Circumcised men and STD

I am uncut-[and thank my parents everyday] keep it clean and do not think there is any relationship between STDs -just always play safe either way

It has been proven that uncircumcised men helps spread std's - Check out the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and see all the efforts that are being made in Africa to have men circumcised

I'm circumcised but sometimes wish that I wasn't. I've just heard good things about the sensations of the glans still staying moist all the time.

[quote author=poisonwither link=topic=4120.msg440853#msg440853 date=1336343822]

I've just heard good things about the sensations of the glans still staying moist all the time.

[/quote]Yes, masturbation pulling up and down my forsekin gives me very good sensations.

I cannot say what sensations I could have if I would be circumcised.

It would be interesting to have many aswers from guys circumcised at adult age, who can compare before and after.

I was circumcised as a baby. I've noticed that uncircumcised men can masturbate more easily than I can. I have to use a lube, as otherwise the friction is uncomfortable. My partner likes my penis as it is and I agree that there seems to be a lot of evidence that circumcision does help reduce the transmission of STDs, including HPV.

@pyewacket - Thanks for answering the masturbation question I had. As an uncircumcised man, I find getting hand jobs with my foreskin retracted uncomfortable. I just assumed circumcised males weren't as sensitive.

As for the studies - I have learned from being in the medical field, you will find vast differences based on who is sponsoring said study. I'm not saying either fact is right or wrong, but I feel to get accurate numbers, a study has to be double blind and/or have a control and you just can't do that with a situation like this.

I have posted on this topic before. I did retract my foreskin and left it that way for 30 years. I did it because I figured that a numb glans would make me last longer during intercourse. When my grandsons were born my daughter would not let then cut her boys. I decided that I would return my foreskin to it's proper place. After a couple months the glans color returned to purple and some if the sensitivity returned but not all. There are sensations during intercourse that a circumcised man will never experience and I did last longer. I read that a woman wondered how you clean under the foreskin. Well when you retract the foreskin all the way what was the tip is now half way down the shaft. During masterbation you slide the foreskin off the glans then return it never touching the glans. Sometimes a little spit keeps the glans moist and sensitive.

Many medical reports evidently suggest that circumcision prevents or significantly reduces the chance of many potentially dangerous medical conditions: hiv/aids, hpv, penile head cancer, phymosis, balanitis, and various uti infections.

although, since no usual "sliding" motion of foreskin is possible after circumcision, many circumcised men use oil or lubricants to masturbate.

Circumsion, for other that religious purposes, was started in England by Queen Victoria.

_______________________________

You´re probably thinking of her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. He died in the 1860´s but before that he had a somewhat exaggerated obsession with the condition of his genitals, mainly I think with the hygienic aspect but probably with other aspects like masturbation as well. He is also said to have worn a Prince Albert Wand (hence the name) which is a hollow metal tube inserted into the urethra ... nowadays it is done as a sort of sexual stimulation gadget, back then it was considered something more of a punishment/control device and a method of imposing hygiene ... or maybe not either, it´s hard to tell about sexual motivation. Maybe he just liked the sensation, as many do nowadays, but thought to muddle things by claiming non sexual reasons for wearing it. Who knows ... in any case, as a Royal, many parts of your daily life are not considered private ... what a life ...

But on Queen Victoria starting the practice in Great Britain - know that long prior to that, when trade with India began to become very important in the 18th century and the East India Company was an important financial and political factor to be reckoned with, officers who were sent East to deal with foreign princes and potentates were required to be circumcised, because quite often back in those un-enlightened times, many Indian rulers of the Muslim faith, refused to have any dealings with un-circumcised infidels, those being considered impure, defiled, unclean or whatever ... so, since profits trumped a bit of foreskin any day, it became standard practice to circumcise those in the employ of the East India Company - from where the practice spread to other upper regions of British society ... add to that the spiteful satisfaction to be had from imposing upon the young a practice that was wrongfully thought to prevent masturbation and you have an almost irresistible urge on the part of some to see the spread of the practice.

Found this to be an interesting article today on Yahoo, basically supports my point of view on the matter.

