FORUMS > Sexual Health Forum Rules

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?

I believe it comes from studies on African HIV rates of infection. I am not sure it applies to all STIs though.

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.

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....

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.

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?

If you are using a condom, cut vs. uncut is irrelevant. Your chances of infection is severely reduced simply by a non-porous barrier.

Busted.

All I know is that I don't even have DRAPES in my house!

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

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.

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.

Alpha13 saidThe studies that show the different risk factor between cut and uncut are flawed. Bad science.

Exactly. Thanks.

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.

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)

[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

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.

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

RedSoxFever33 saidEXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!

...no pun intended! He hee!

Thanks!

healthseeker said

RedSoxFever33 saidEXACTLY healthseeker! Right on the head. good job man!

...no pun intended! He hee!

Thanks!

LOL i was going to say it but left it alone LOL

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

XRuggerATX said

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.

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.

The abrasions are not always visible.

RedSoxFever33 said

XRuggerATX said

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.

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.

The abrasions are not always visible.

Fair enough. Invisible, whether glans, foreskin, tongue, middle finger...etc.

I shower twice a day and there is no cheese! The idea of pulling back the foreskin to clean there is not novel to many Latin Americans, and for the record most of the world is uncut....And before sex I would wash up anyways, it's like washing your hands before eating no?

Look up botched circumcisions, it is what keeps me from wanting any of my kids (in future) to ever have any laser close down there. You do know it is the residents and not the trained doctors that usually do the surgery to "practice."

RedSoxFever33 said

XRuggerATX said

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.

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.

The abrasions are not always visible.

Backing up a bit now, if you've participated in this thread to feel better or more confident about your decision to get cut later in life based on the advice of one urologist and the WebMD site (brought to you by CBS television network), I'm afraid you'll get no validation from me, nor can I be convinced. Obviously I would not have made that move.

If that all seems a bit pointed, understand that perpetuating a myth that uncut dicks stink or are diseased only pisses off the vast majority of hygenic uncut guys.

If someone had a nasty habit like licking dirty pavement every two hours, they could do one of two things. They could stop licking the pavement and adopt cleaner habits, or they could do something like cut off their tongue or wire their jaw shut.

I've been with one cut guy, didn't exactly know what to do with it


Are uncut European guys a big turn off in the US?

I know I'll catch hell for this one but; the cut guys usually taste better.

John43620 saidI know I'll catch hell for this one but; the cut guys usually taste better.

Ironically, I prefer cut guys, but it's more of a penis-as-sculpture thing I guess.

I would recommend you wash anything you're about to put into your mouth...cut or uncut.

I have no real preference for either, both my bfs were cut and I am uncut so no big deal to me. I just hate the citing of that CDC study as some sort of proof.

I will never have my kids have the surgery or do it as an adult.

XRuggerATX saidIf that all seems a bit pointed, understand that perpetuating a myth that uncut dicks stink or are diseased only pisses off the vast majority of hygenic uncut guys.

Exactly. Thank you, XRugger.

As for "...D*ck cheese...etc..." from RedSox, this sounds like a worst-case scenario list drummed up to prop up a decision already made and never to be revisited.

My own preferences have nothing to do with uncut or cut. Either works and fits for me...

However, I have yet to have an issue with hygiene with my uncut member...it is clean because I am conscious of the hygiene issues.

Not participating to feel better about my decision XRuggerATX. That decision was totally mine because of the health issues it was causing me. Honestly I dont need anyone's validation because it is in fact my own penis. Hey you're UC more power to you. Im simply stating what i have learned from my doc, WebMD and the oh lets says 7 or 8 doctor friends i have(NYU grads like me wink wink)


You choose to keep your extra skin more power to you. I was just answering Chuy2010. Trust me i probably know more about this subject than any person on this thread because

1. I have the TRUE view from both sides (cut and uncut)

2. I took over 6 years to research this decision...


i didn't just walk in the doc's office one day and say "hey cut off this extra skin please" lol

RedSoxFever33 saidNot participating to feel better about my decision XRuggerATX. That decision was totally mine because of the health issues it was causing me. Honestly I dont need anyone's validation because it is in fact my own penis. Hey you're UC more power to you. Im simply stating what i have learned from my doc, WebMD and the oh lets says 7 or 8 doctor friends i have(NYU grads like me wink wink)


