Jul 29, 2008 11:54 AM GMT
I keep hearing that cut guys have less of an STD risk than uncut guys but where is this data, and why is it that what I've heard is that the risk difference is not statistically significant?
SurrealLife saidI believe it comes from studies on African HIV rates of infection. I am not sure it applies to all STIs though.
Hoodiestud saidI can only make the deduction that uncut is harder to keep clean and that being said, perhaps its just about the skin and how the skin keeps any contamination stuck to the penis....
RedSoxFever33 saidfirst off being of a man of both experiences personally (cut and uncut) being uncut is a breeding ground for bacteria.
Alpha13 saidThe studies that show the different risk factor between cut and uncut are flawed. Bad science.
XRuggerATX saidHoodiestud saidI can only make the deduction that uncut is harder to keep clean and that being said, perhaps its just about the skin and how the skin keeps any contamination stuck to the penis....
Why can you *only* make this deduction?
RedSoxFever33 saidEXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!
healthseeker saidRedSoxFever33 saidEXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!
...no pun intended! He hee!
healthseeker saidMy understanding, which of course could be wrong, is that the added risk for un-cut guys not using a condom is the chance of abrasions to the foreskin from the friction, etc. through which the HIV enter their bloodstream. That, combined with poor hygeine I guess.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm (sorry, not sure how to add the link)
healthseeker saidI think the abrasions could come from the foreskin being pulled, pinched or torn whereas the glans is more, ahh, aerodynamic.
You're right about the cdc but I think they are the ones that released the study most recently, though mainly focused on sub-saharan Africa.