Even for heterosexuals, the supposed benefit of circumcision is marginal at best.

The same type of data could be used to justify cutting off baby girls’ breasts to prevent future breast cancer, which is more common than HIV infections in the U.S.

My last two postings on the CDC bias were: Circumcision promotes promiscuity? (8/27/09) and CDC may recommend circumcision (8/24/09)

Here’s a report by a doctor that says many of the things I’ve been saying for years. He points out some of the very clear flaws with the Africa “study” that I noticed when I ACTUALLY READ the study’s methodology, instead of blindly repeating the bogus claims the way most people have.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

And by the way, I’m ALL for circumcision if that’s what a grown man or woman chooses to do with their genitals. But I believe “My body my choice” should apply to EVERYONE.

I did find some additional information:

The estimated per-act risk for acquiring HIV from unprotected insertive anal intercourse with a positive partner is 6.5 per 10,000 exposures.

Burr,

I don’t think that this is a red herring or an instance of throwing up one’s hands.

The more information that is available about this disease, it’s transmission risks, it’s “safer” options, the extent to which – for example – Coxygru’s brother is at risk, etc., the better.

I, for one, want to know whether there is a difference in insertive risk by circumcision. The less we rely on urban legend and what we heard from that guy that one time talked to someone who once met this really cool scientist guy so he knows all the inside info – the better.

And, yes, I want to know about microbicides as well.

I doubt there’s any difference between female/male rectums. Anal sex is anal sex. It’s the anal part that’s the problem as far as ease of transmission goes, there’s less protection so to speak.

One thing that’s bugged me is that all the tests of microbicides to prevent HIV transmission are only done in heterosexuals and focus on women using it. There’s no explanation in the media I’ve seen as to why this wouldn’t work for others.

What about the broader issue of fluidity in human sexuality and sexual practices? My brother is 100% hetero but tells me he enjoys lots of anal sex with his many female partners. He’s circumcised but his practices put him at risk.

In terms of HIV transmission, how different is a female rectum from a male rectum? Are there any studies on that?

Per the CDC:

In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis.

Unfortunately, I have found it difficult to identify the extent to which such HIV transmission occurs. Urban legend says very rarely, but it’s not easy quantifying this risk.

What about the broader issue of fluidity in human sexuality and sexual practices? My brother is 100% hetero but tells me he enjoys lots of anal sex with his many female partners. He’s circumcised but his practices put him at risk.

In terms of HIV transmission, how different is a female rectum from a male rectum? Are there any studies on that?

I’m concerned that the following scenario will become increasingly common:
“Wait a minute, do you have a condom?”
“No need for condoms, babe, I’m circumcised!”