You choose to keep your extra skin more power to you. I was just answering Chuy2010. Trust me i probably know more about this subject than any person on this thread because

1. I have the TRUE view from both sides (cut and uncut)

2. I took over 6 years to research this decision...


i didn't just walk in the doc's office one day and say "hey cut off this extra skin please" lol

Fair enough. But back off on the dickcheese and smelly talk will ya? Some of us clean guys might wanna get laid for chrissakes! ;-)

LOL true! Sorry XRuggerATX (hug and kiss)

Googling "circumcision reduces STDs" will net you a vast swath of news articles detailing how, all other things considered equal, being circumcised reduced susceptibility to STDs (primarily HIV, but several other prominent ones were mentioned also). Among those articles they will point to a few common reputably performed studies -- including one that was conducted over a 25 year span among several hundred new zealand boys growing up. So the data is there for reduced STD susceptibility but it is still not completely airtight in why that is. Some theories have been advanced all pointing to certain lymph-associated cells on the foreskin allowing sexually transmitted viruses an easier route to their target nerve cells and so forth.

Nonetheless, while being circumcised may reduce the chances of acquiring an STD by no means should it be a dependable method of protection. The safest route while engaging in sex would be to use a condom and so long as true safe sex is practiced there really isn't much concern whether or not a guy is circumcised or uncircumcised.

I'm not so much concerned about STD risk as controlling my urge to inflate the loose foreskin on a flacid penis and try to make balloon animals out of it.

RedSoxFever33 saidfirst 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

Three words: SOAP AND WATER! Man, why is it Americans are so willing to lop bits off of penises because they're too bloody lazy to take the time to clean????

Xanadude,

In an effort to, hopefully, stop a flame war from happening. RedsoxFever33 has expounded his answer. Please scroll up to find his expanded answer to your question.

Just to reiterate what others have stated.
Don't focus on cut/uncut when determining risk for catching an STD - you might just regret it.
Be more concerned about the guys sexual practices.

[quote][cite]xanadude said


Three words: SOAP AND WATER! Man, why is it Americans are so willing to lop bits off of penises because they're too bloody lazy to take the time to clean????[/quote]

I've got to agree with you there. If it were the case that we should cut off things to keep them clean, there would be many other parts of the body to chop off too. Guys should just keep themselves clean, and I'm more worried about the individual. If it were the case that all uncut guys were going to get major infections, etc., Europe would be rampant with them, and it's not.

I'm cut (unfortunately) and really wish I weren't. Of course, nobody gave me the choice about it. If you think about it, why would you rob the part of your body that has the most stimulus during sex, and as most guys are concerned about how big their dicks are, why would you want to cut it?

My biggest problem with it is that you should be able to choose what happens with your body, and to subject it to a newborn that doesn't have a choice about it violate so many of my ethics.

matt45710 said[quote][cite]xanadude said[/cite]


Three words: SOAP AND WATER! Man, why is it Americans are so willing to lop bits off of penises because they're too bloody lazy to take the time to clean????

I'm cut (unfortunately) and really wish I weren't. Of course, nobody gave me the choice about it. If you think about it, why would you rob the part of your body that has the most stimulus during sex, and as most guys are concerned about how big their dicks are, why would you want to cut it?[/quote]

how do you know it has the most stimulus? you are cut so you wouldn't really know the difference.

also, size has nothing to do with it. getting the skin cut doesn't affect the size of your penis.

[quote][cite]txguy1605 said
how do you know it has the most stimulus? you are cut so you wouldn't really know the difference.

also, size has nothing to do with it. getting the skin cut doesn't affect the size of your penis.[/quote]

Well, I course I can't know exactly, but I do know that if you cut off a whole bunch of nerve sensors, you have less than you would have had.

I do know that many men (like me) that are cut very tightly are at the limit of how big we can be hard. If we had more skin, we might be a bit larger.

mickeytopogigio saidBusted.

You're my hero, Mickey.... ROFL!!!!

Once I ran out of Q-Tips and my ears got kind of dirty. I was beginning to fear I'd get an infection on one side. So I told myself "this will never happen again" and cut off my ear.

(then I sent it to Steve Sandvoss)

The bottom line is that it is MUTILATION originally conceived by early religious fanatics to prevent men from having as easy a time masturbating and fucking. The foreskin is partially present to give your dick something in which to thrust back and forth, minimizing dry friction around contact points and maximizing the "wet" friction between the inside of the vagina (or rectum for us) and the glans, which is SUPPOSED TO BE WET and is on an uncut guy. We weren't created with bottles of gun oil and ID glide in mind, and even straight cut guys have to resort to that stuff, too.

