Circumcision removes the foreskin of the penis which mainly acts as a cover to the penis. Normally removing the foreskin makes more vulnerable to any STD, so how could circumcision reduce the risk of a HIV infection?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Who says that circumcision can do so? $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Nov 28, 2014 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris - The CDC, at least, has evidence that circumcision decreases the incidence and transmission of HIV. This is why it is recommending the adoption of the procedure in African countries. If you're asking the OP for a source, please ignore this. $\endgroup$ Nov 28, 2014 at 9:12
  • $\begingroup$ @anongoodnurse I was curious about it, since I didn't know it. Thanks for the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Nov 28, 2014 at 9:43

2 Answers 2


This is an interesting question, which has not been answered yet. It is also questionable, if this protective effect is present at all. There are around 40 studies on the topic available which have subsequently undergone meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis all data from recent studies which meet certain quality criteria are analysed together. This gives a much bigger dataset and stronger statistical data. It also helps eliminating the effects of too small test groups.

One of these meta-analysis identified circumcision to have a positive effect on the prevention of HIV infections (reference 1). The authors recommended considering it as a preventive measure.

Two other meta-analysis were more cautious on the topic and either found only a weak link (reference 2) or that only "randomized control studies" (reference 3) would provide clear data. The problem with all these studies is, that they are observational studies, where unknown other effects can play a bigger role than the supposed main effect. It is ethically very difficult to make controlled trials on the transmission of deadly diseases in humans. This is also the reason why all trials on this have been stopped.

There is a hypothesis on how circumcision may help preventing the infection with HIV (when you not get infected in the operation itself due to improper hygienic standards). The skin in the penis contains a large number of immune cells (dendritic cells, CD4/CD8-T-cells) which are the target cells of the HIV virus. It is thought that the virus can more easily penetrate the relatively thin skin of the foreskin. It is also possible, that the surface size is important here, as there are reports which show that men with a larger foreskin also have a larger risk of getting infected. See reference 4.

Another hypothesis has to do with the with the bacteria which live under the foreskin. The number of different strains present is much lower in circumcised men, which led to the conclusion that the dendritic cells, which present these to the immune system have an easier job in the circumcised men and are more likely to prevent the infection with HIV. See reference 5 and 6 for more information.


  1. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  2. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men
  3. HIV and male circumcision--a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies.
  4. Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current research and programmatic issues.
  5. Why Circumcision Lowers Risk of HIV
  6. Male Circumcision Significantly Reduces Prevalence and Load of Genital Anaerobic Bacteria

Unfortunately overlaying all of this is a social aspect that is difficult to eliminate. Virtually any male researcher into this topic has a vested interest in vindicating his own penile condition. Men feel strongly about the perfection of their own penises, however they find them.

It is very clear from the discussion and tone of many of these studies that the researchers are themselves circumcised, and want circumcision to be treated as the norm. The same effect is possible in the other direction, but seems to occur to a lesser extent because intactness is the biological norm and requires no action to make it so.

For that reason, studies out of the USA (including those led by American researchers in Africa) disproportionately favour circumcision, while those out of Europe do not. One reason this bias can creep in is that it is difficult to do double-blinded and/or placebo-controlled trials of circumcision. Thus experimenter and experimentee effects can creep in at every stage.

Circumcision is an intervention with deep social, religious, historical and cultural roots, and once it has become customary, rationality about it is difficult to achieve. Especially considering the operation on healthy infants, the fact that the foreskin is an integral part of an adult sexual organ gets lost from sight.

It is very common for the circumcised penis to be treated as the norm (with terms like "uncircumcised" common, where "normal" "whole" or "intact" would apply to any other body part that had not been surgically reduced). After that, circumcision may be treated as equal and opposite to the alternative of doing nothing, when it is no such thing. Thus the yawning gap between "circumcision [somewhat] reduces the incidence of X disease" and "all male babies should be circumcised" can be leapt in a single bound.

  • $\begingroup$ One of the first proponents that circumcision could be helpful is indeed a strong advocate of circumcision. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Nov 30, 2014 at 8:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This doesn't seem to me to really answer the question (which is about a hypothetical biologic mechanism), although it's relevant and interesting. Do you have any sources comparing the American vs European sourced research findings? If not, at least citing a major consensus statement from a European group that conflicts with a similar statement from a US group or some such thing would strengthen this "answer." $\endgroup$
    – Susan
    Nov 30, 2014 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ I'm also with @Susan here, you should provide at least two samples of a EU and US groups saying contradicted statements on the issue $\endgroup$
    – Qchmqs
    Nov 30, 2014 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Susan In case Hugh Young doesn't respond, here is the American Academy of Pediatrics statement in 2012 in which they state "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." $\endgroup$ Dec 2, 2014 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Qchmqs Here is a response from a large group of European doctors in which they state that most of the benefits cited by the AAP "are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves." $\endgroup$ Dec 2, 2014 at 20:04

You must log in to answer this question.