Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
science!

Circumcision Can Cut HPV Infection By 28% For Women Sleeping With Men. How About Men + Men?

Sometimes, The Science tells us having men circumcised is a decent way to fight HIV transmission. Sometimes The Science tells us it has no noticeable effect. But now The Science is telling us that removing a man’s foreskin lowers the risk of transmission of HPV — to women. You know, during that heterosexual intercourse thing. It’s a good thing to know, because HPV is that mean old STD that can lead to cervical cancer in women. But The Science has also established HPV can lead to anal cancer when transmitted among MSM. Does that mean circumcision can help reduce the risk of transmitting HPV among gay dudes?

The new study, from researchers at Johns Hopkins University, doesn’t say — because it focused only on women. But it found that over two years, the rate of HPV infection dropped by 28 percent among the female participants, whose circumcised male partners were HIV-negative circumcised. Except this study piggybacked on the same one in Uganda that showed circumcision cut the spread of HIV by a remarkable 50-60 percent — a phenomenon, to the best of my knowledge, researchers haven’t been able to duplicate in the U.S. or other Western countries.

Why does snipping off the foreskin show so much promise? Because the skin, located at the tip of the penis (and thus very involved in any form of sexual activity involving men), is rich in the type of immune cells regularly targeted by STDs like HPV and HIV. No foreskin, no vulnerable cells.

But if researchers found that circumcision reduces HPV transmission rates during male-female sexual activity, I can’t help but think it would do the same for male-male fun times too.

By:           Ryan Tedder
On:           Jan 7, 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • 28 Comments
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      If circumcision is a great protector against HPV, then why is Isrle handing out the HPV vaccine in a country where 100% of the males are circumcised?

      Let’s npt forget this was not an independent study. The researchers lifted their numbers off a study that was already underway, and had nothing to do with HPV.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones

      then why is Isrle

      Should have read, Israel.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones:

      They said it lowered the risk, not eliminated it.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      Oh boy, this oughta be fun…

      Jan 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jak
      jak

      Well sure, if you lop something off you ain’t gonna trouble with it are you? Try using condoms instead of mutilating male babies.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Cam:

      Yes, and not having sex lowers the risk even further. Don’t see anyone advocating that.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Moore
      Rob Moore

      There are other less drastic measures that have the same benefit. Teaching boys to wash and rinse under the foreskin helps just as washing one’s hands reduces transmission of flu and cold viruses. Teaching adolescent boys to wash under the foreskin after sex is another. If faced with a choice of mutilating one’s dick and wearing a condom or washing, I vote for the latter. File this one under trivial pursuit and move on.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff K.
      Jeff K.

      Why does the U.S. have such a circ fetish? It can’t be the Jews. They aren’t THAT numerous and influential.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe
      Joe

      This is BOGUS.
      All it is, is an excuse to slice baby boys.

      How dare Queerty pass on this BS, that was funded by special interests.

      According to your logic Portugal, Spain, France, Poland, etc would have higher HIV rates than anywhere else.

      Don’t forget that HIV rates are highest in countries where male genital mutilation is common.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pass the Popcorn
      Pass the Popcorn

      Few things are as funny as the “genital-mutilation” lunatics. Good times.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Giovannidude
      Giovannidude

      There is at least statistical evidence that circumcision may actually increase the risk of AIDS in gay men.

      Of the gay men who died of AIDS in the U.S., nearly 90% were circumcised. Also, the death rate for intact gay men was slightly lower. Draw your own conclusions.

      The public health bureaucracy used to spread pro-circumcision propaganda with impunity. There was no one to stop them, because the mainstream media acted as a willing conduit for their false assertions (circumcision, far from preventing penile cancer, actually promoted it in the form of cancer of the circumcision scar, but they conveniently forgot to tell you about that). Now the Internet acts as a check and balance on pro-circ bias and phony research.

      The big problem for them right now is the ballot question in San Francisco which would ban all circumcisions on boys under 18. If it passes, the public health bureaucrats fear the game is over.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edfu
      edfu

      @Giovannidude: The majority of gay men who died of AIDS in the U.S. acquired the virus because they bottomed in anal intercourse. Their being circumcised was irrelevant.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 8:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edfu
      edfu

      @Giovannidude: The majority of gay men who died of AIDS in the U.S. acquired the virus because they bottomed in anal intercourse. The fact that they were circumcised is irrelevant.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • uu
      uu

      Maybe if you cut off your lips you won’t get herpes either.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 9:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SBC19
      SBC19

      I love how whenever a medical report is released that cooberates the health benefits of circumcision — and it seems one comes out every year or so — naysaying spectators suddenly turn into scientists; trying their best to deny, refute or second guess what medical professionals have concluded.