Condoms aside, that's a whole different story, but we're not supposed to NEED lube to have sex. It wasn't Adam and Eve and a quart pump of Wet in the garden of Eden.

No children of mine will ever be mutilated in the name of hygiene or any false god.

XRuggerATX saidOnce I ran out of Q-Tips and my ears got kind of dirty. I was beginning to fear I'd get an infection on one side. So I told myself "this will never happen again" and cut off my ear.

(then I sent it to Steve Sandvoss)

OMG, you're my hero now. Sorry Mickey *hehehe*

Thankfully I wasen't born in the US so I'm uncut and LOVE IT! The only thing I smell like is a swimming pool.

Recent data demonstrates....



Don't be a HOOCHIE HO and you'll be fine.

If I remember the research correctly it had something to do with a cell specific to the foreskin that acted as a receptor to the HIV virus. The research was mainly pointed at african heterosexual men...
WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM! You worry less!
I personally think foreskin is hot.
I've never had a bad experience with it.
Maybe I just got lucky.
None the less.. I still think It's hot!

News report on Bloomberg.com. today. African men are lining up at circumcision clinics to get snipped. Hoping it will cut their risk of getting HIV I guess.

Quote I ran across today reading the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (one of the apocrypha that the church rejected as not part of the KJV bible)


Verse 53: His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?"

He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."

So its possible that even Jesus thought it was wrong. IF WE WERE SUPPOSED TO NOT HAVE FORESKIN, WE'D HAVE BEEN BORN THAT WAY.

End of discussion *lol*

RedSoxFever33 saidExactly.... 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

Yeah but you have to keep that in perspective. I mean really, the mouth is a breeding ground for bacteria, possible decay, and can smell, but I doubt people are going to stop kissing or having oral sex because of it. It just like anything else, you have to keep up proper hygiene. It sounds scary to say it's a breeding ground, but what about the rectum, fingernails, body/head hair, feet, or crotch area in general?! People still have sex and touch each other anyway - again, proper hygiene.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have been circumcised, if you had a problem and that fixed it fine, but it shouldn't be forced onto people or done without consent of the individual first or with scare tactics.


I think it's fine if a guy wants to get circumcised when they are of age to consent for it but I think it is a complete violation of human rights and is abuse to do it against a person's will or when they aren't able to give consent - like with newborn males or children.

Non-therapeutic circumcision on male infants and children should be outlawed and considered an abuse the same way it is treated regarding females.

RedSoxFever33 saidfirst 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

Well, at least you had the choice... many Americans did not have that choice.

I work in a microbiology lab (lab tech here). It amazing to hear of people saying "it is a breeding ground for germs and bacteria!" Like other posters have said, so is the rectum and the mouth and your skin, etc.

Bacteria are everywhere except in the brain, CSF, blood, and other places in your body. The only way to acquire a bacterial infection is to be immunocompromised (read: AIDS, mononucleosis, diabetes, elderly, newborns, antibiotic or chemo-therapy) or really poor hygiene.

Many people here so many horror stories about deadly bacterial, fungal/yeast or viral infections and then demand the most hardline treatment available for those issues. This is stupid and very dangerous.

If your doctor says the irritation is a yeast infection under your foreskin, then you really need to clean better under your skin. It is just like getting "mudbutt" but the other side. You can't expect your butt to wipe itself with a wet cloth. So, too, is your foreskin. After your foreskin is done growing (post-infancy), you need to retract it and rinse it with water and maybe a little non-drying soap.

Once that is done, you can always try some probiotics to help heal the skin. Probiotics are bacterial cultures (usually in food) that have the same effect as normal flora in your gut, skin, etc. Normal flora is another name for the bacteria, yeast, etc. that reside on your skin and help defend against pathogenic (harmful) strains of organisms.

Another way an infection can possibly erupt under your foreskin is by dryness. It's related to the dryness inflicted on members of the opposite sex by a brand of feminine products. It can cause a disease called toxic shock syndrome. Basically, the skin drys out so much that it kills the good bacteria and allows the DREADED Staphyllococcus aureus to overtake everything and cause very dangerous conditions for the victim.