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/ap/circumcision-pluses-outweigh-risks-pediatricians

Let me know if the link doesn't work. Thanks

Mashie

How on earth would you masturbate being cut? Lots of lube?>?

Fact is no level of evidence will ever convince the anti-circumcision zealots that this procedure is valid in reducing incidences of STDs. These people have succeeded in quashing a very important report regarding circumcision and HIV/aids because it did not agree with their pre-determined viewpoint.

They also quashed the only valid scientific study of sensitivity of uncircumcised versus circumcised penises. This was conducted several years ago at Duke University. It found absolutely no difference in sensitivity.

Speed

A karmic bump for you speed, 29>30.

Mashie

Statistically speaking I think it's probably true. But statistics apply to populations in general and not to individuals as I can confirm. I am circumcised and have contracted an STD twice since I didn't use condoms. So any way you slice it, so to speak, it's your individual behavior that is the major determining factor.

The statistics show a less chance to catch certain STDs. But the chance is still there...

Recall that the AIDS epidemic flourished in San Francisco at a time when almost all Americans were circumcised!

The fact that HIV broke out in the US among largely circumcised men is meaningless. In Africa, the disease is prevalent among uncircumcised populations. I don't think most of the studies differentiate between socioeconomic groups. It wouldn't be politically correct to study just poor folk.

Jds4med: And the studies pointing to preventive circumcision for STDs are meant for Africa, where condom use is rare, sanitation poor etc. I don't know whether that carries over to developed countries.

jds4med: And the studies pointing to preventive circumcision for STDs are meant for Africa, where condom use is rare, sanitation poor etc. I don't know whether that carries over to developed countries.

Exactly my point. With lower sanitary standards, there's an increased risk of skin eruptions due to various benign issues. Broken skin is a known pathway for HIV. In a first world country, where education and sanitary conditions are much better.....

Before refrigeration, when trichinosis was more common, wouldn't you say that circumcision prevents this food borne disease? After all, circumcised people don't get the disease - oh, they don't eat pork? Not an issue - it's circumcision.

I've also continually read that convincing men in Africa that circumcision will give a greater degree of prevention against STDs or HIV is something of a self defeating exercise in futility. If one believes that circumcision provides extra protection, then the inducement to change sexual behavior is diminished. In other words, it's not really helping the people targeted because it induces false expectations of protection.

I moreover have the feeling that many of the large scale circumcision campaigns in Africa are more of a way to get grants and subsidies into the hands of the less scrupulous kind of doctor, the kind who are in it for the money. On another circumcision forum, we were once graced with the membership of such a doctor, who proudly presented his 'new' type of circumcision device, which he enthusiastically claimed brought in even more revenue for him personally as it eliminated the need to pay for patented devices and that the programs that used his devices, would bring in royalty money for him as well. He was so intolerably smug and cocky (pardon the pun) about finding a way to make some serious money out of circumcising. A well motivated and caring person for sure. 😢

And then there are the religiously inspired circumcision campaigns as well, probably using the reasoning that circumcision can be a first step towards conversion.

For me, personally, as someone who has access to, and follows, good hygiene practices (i.e. I wash with soap and water under my foreskin daily), and who doesn't practice high risk sex I can say the benefits of being uncircumcised in terms of sensation almost certainly outweigh any additional risks for me (as most, if not all, of the increased risks are associated with either poor hygiene or unprotected sex).

I'm not talking about sensitivity of the glans, I'm talking about the sensation of the foreskin sliding over the glans, and the very pleasurable sensations of touching/massaging the foreskin itself (especially when retracted), both of which would certainly be absent in circumcised individuals.

The foreskin is the analogous structure to the labia minora, and they develop from the same fetal structures, with similar levels of innervation, so the sensations from the foreskin are probably pretty comparable to the labia, if any women reading this are interested in a comparison (obviously this is impossible to prove).

I've frequently said that when evaluating circumcision studies you need to follow the money

From my knowledge this has been proven in many studies particularly for HIV. However it is a reduced risk not totally avoiding the risk, for total avoidance no sex is the answer but let's be realistic people don't do that so use condoms! Regardless of the studies that what I would trust in not the presence or absence of a foreskin!