Jul 31, 2008
I often hear conflicting reports on the risk of having foreskin. I've heard that foreskin harbors HIV, I've also heard it prevents HIV. My Personal opinion is if having forskin is such a huge risk, why do males who have Hiv/AIDS tend to be mostly gay or bisexual. I'm not saying it's a gay desease either.
Response from Dr. Frascino
I'm not sure I understand your reference to foreskin, HIV risk and HIV/AIDS having a higher prevalence in the gay/bisexual population. Are you assuming gay and bisexual men don't have foreskins? I can assure you many do.
What we've learned from recent epidemiological studies is that being circumcised decreases HIV transmission and acquisition risk. The science behind the phenomenon has to do with specialized cells found in the foreskin called Langerhan's (dendritic) cells. These cells can actively bind HIV and present the virus to CD4 cells. (See below.) Therefore, having a foreskin can be a risk for HIV, but not because the foreskin "harbors HIV," but rather because the foreskin has these specialized cells.
One thing is certain: The foreskin does not prevent HIV! I'll also reprint below some information about circumcision from the archives.
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions: Implications for the United States
This fact sheet summarizes information in four areas of male circumcision: 1) male circumcision and risk for HIV transmission; 2) male circumcision and other health conditions; 3) risks associated with male circumcision; and 4) status of HIV infection and male circumcision in the United States.
What is Male Circumcision?
Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin (or prepuce) from the penis.1
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.
Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies.2 The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV.3 In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival.1 Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection.4
International Observational Studies
A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000.5 It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.
Another review that included stringent assessment of 10 potential confounding factors and was stratified by study type or study population was published in 2003.6 Most of the studies were from Africa. Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men.7 The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant.
Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level. Although links between circumcision, culture, religion, and risk behavior may account for some of the differences in HIV infection prevalence, the countries in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male circumcision of less than 20% have HIV infection prevalences several times higher than those in countries in these regions where more than 80% of men are circumcised.8
International Clinical Trials
Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa9 was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya10 and Uganda11 were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants' risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.
In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study: 1) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in HIV-infected men and men of unknown HIV infection status, 2) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in the men's female sex partners, and 3) effect of male circumcision on male-to-female transmission of HIV and other STDs.
Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV
In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV-seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners. If the male's HIV viral load was <50,000 copies/mL, there was no HIV transmission if the man was circumcised, compared with a transmission rate of 9.6 per 100 person-years if the man was uncircumcised.7 When viral load was not controlled for, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the male-to-female transmission rate from circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men. Such an effect may be due to decreased viral shedding from circumcised men or to a reduction in ulcerative STDs acquired by female partners of circumcised men.12 A clinical trial in Uganda to assess the impact of circumcision on male-to-female transmission reported that its first interim safety analysis showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of HIV acquisition in women partners of HIV-seropositive men in couples who had resumed sex prior to certified postsurgical wound healing and did not detect a reduction in HIV acquisition by female partners engaging in sex after wound healing was complete.13
Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions
Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men.1 The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance.4
Risks Associated With Male Circumcision
Reported complication rates depend on the type of study (e.g., chart review vs. prospective study), setting (medical vs. nonmedical facility), person operating (traditional vs. medical practitioner), patient age (infant vs. adult), and surgical technique or instrument used. In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0%.1,14,15 The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection. In the recently completed African trials of adult circumcision, the rates of adverse events possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to circumcision ranged from 2% to 8%. The most commonly reported complications were pain or mild bleeding. There were no reported deaths or long-term sequelae documented.9,10,11,16 A recent case-control study of two outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in otherwise healthy male infants at one hospital identified circumcision as a potential risk factor. However, in no case did MRSA infections involve the circumcision site, anesthesia injection site, or the penis, and MRSA was not found on any of the circumcision equipment or anesthesia vials tested.17
Effects of Male Circumcision on Penile Sensation and Sexual Function
Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and function in relation to male circumcision are few, and the results present a mixed picture. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision.18 However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change.1922 The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision;9,10,11,16 however, cultural differences limit extrapolation of their findings to U.S. men.
HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States
In 2005, men who have sex with men (MSM) (48%), MSM who also inject drugs (4%), and men (11%) and women (21%) exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact accounted for an estimated 84% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in U.S. areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting. Blacks accounted for 49% of cases and Hispanics for 18%. Infection rates for both groups were several-fold higher than the rate for whites. An overall prevalence of 0.5% was estimated for the general population.23 Although data on HIV infection rates since the beginning of the epidemic are available, data on circumcision and risk for HIV infection in the United States are limited. In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection.24 In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion.25 In both studies, the results were statistically significant, and the data had been controlled statistically for other possible risk factors. However, in another prospective cohort study of MSM, there was no association between circumcision status and incident HIV infection, even among men who reported no unprotected anal receptive intercourse.26 And in a recent cross-sectional study of African American and Latino MSM, male circumcision was not associated with previously known or newly diagnosed HIV infection.27 In one prospective study of heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic, when other risk factors were controlled, uncircumcised men had a 3.5-fold higher risk for HIV infection than men who were circumcised. However, this association was not statistically significant.28 And in an analysis of clinic records for African American men attending an STD clinic, circumcision was not associated with HIV status overall, but among men with known HIV exposure, circumcision was associated with a statistically significant 58% reduction in risk for HIV infection.29
Status of Male Circumcision in the United States
In national probability samples of adults surveyed during 19992004, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) found that 79% of men reported being circumcised, including 88% of non-Hispanic white men, 73% of non-Hispanic black men, 42% of Mexican American men, and 50% of men of other races/ethnicities.30 It is important to note that reported circumcision status may be subject to misclassification. In a study of adolescents only 69% of circumcised and 65% of uncircumcised young men correctly identified their circumcision status as verified by physical exam.31
According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), 65% of newborns were circumcised in 1999, and the overall proportion of newborns circumcised was stable from 1979 through 1999.32 Notably, the proportion of black newborns circumcised increased during this reporting period (58% to 64%); the proportion of white newborns circumcised remained stable (66%). In addition, the proportion of newborns who were circumcised in the Midwest increased during the 20-year periodfrom 74% in 1979 to 81% in 1999; the proportion of infants born in the West who were circumcised decreased from 64% in 1979 to 37% in 1999. In another survey, the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), circumcision rates increased from 48% during 19881991 to 61% during 19972000. Circumcision was more common among newborns who were born to families of higher socioeconomic status, born in the Northeast or Midwest, and who were black.33
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) changed from a neutral stance on circumcision to a position that the data then available were insufficient to recommend routine neonatal male circumcision. The Academy also stated, "It is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice".34 This position was reaffirmed by the Academy in 2005. This change in policy may have influenced reimbursement for, and the practice of, neonatal circumcision. In a 1995 review, 61% of circumcisions were paid for by private insurance, 36% were paid for by Medicaid, and 3% were self-paid by the parents of the infant. Compared with infants of self-pay parents, those covered by private insurance were 2.5 times as likely to be circumcised.35 Since 1999, 16 states have eliminated Medicaid payments for circumcisions that were not deemed medically necessary.36 However, AAP has recently (2007) convened a panel to reconsider its circumcision policy in light of additional data now available.
Cost-Benefits and Ethical Issues for Neonatal Circumcision in the United States
A large retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. The cost of postneonatal circumcision was 10-fold the cost of neonatal circumcision.37 Many parents now make decisions about infant circumcision based on cultural, religious, or parental desires rather than health concerns.38
Some persons have raised ethical objections to asking parents to make decisions about elective surgery during infancy, particularly when it is done primarily to protect against risks of HIV and STDs that don't occur until young adulthood, but other ethicists have found it an appropriate parental proxy decision.39.
Considerations for the United States
A number of important differences from sub-Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM. There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner. Receptive anal sex is associated with a substantially greater risk of HIV acquisition than is insertive anal sex. It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM engage solely in insertive anal sex.40
In addition, although the prevalence of circumcision may be somewhat lower in U.S. racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of HIV infection, most American men are already circumcised, and it is not known whether men at higher risk for HIV infection would be willing to be circumcised or whether parents would be willing to have their infants circumcised to reduce possible future HIV infection risk. Lastly, whether the effect of male circumcision differs by HIV-1 subtype, predominately subtype B in the United States and subtypes A, C, and D in circulation at the three clinical trial sites in Africa, is also unknown.
Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials.41,42
Male circumcision may also have a role in the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. CDC consulted with external experts in April 2007 to receive input on the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the United States and to discuss considerations for the possible development of guidelines.
As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).
References Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95. Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73. Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4. Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10. Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review and metaanalysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003362. Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2371-81. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1813-5. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi- Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):657-66. Gray R, Wawer MJ, Thoma M, et al. Male circumcision and the risks of female HIV and sexually transmitted infections acquisition in Rakai, Uganda [Abstract 128]. Presented at: 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Feb 5-9, 2006; Denver, CO. Accessed Jan 24, 2008. Wawer MJ. Trial of male circumcision: HIV, sexually transmitted disease (STD) and behavioral effects in men, women and the community. Accessed Jan 23, 2008. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989;83(6):1011-15. Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9. Kigozi G, Watya S, Polis CB, et al. The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):65-70. Nguyen DM, Bancroft E, Mascola L, et al. Risk factors for neonatal methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a well-infant nursery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:406-11. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9. Erratum in: BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):481. Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya JC, et al. Adult male circumcision outcomes: experience in a developing country setting. Urol Int. 2007;78(3):235-40. Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, et al. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth? J Urol. 2002;167:2111-2. Senkul T, Iseri C, Sen B, et al. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology. 2004;63:155-8. Masood S, Patel HRH, Himpson RC, et al. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly? Urol Int. 2004;75:62-6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005. Vol. 17. Rev. ed. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; June 2007:1-54. Kreiss JK, Hopkins SG. The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1993 Dec;168(6):1404-8. Buchbinder SP, Vittinghoff E, Heagerty PJ, et al. Sexual risk, nitrite inhalant use, and lack of circumcision associated with HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 May 1;39(1):82-9. Templeton DJ, Jin F, Prestage GP, et al. Circumcision status and risk of HIV seroconversion in the HIM cohort of homosexual men in Sydney [Abstract WEAC103]. Presented at: 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; Jul 22-25, 2007; Sydney, Australia. Accessed Jan 23, 2008. Millett GA, Ding H, Lauby J, et al. Circumcision status and HIV infection among black and Latino men who have sex with men in 3 US cities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Dec;46(5):643-50. Telzak EE, Chiasson MA, Bevier PJ, Stoneburner RL, Castro KG, Jaffe HW. HIV-1 seroconversion in patients with and without genital ulcer disease: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Dec 15;119(12):1181-6. Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman D, et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men attending Baltimore STD clinics: an evaluation of clinic-based data [Abstract 326]. Presented at: National STD Prevention Conference; May 8-11, 2006; Jacksonville, FL. Accessed Jan 23, 2008. Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 19992004. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 July; 34(7):479-84. Risser JM, Risser WL, Eissa MA, Cromwell PF, Barratt MS, Bortot A. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jun 1;159(11):1095-7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in circumcisions among newborns. Accessed Jan 24, 2008. Nelson CP, Dunn R, Wan J, Wei JT. The increasing incidence of newborn circumcision: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):978-81. American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103(3):686-93. Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract. 1995 Oct;41(4):370-6. National Conference of State Legislatures. State Health Notes: Circumcision and infection. Accessed Jan 23, 2008. Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby CJ, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3):e36. Accessed Jan 24, 2008. Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let's hear from the parents. Pediatrics. 2001:107:e20. Accessed Jan 24, 2008. Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48. Koblin BA, Chesney MA, Husnik MJ, et al. High-risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in 6 US cities: baseline data from the EXPLORE study. Am J Public Health. 2003 Jun;93(6):926-32. Erratum in: Am J Public Health 2003 Aug;93(8):1203. World Health Organization and UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. 2007 Mar. Accessed Jan 24, 2008. Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, et al. The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Med. 2006;3(7):e262. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was provided by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dick Docking and Penis Rubbing 2: Foreskin Jul 25, 2008
Hello Dr Bob,
Thanks to your last reply.
