by violet » Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:29 pm
This is a popular topic in STD research. While it is still somewhat unclear as to the reason why- men who have been circumsised seem to be more resilient to HIV than men who are uncircumsised. This has been determined through research over the past 20 years in underdeveloped African countries, as well as parts of India. The study begins by finding a large group of men who are HIV negative, and in the following year, the men who have been presumably exposed to HIV (for example, having slept with a prostitute) are retested. The trend in these studies is that men who are uncircumcised contract HIV more often than men who are circumcised- even though both groups of men led similar sexual lifestyles. In subsequent lab tests, researchers have determined that the cells that make up the foreskin have an extremely high rate [in comparison with other cells of the body] of uptake/binding when exposed to HIV. Analysis has shown that foreskin tends to contain an elevated number of CD4 T cells, which are binding targets for the virus. For this reason, it seems plausible that a man who has not been circumcised has a higher risk of becoming infected with HIV if they are exposed to the virus.
Circumcision has no protective effects against other STDs, and being circumcised does not guarantee that you won't become infected with HIV if you are exposed. This research is performed to gain insight on the way HIV works in the body- these results shouldn't provide a false sense of security for those who are circumsised, or scare people who aren't.
Hope this helps:)
violet