But it is a barbaric medical procedure, that needs to be stopped at all costs, as well it mutilation to a young child's penis.

Sign you petition, to have this medieval, and barbaric medical procedure baned world wide.

It's the least we can do, for the children of tomorrow.

I was uncut for many years . I later went and became cut and i like it much better , I am cleaner, i do not have an oder caused by sweat. A condom fits better and feels better .(" all for it")

This topic has come up before and will probably come up again.

Circumcision, in most but not all instances, is a cultural matter -- and has been for thousands of years. That said it can have medical benefits, and in heterosexual African males, without any other protective measures, it probably does provide some protection against HIV -- the studies, and there was more than one, though not conclusive, were well done and cannot be dismissed out of hand. This doersn't mean that anyone, even Africans should run out and get circumcized, there are risks involved, and other means of protecting oneself are available. But circumcizion has been practiced in parts of Africa for thousands of years, and is still practiced more often in the traditional members of society, and not those who access Western healthcare, and as such could benefit certain demographics within Africa.

The benefit is also not a hygiene issue, and probably related to the susceptibilty of the cells that comprise the foreskin, but this is not known for sure. Yes, some individuals do benefit from circumcision from a hygiene or infectious stand point, but that is not the case in this instance -- there are other reasons to remove the foreskin as well.

Anyway, you really can't extrapolate from these studies to homosexual North Americans, or other 'Western' nations for that matter. Feel how you want about circumcision, and most people respond for or against purely on emotion, but it may have benefits, and troubles, completely separate and unintended from why we have practiced circumcision in the first place.

America (and I am American) is a nation of sexually handicapped guys - so many of us are cut as soon as we're born and we can't experience sex the way it is supposed to be experienced.

The difference between how an uncut guy experiences sex compared to a cut guy is amazing.

The heads of our cut cocks become completely calloused, dried out and cracked by the time we reach our 30s and 40s that we feel practically nothing by this time in our lives (which is why so many cut guys become bottoms as they age). We need all sorts of lube and stimulating lotions, we can barely feel anything when having sex with a condom on our cut cocks... yeah, being cut is sooooo much better than being uncut.

For the supposed "leading nation of the world" I'm shocked that we as a people are so stupid and continue this ridiculous practice.

Oh, and for those of you who were uncut and got cut as adults, take into account that it takes 30 to 40 years before your cock completely dries out to the point that it's basically useless for sex....

Wrerick is correct - I looked at some of those studies when they came out. (hopeful thinking, of course.) Among several large samples of African men, HIV infection was less among circumcised men. Everything that followed in the press was mostly speculation.

The big problem is that circumcision is mostly related to tribal affiliation, so the cause-and-effect relationship is really weak. It's an indirect way of saying that members of certain tribes had less HIV infection. Any number of factors, from genetics to local behaviors could be the true cause of the difference.

Based on that, of course a number of other manipulative studies were started, but it will be years before they yield good results. It seems like a huge leap of faith to start recommending wholesale circumcision based on those correlative data. I guess they're thinking, "Well, it couldn't hurt, and who knows? Maybe there's a benefit."

Although the information relating to the topic is controversial, I think the "studies" originated from the World Health Organization.

This discussion becomes irrelevant if men practice safe sex. Safe sex requires a condom. Whether a man has a foreskin or not is no longer an issue when a condom is worn.

A foreskin is only a factor if a condom isn't worn. There is no good reason for not wearing a condom with casual sex partners. Unprotected sex can result in HIV infection with or without a foreskin.

That a circumcised penis reduces the risk isn't so much important as that it doesn't PREVENT the risk, of becoming infected. Or more importantly, of passing the infection to another person.

I find this research interesting, but of no value to the topic of the need to practice safe sex between men.

Durring an errection the foreskin pulls back anyways... At least on my little man it does so theres nothing that gets in the way. Thou some guys have unretractable foreskin and i'm not really up on what thats all about so I wont comment. (Wikipedia time)

Like its been mentioned before the answer is hygene.

If you wear a condom uncut vs cut makes no difference.

During my pediatrics rotations all of the attending physicians recommended against circumcision as there is no significant data to support it from a health perspective. It should be considered for cosmetic reasons only. Then again....if most parents actually saw the procedure/device that most of the barely trained residents use they might think twice. If I had a kid and were going to have it done I would at least have a urologist do the procedure who has lots of experience working in that area.

