Cut vs. Uncut, where is the data for STD risk being less for cut guys?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    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?

    Anyone?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 1:16 PM GMT
    I believe it comes from studies on African HIV rates of infection. I am not sure it applies to all STIs though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 2:50 PM GMT
    You're right Surreal. It does not apply to other STI's. Or at least, the risk differential between circumsized and non-circumsized men has not been determined for other STI's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 5:51 PM GMT
    I 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....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 5:55 PM GMT
    SurrealLife saidI believe it comes from studies on African HIV rates of infection. I am not sure it applies to all STIs though.


    Thankfully, most of us live in a part of the world where hygeine is easy. Therefore, it doesn't make a difference whether someone is cut or uncut.

    Aesthetic preference is one thing, and some guys, including myself, prefer cut guys. But basing ones fears on false information is another. Some guys have been fed biased information and therefore have let irrational fear prevent them from encounters with terrific uncut guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 5:56 PM GMT
    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....


    Why can you *only* make this deduction?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 6:09 PM GMT
    If you are using a condom, cut vs. uncut is irrelevant. Your chances of infection is severely reduced simply by a non-porous barrier.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:34 PM GMT
    Busted.

    Mythbusters_title_screen.jpg
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 29, 2008 7:36 PM GMT
    All I know is that I don't even have DRAPES in my house! icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:40 PM GMT
    first off being of a man of both experiences personally (cut and uncut) being uncut is a breeding ground for bacteria. My urologist( who is Fu**ing hot) informed me of this. Which prompted me to make the decision i made 2 years ago.

    It's because of how "warm" it gets down there which cause the bacteria to form.


    Examples....

    D*ck Cheese

    Sometime distasteful smell
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:45 PM GMT
    The studies that show the different risk factor between cut and uncut are flawed. Bad science.

    In Africa guys that have links to modern medicine tend to be cut therefore it looks like its the missing foreskin that is keeping them healthy but really its the benefits of the modern health care and education that they are exposed to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:54 PM GMT
    RedSoxFever33 saidfirst off being of a man of both experiences personally (cut and uncut) being uncut is a breeding ground for bacteria.


    Respectfully, baloney. Or, since I am Italian, mortadella!!

    This is from the National LIbrary of Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3958682

    "...[health risk] was related to hygiene: subjects who retracted the foreskin when bathing were less likely to have smegma accumulation, inflammation, phimosis, or adhesions than those who did not...."

    It's a matter of hygiene, pure and simple. I'm uncut and have none of the issues RedsoxFever33 and his urologist are worried about. Moreover, I'll believe the National Institutes of Health over rumor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:55 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidThe studies that show the different risk factor between cut and uncut are flawed. Bad science.


    Exactly. Thanks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:56 PM GMT
    being cut or uncut,It affects different people in different ways therefore it is not flawed just doesn't cater to the broad range of different races around the world.




  • healthseeker

    Posts: 161

    Jul 29, 2008 7:59 PM GMT
    My 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)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 7:59 PM GMT
    [quote]"...[health risk] was related to hygiene: subjects who retracted the foreskin when bathing were less likely to have smegma accumulation, inflammation, phimosis, or adhesions than those who did not...."[/quote]


    NOT TRUE! FastProf I cleaned it 2 to 3 times everytime i showered (twice a day) and still had the same result. Like i said its not flawed(the report) it just affects people different ways
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:00 PM GMT
    XRuggerATX said
    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....


    Why can you *only* make this deduction?



    Cuz I dont really know from first-hand experience....I am cut, and therefore can only make assumptions based on previous knowledge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:02 PM GMT
    EXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!

    BTW to add to what he said... you only really have to worry about this if you are making a DUMB decision like playing BB. Its caused by the surface of the skin breaking from having to much frictin within a certain period of time.

    Example: you go have sex with a person and you do bb. you have NO idea if that guy played with numerous of guys hours before then. One you do that you subject yourself to STD's because of the breech in the skin IF you play BB
  • healthseeker

    Posts: 161

    Jul 29, 2008 8:09 PM GMT
    RedSoxFever33 saidEXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!


    ...no pun intended! He hee! icon_biggrin.gif

    Thanks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:10 PM GMT
    healthseeker said
    RedSoxFever33 saidEXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!


    ...no pun intended! He hee! icon_biggrin.gif

    Thanks!


    LOL i was going to say it but left it alone LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:12 PM GMT
    Im uncut but always use condoms anyways. I just wanted to know where this research basis came from.

    The idea of abrasions in the skin with friction makes sense, but again if wearing a condom it shouldnt be an issue no?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:15 PM GMT
    Exactly.... but also when i said about the breeding ground for bacteria that was a true fact. 1. It came from WebMD(which i trust) and 2. My urologist
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:20 PM GMT
    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)


    Is the foreskin more susceptible to abrasion than the glans? As a mostly outer surface, I'd doubt it.

    Cut or uncut, an unprotected penis gets rubbed during sex. If it is hot and heavy enough, abrasion happens. Actually I tend to think that the foreskin allows for less abrasion since the penis slides back and forth within the foreskin, and less against the partners anus.

    Ick. I need to go back to using slang. ;-)

    Oh, and as a side, I think we all know to take the CDC with a grain of salt. They're still advising the Red Cross to reject gay blood donors. Perhaps they're a little too engaged in social engineering, as circumcision is a very Judeo-Christian ritual.

    Like my Momma said both when I asked why I wasn't cut, and again when I told her I was gay: "However God made you is the way you should be." Now there's some Judeo-Christianity I can smile about.
  • healthseeker

    Posts: 161

    Jul 29, 2008 8:33 PM GMT
    I 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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2008 8:41 PM GMT
    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.


    That's nice that the glans is aerodynamic. Except that it is a dick going into an ass not an airplane fuselage going through thin air. And that ridge on the glans is awfully abrasive. Don't forget...for every "in" stroke you have to bring it back out, and that ridge sure does fight the motion. Talk about friction.

    OK full disclosure here. When I've barebacked (don't attach a stigma guys...a thoroughly tested, monogamous, and unconditionally trusting relationship, it was) some of the sex got pretty rough and lasted a long time. But I've never once seen an abrasion, tear, or pinch. No broken skin. But my cut friend showed me an abrasion on his dick once from a long BB session with his girlfriend. I know...lots of anatomical variables at play here, but I guess that's my point. You can blindly follow statistics and end up disappointed in some way, or you can trust your own intelligent mind to gather multiple sources of information and then make a confident, common-sense decision.

    One thing is for sure. No blades below my neck ever. I don't care what the government or a bunch of guys citing questionable sources try and tell me. Thankfully, most of the world is uncut and most guys I've known are into uncut guys.