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 31, 2008 10:56 PM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2008 4:17 AM GMT
    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!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2008 2:33 PM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2008 7:44 PM GMT
    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*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2008 7:55 PM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2008 9:06 PM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2008 9:24 PM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2008 9:31 PM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2008 7:00 AM GMT
    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"icon_razz.gif)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2008 7:55 AM GMT
    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.

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

    Sep 29, 2008 1:18 AM GMT
    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."
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9528

    Sep 29, 2008 1:37 AM GMT
    Although the information relating to the topic is controversial, I think the "studies" originated from the World Health Organization.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 2:09 AM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 2:17 AM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 2:18 AM GMT
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 3:02 AM GMT
    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.


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

    Sep 29, 2008 6:54 AM GMT
    Sean_85 saidDurring an errection the foreskin pulls back anyways... At least on my little man it does icon_redface.gif


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

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

    Sep 29, 2008 7:24 AM GMT
    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. icon_wink.gif

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




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

    Nov 01, 2008 8:02 PM GMT
    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
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2009 9:10 AM GMT
    Two things in these discussions just amaze me:

    1. Uncut dicks are dirty.
    False. It does not matter how hot and sweaty a guy gets, washing one's private parts actually gets rid of bacteria, sweat, and smegma.
    Any urologist who counsels a patient that foreskin is unhealthy is a very strange urologist. Tonsils get infected, but doctors don't remove tonsils at birth. They don't cut out the appendix at birth. And the appendix serves almost no purpose, if any at all. But the foreskin that provides natural protection to a sensitive organ is removed because it is "unhealthy." That is a bad statement. Any doctor who thinks foreskin is a problem is a victim of the stupid culture. This urologist probably thinks masturbation causes hair to grow on your palms, too.

    2. Uncut dicks transmit STDs more often.

    Why??? If you use a rubber, also known as a condom, it will prevent, most likely, the transmission of such diseases. Uncut or cut penises get infected or give away infections when they are first, infected, and second, uncovered by a condom. So, use a condom, know your partners, wash, get tested, and you will not likely contract an STD. There is nothing about an uncut penis that magically attracts and gives out diseases.

    And by the way, it's not a religious requirement either. Only Orthodox Jews, and possibly Conservative Jews, insist on circumcision as a religious necessity. And guess what, in America, religion takes a back seat to individual human rights, or at least that's supposed to be the situation. If adults want to be cut, fine. But don't force your beliefs on children who can't say yes or no.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2009 2:44 AM GMT
    Anyone know what a frilly-dilly is? It is being circumcised with pinking shears. Ouch! I've had a couple of dates that looked like they had frilly-dillies. I'm uncut and have been told many times that I have a beautiful cock. I have the best of both worlds, I look like I am circumcised but I'm not - still the skin is there for comfort and feeling. I fully believe that uncut guys have more feeling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2009 3:22 AM GMT
    TattooJock 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


    Been uncut a lot longer then TJ was even alive and haven't had "cheese" down there since my preteens!! When I first started masturbating and was able to retract the foreskin. It's called showering and washing daily and retracting the foreskin to clean the entire penis. Never had a problem or issue with cleanliness or offensive smell since. As far as your urologist's comments, was his suggestion to cut it or clean it? If the former, I 'd find another one, as unless there are on going health issues, it's no longer even recommended to circumcise new borns. It's now just a matter of preference and custom. How much was his fee to do the procedure?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2009 3:36 AM GMT
    acrojock10 saidIf 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!


    Your correct. It was the number of receptors that r in the inside of the foreskin that was the issue for HIV contamination in the African study and recommendation. Thought was, the less receptors, the less likely a chance of HIV comtamination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2009 3:40 AM GMT
    Chuy2010 saidI 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


    The data is everywhere, and resultant of numerous studies.

    Start with The Centers For Disease Control.

    (Figures, another picture-less. This is like abortion, but with nuts of another orgin.).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2009 9:35 PM GMT
    Cut or not, wear a condom. Problem solved.

    The studies are so skewed based on the demographic that is being studied, and then the results are deemed "truth" and "advice" to the entire world.

    Our hands are far more filthy than our dicks, yet we don't cut them off - we keep them clean. Do the same for your dick, and you're good, whether you're cut or not.

    Hygiene and condoms, people. Simple as pie.