That's my second time I sent this question.
I've re-done a thorough research about the anatomy of male genitalia. In short, it turns out that information out there is inconsistent. In Wikipedia, two separate entries of `Foreskin' and `Mucous membrane' yield contradictory results: the former says `the glans penis (head of the penis) and glans clitoridis and the inside of the prepuce (foreskin) and clitoral hood are not mucous membranes', while the latter says that `the inner foreskin is a mucous membrane like the inside of the eyelid or the mouth. ' By the way, according to `glans penis' of wikipedia, `The epithelium of the glans penis is mucocutaneous tissue.'
By the way I found out that the foreskin is composed of Langerhans cells which are identified as receptor of HIV virus (this information comes from OU Handbook of GUM and HIV medicine).
I have discussed these issues with a psychiatrist (the reason being that I feel I'm extremely worried over the whole HIV/STD thingy) who warned me that I shouldn't be doing penis-to-penis side-along rubbing and penis docking any more because `it's rubbing of mucosal tissues. HIV/STD virus is bound to pass between. Why would you take such risks?'
In your last reply (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/TransmissionSexual/Q194250.html), you said that the transmission risk of dick-docking is essentially nonexistent and *implied* that penis-to-penis side-along rubbing does not pose any transmission risk because the only mucous membrane of the whole dick (including shaft, foreskin, glans penis) is the lining of the urethra from the pee-hole up to the bladder. But I didn't mention that I'm uncircumcised. There's plenty of inner foreskin whose very nature is highly suspicious of mucous membrane and which is full of Langerhans cells.
So my questions are: (1) could you please reiterate your opinion on the transmission risk of dick-docking and penis-to-penis side-along rubbing, citing the reason behind?? What if one of us shot the load? Would the load shoot right at the urethra during docking??? (2) should we put on a condom while we do dick-docking and penis-to-penis side-along rubbing? (3) should I do a circumcision, as some studies from Kenya(!) suggest it reduces the risk of transmission of HIV and other STDs? Do you believe it?? (4) why are Langerhans cells cited as susceptible to HIV infection? What role does it play ?? (5) why is the term `mucous membrane' so important in HIV infection? What is it anyway?? Would HIV or other STDs get across the membrane and infect others??
As bothersome as I am, I sincerely do hope that you wouldn't find my queries offensive or devious in any way. Debate leads to better understanding. In order for me to have some sort of peace, could you painstakingly answer my questions??
I promise I will donate USD150 to your charity fund.
Response from Dr. Frascino
1. My opinion regarding HIV transmission/acquisition related to frottage (penis-to-penis rubbing, "dick-docking") remains unchanged. It is not considered to be a risk. Could you shoot a load and hit the urethra? Yes, it's theoretically possible, although not very likely, that the spunk would actually come into significant contact with the urethra's mucous membrane.
2. If that would make you feel safer and less anxious, sure. Personally, I don't feel it's necessary.
3. The studies do indicate that male circumcision decreases the risk for acquiring HIV. However, if you follow safer sexual techniques, I don't feel it's necessary.
4. Langerhan's cells (dendritic cells) play an important role in the initiation of HIV infection by virtue of the ability of HIV to bind to specific cell surface receptors of these cells. This allows efficient presentation of HIV to CD4 cells that then become infected. The foreskin contains Langerhan's cells.
5. A mucous membrane is a thin layer (membrane) that lines all internal body passages that communicate directly with air outside the body, such as the respiratory and alimentary tracts, and which has specialized cells or glands that secrete mucous. HIV can permeate mucous membranes, but it cannot permeate intact skin. The foreskin is not a mucous membrane. However, it is a specialized type of skin and HIV can be taken up by the Langerhan's (dendritic) cells located within the foreskin.
I certainly don't find your queries either "offensive or devious." It can be somewhat confusing to try to explain complex details of anatomy or the function of specialized cells in a forum such as this forum. So the anatomy lesson is over for today.
Thank you for your generous tax-deductible donation to the Robert James Frascino AIDS Foundation (www.concertedeffort.org). It's warmly appreciated.
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.