexually active gay men?