Of course wearing a condom makes sense, but the studies that have been referred to here, were not about wearing condoms, but others forms of protection that may exist, and don't have consideration to what goes on in other places.

MindgardenThe big problem is that circumcision is mostly related to tribal affiliation, so the cause-and-effect relationship is really weak. It's an indirect way of saying that members of certain tribes had less HIV infection. Any number of factors, from genetics to local behaviors could be the true cause of the difference.

There are problems with the studies, but tribal affiliation is not one of them. First is the definition of tribal affiliation which is often a Western overaly that may or may not have any basis in the ethnic, cultural, racial and linguistic connections or differences that may actually exist. In other words tribal affiliation in this context is not necessarily what we think it is, if it ever is.

Also the studies were conducted in disparate parts of Africa, and still had essentially the same outcome. This would be like saying that the studies had had the same affect in say both Spain and Sweden, and in different parts of Africa things are as equally different, if not more so than those mentioned. Africa is hardly homogenous.

Also not all members of a certain ethnic group necessarily practice circumsicion -- not not all people here in North America practice circumcision. It is the same in Africa. It is often a tradition in some groups, but not all, for many reasons, engage in those traditions, so you can make comparisons with within similar ethnic groups. The studies did take these issues into account, whether they did that effectively is another matter, but that issue wasn't ignored, as would be in any well done study.

What has come up since, and was always an issue, but not something addressed in those studies was how the circumcision was performed. In many cases the circumcision is not performed in carefully or cleanly, whether it be done traditionally or in more 'modern/Western' facilities in the countries. And that the risk of performing the circumcision may be greater than the benefits of performing it in the first place.

Again, there would appear to be benefits to cirucumcised, heterosexual, African males that un-circumcised ones do not have, but that doesn't mean they or anyone else should necessarily have the procedure done.

Sean_85 saidDurring an errection the foreskin pulls back anyways... At least on my little man it does

I can't believe that anything would be little on you mate

But, uncircumcised here, I'm one of the lucky few whos skin doesn't pull back when I'm erect, so, I just have to pull it back and hey ho, Its all good. But not every guy is like that, some are actually incapable of pulling it back at all and in some extreme cases they are circumcised but only if they ave sexual problems or they can't pull the skin back when there flaccid to clean the area.

I don't know about anyone else whos uncut, but I've NEVER had anything like *cough* "cheese" *cough* and I've only ever gotten an odder while out camping for a week without a proper shower around and I've spent the days runnign around getting sweaty and dirty and even then, I can tell you, cut or uncut, we all stunk..

rhino81 saidThe bottom line is that it is MUTILATION originally conceived by early religious fanatics to prevent men from having as easy a time masturbating and fucking. The foreskin is partially present to give your dick something in which to thrust back and forth, minimizing dry friction around contact points and maximizing the "wet" friction between the inside of the vagina (or rectum for us) and the glans, which is SUPPOSED TO BE WET and is on an uncut guy. We weren't created with bottles of gun oil and ID glide in mind, and even straight cut guys have to resort to that stuff, too.

Condoms aside, that's a whole different story, but we're not supposed to NEED lube to have sex. It wasn't Adam and Eve and a quart pump of Wet in the garden of Eden.

No children of mine will ever be mutilated in the name of hygiene or any false god.

Amen Rhino, Amen.

Uhm, nobody answered the question. Here you go: Being cut has no benefit for fighting STDs for gays in the first world.

Circumcision fails to protect gay men
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14894-circumcision-fails-to-protect-gay-men-.html

New Study Shows Condoms 95 Times More Cost-Effective than Circumcision in HIV Battle
http://www.icgi.org/2008/10/new-study-shows-condoms-95-times-more-cost-effective-than-circumcision-in-hiv-battle-2/

It looks like the 3 large African trials were conducted in carefully chosen places by long-time circumcision justifiers. In Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania, it is the CUT who have markedly higher HIV incidence. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.

This whole notion that Langerhans cells in the foreskin attract HIV is not at all even a scientific conclusion of the studies. It was merely proposed by the authors as a possible explanation for the unbelievable findings. What the authors did say is that their result only applies to the penetrating partner. In fact the men they cut were MORE likely to infect their wives.

Foreskin feels REALLY good.

http://Circumstitions.com/hiv
http://www.gaynewswatch.com/Page.cfm?PageID=2&STID=205

Cheers,
-Ron