Thats not what he meant. The fact that the hygiene has an impact on the risk of transmission doesnt mean stds can be "washed away" it just means the risk percentage gets higer if poor hygiene
See attached image bellow:
Hygiene
- Thread starter labqi
- Start date
See attached image bellow:
You are wrong! Circumcised men have 60% less chances of contracting STI/HIV because they don't have their foreskin anymore which contains cells that are very vulnerable to bacterias/viruses.
As a young buck, I used to dive into daty head first. Most of the time, no problem.
A couple times things went horribly wrong. Strange lube taste all over my tongue, I assume from a previous encounter. Bits of toilet paper on my tongue. Strong Urine taste/ smell.
I take a more cautious approach now.
A couple times things went horribly wrong. Strange lube taste all over my tongue, I assume from a previous encounter. Bits of toilet paper on my tongue. Strong Urine taste/ smell.
I take a more cautious approach now.
Male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection by approximately 60%, according to multiple randomized controlled trials conducted in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. This protective effect has been consistently observed in high-prevalence regions of sub-Saharan Africa and led the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS to recommend voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) as a key component of comprehensive HIV prevention strategies in 2007.
Evidence Base: Three "gold standard" efficacy trials showed a 50–60% reduction in HIV incidence among circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men.
Mechanism: The foreskin contains immune cells and a moist environment that may facilitate HIV transmission. Removing it reduces susceptibility by decreasing the surface area vulnerable to infection and disrupting potential viral reservoirs.
This is a good reason why a lot of girls are refusing to meet uncircumcised men
but according to @Julia Sky the foreskin has nothing to do with STI/HIV and i'm spreading misinformation
Last edited:
Common knowledge; a delicate closed skin fold with accumulating secretions and urine is way more subject to skin infections/ lesions
Not sure this is true, but your stat is valid for HIV only (not all STI are created equal) AND we all use condoms for penetrarion in this business (rrrright??). So where does that leave us?
It is not misinformation; it is a proven fact. It seems like you read similar studies and clinical trials as I did.
I remember reading about it in medical journals in the late 1980s when HIV/Aids was prevalent, and those who were positive were treated as lepers in society. People refused to be in the same room with those who were HIV positive.
It was of interest to me, as I lost a close personal friend to AIDS during this era, when it was a death sentence to be HIV positive, and life was very short for those who were.
There are numerous medical benefits to being circumcised, including hygiene.
I have a background in healthcare (not a nurse) and I'm going to politely back out of this thread.
DM me if you feel the same.
DM me if you feel the same.
so in the end, yes, uncircumcised men do carry more risk of getting/spreading STIs/HIV even with good hygiene @Julia Sky
Stigmatization of uncircumcised men is not something I expected to see this year! (Basically the way we're born (!)) I've said that many have never been taught to clean under the foreskin, but I am sure that many do, too. (I sure do!)
Are you a tolerant "god"? @god101