      Why?

      Because they’ve logged too many hours of watching Bel-Ami porn (and other porn out of Europe) and now have a case of penis/foreskin envy.

      The anti-circumcision crowd is almost starting to remind me of the people who like to argue in defense of condom-less gay porn. Just like to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 11:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SBC19
      SBC19

      I love how whenever a medical report is released that cooberates the health benefits of circumcision — and it seems one comes out every year or so — naysaying spectators suddenly turn into scientists; trying their best to deny, refute or second guess what medical professionals have concluded.

      Why?

      Because they’ve logged too many hours of watching Bel-Ami porn (and other porn out of Europe) and now have a case of pen!s/foreskin envy.

      The anti-circumcision crowd is almost starting to remind me of the people who like to argue in defense of condom-less gay porn. Just like to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

      Jan 7, 2011 at 11:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • frankie
      frankie

      Oh please, circumcision is a barbaric practice which became popular during Victorian times as a means to discourage masturbation.

      Jan 8, 2011 at 2:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      Mr Editor, here’s a quick lesson about The Science. The studies in Africa were randomized clinical studies that are the gold standard in The Science for discovering proof of evidence. The studies in the U.S. were retrospective studies which according to The Science are weak for providing evidence.

      Jan 8, 2011 at 7:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones: Really, you don’t see anyone advocating for advocacy? Here is a 100% sure fire way not to get HPV or any other STI. Don’t fuck anyone with an STI. I know its hard to grasp isn’t it.

      If anyone would just do 2 simple things these STIs would eradicate themselves.

      1) Know your partners status and test results and be with a partner you can actually trust.
      2) Don’t fuck around.

      There, you managed to eliminate any fear of getting an STI.

      @Pass the Popcorn: I fail to see what is so funny about how many botched circumcision jobs completely hinder the ability to have sexual pleasure. Just getting circumcised to begin with has been proven to lower sexual pleasure.

      Jan 8, 2011 at 8:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lamar
      Lamar

      Circumcision is just culturally accepted mutilation the logic is basically remove a part of the body to lower the risk of certain diseases but I don’t see why we stop there why not remove a woman’s breasts to reduce the rates of breast cancer. Idiot.Logic.

      Jan 8, 2011 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Lamar: Many women with a history of breast cancer in their family CHOSE to remove their breasts to prevent the cancer. However, the key word there is choice. I don’t think a new born baby boy gets to chose rather he has his genitals mutilated or not.

      Jan 8, 2011 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff K.
      Jeff K.

      Every time I see a picture of that gods-damned banana on this site it makes me cringe because I know it’s going to attract another gaggle of chop-happy monsters to the topic.

      I really don’t see the problem in feeling hurt because healthy erogenous tissue was taken away from us at birth. Then again, men in our culture aren’t allowed to feel loss because we’re supposed to “act like men and just take it.” It’s yet another way the pernicious heteronormative concept of gender roles hurts people.

      Jan 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @frankie: Well that certainly worked out well… /sarc

      Jan 8, 2011 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jay
      Jay

      How about just trying some soap and water?

      Jan 8, 2011 at 11:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot
      stevenelliot

      lowering a risk by 25% is not that much of a lowering….HPV is so common now in men. Theyre saying 44% of males carry the virus. The way to go with this disease is immunization.

      And its a skin on skin contact thing. One can get it on the mucus membrane in their mouths during falacio. and mucus membrane is what the glans of the penis is made of too. On circumcized males the warts can be so small that they simply look like regular penile bumps that all men get from time to time. It can be very decieving.

      However the virus loves being up inside an anus or in a vagina because of the lavish moisture and temperture (and under a foreskin). Its a naughty little bug

      Jan 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • On The Road
      On The Road

      @Daez: Except that there’s no test for HPV in men and 95% of men with HPV show no symptoms.

      Jan 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jacknastion
      jacknastion

      the thing with HPV is that it isn’t just one disease there are dozens of strains of it. There are strains that will only show up on a penis and strains that wont show up on a penis at all, since there isn’t really one test that can be done statistics like this are really unreliable.

      HPV is a skin to skin disease, can get HPV using condoms so I can’t imagine that being circumcised or not would have a big impact.

      Jan 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Junk science from the usual crowd. Pity research dollars aren’t spent more wisely in a time of deep economic pain for science generally.

      Jan 11, 2011 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.