How would Circumcision reduce the risk of getting aids?

You'd think some how, it would be the opposite, and so I tend to believe it does neither, after all sex is going to give it to you either way - so to say a piece of skin that is there is going to affect it seems a little....odd placed as correct information don't ya think?

This question is asking about the fact there are statistics saying circumcision helps you from getting aids.

Well, to start off, many have found those studies to be biased. It was conducted with errors and statistics from the government reveal that the United States has the highest HIV rates (and also highest circumcision rates) in the developed world. Another study found that foreskin didn't have to do anything with HIV rates.

Here are the fallacies that that study had, which favored the circumcised group (it's on the left side of the page; scroll down):
http://circumstitions.com/

And here are the statistics from the CIA which show that the United States is the industrialized nation (our of Japan and Europe, heck, even out of some Latin American countries) with the highest HIV rates (and we're the only ones out of those to circumcise newborns without medical or religious need):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...

And here's the study whose result found that prostitution, not circumcision, was the big factor in HIV rates:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArti...

NO clue! Sorry about that!!!

It doesn't, an uncircumcised penis is the same erect as an uncircumcised penis. If your partner has HIV and you have unprotected sex you run the risk.

Studies have shown that uncircumcised males have a smaller change of contracting AIDS, because when the foreskin is present it can hold infected fluids longer, allowing the spread of infection.

San Francisco AIDS foundation says:
Uncircumcised men having unsafe sex may be at greater risk if HIV infected fluid remains under the penis' foreskin for an extended period of time. The shelter afforded by foreskin may give HIV a more favorable environment in which to survive. The protected area under the foreskin might help shield HIV from air and keep it closer to body temperature.

Reported in BBC News: Circumcised men may be six times less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men, research suggests.

Reports in San Francisco Gate:
The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.

CBC News Canada:
Circumcised men are just as sensitive
The study found no difference in sensitivity to touch or pain between the two groups, debunking the widely-held belief that uncircumcised men experience greater sexual pleasure.
Adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection from heterosexual intercourse by up to 60 per cent, three trials suggested.

in my oppinion it doesn't. If it helped so much then why is it that the USA that has a large amount of ADULT men that are cut has one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world.Whats wrong with using a condom or even better not sleeping around. To say its better to be cut to help stop AIDS is just stupid. The foreskin is there for a reason and I love mine and would never get rid of it

if you have sex with a partner that is HIV positive it doesn't matter if you are circumcised or not you will still run the same risk of contracting the HIV virus

The major transmission vector is through mucous membranes. The foreskin is just such a membrane - it is not skin like the shaft of the penis. A mucous membrane has a lot more blood flow close to the surface, and the tissue is thinner, making it easier for the virus particles to pass through.

The theory is that the foreskin provides an easire route of infection.

However, the urethra is lined with mucous membrane, so in unprotected sex, the HIV virus can pass through the inside of the urethra. There is a small area exposed, but it still provides a way for the virus to enter the bloodstream.

Repeated studies are showing the original African study may have been inaccurate. As with all such studies, it requires several repeatable ones to provide consistent, reliable data.

While there may be an increase in risk when having unprotected sex, there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men if they use condoms consistently. And even though circumcision may REDUCE the risk, it doesn't ELIMINATE it, even in the original study. That suggested the rate was reduced by 50%; in other words, there was still a 50% chance that circumcised men would contract the disease.

What's with the concern over HIV/AIDS? You know there are lots of other STDs that are more likely to be spread around, don't you?

There are some studies that show that the pocket under your foreskin can harbor viruses and germs that can be passed on to your partner (or incubate until they have a better chance of infecting you). The biggest concern is that the virus that causes cervical cancer in women can be passed on that way, and that has been known for some time.

Even if you're not circumcised, your foreskin retracts during intercourse, so your urethra is till exposed to the inside of the woman's vagina (fluid to fluid contact), so the risk of passing germs in either direction is pretty much the same. The effects of being circumcised or not can't hold a candle to the benefits of using a condom.

The studies on this don't seem to be very conclusive actually. I think the main theory is that the foreskin absorbs more because in circumcised guys their glans gets all dried up and harder and not as absorbant. Doesn't sound like it's worth it.

There is still a huge risk for a circumcised guy having unsafe sex with an infected partner. And this is only female-to-male transmission. Makes no difference in male-to-female or male-to-male.

In some respects it does. Some uncircumcised males do not clean properly or at all under their foreskin even when they shower. The HIV/Aids virus dies in contact with air, the foreskin is moist with bacteria after having sex and your penis head withdraws underneath it, thus harboring any bacteria/virus transferred from your partner. Remember, HIV/Aids virus is blood to blood, if there is a trace element of blood under your foreskin from your partner and she/he has HIV/Aids then you may contract it yourself, as when having sex microscopic tears occur on your penis, thus the transfer.
The safest sex if your going to have it is to ensure you have a condom on that is reliable. After sex wash thoroughly and it might be a good idea to ensure that your partner as well as yourself has been tested for HIV/Aids and other STD's before engaging in sex of any kind.