When people say uncircumsized men have more chances catching STD do they mean if that person has STD? or doesnt have STD???
Please help!
2006-12-27 22:04:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Men's Health
It rolls back during sex anyway, so I would say that the chances were equal
2006-12-27 22:06:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The infection rate should be exactly the same for circumsized and uncircumsized men. Catching an STD is dependent upon coming in contact with an STD, and that has an equal chance of happenning to either group.
Uncircumsized men have higher incidence of cleanliness-related issues, as smegma can accumulate under the foreskin and cause infection if not properly cleaned regularly.
2006-12-28 06:13:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They mean that the uncircumcised person who doesn't have an STD will have a higher chance of getting an STD from someone who does. There is research supporting both sides of this argument, and for now, that statement should be taken with a grain of salt. As long as one maintains safe sex practices and proper hygiene, this shouldn't even be an issue.
2006-12-28 11:05:59 · answer #3 · answered by trebla_5 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Circumcision is a first line of defense against many infections that can begin with ease under the foreskin, when the glans is not kept clean. Two or three washings a day with a mild soap and warm water is necessary for the uncut. Circumcision provides much easier hygiene. Circumcised men have a lower incidence of STD's as well as HIV transmitted from a female partner during intercourse. A 50% decrease for the circumcised male.
Anal intercourse, however, carries with it a high rate of infection because of bleeding from broken capillaries in the rectal region. Circumcision or uncircumcision provide no protection there if one partner carries HIV.
These findings are scientific and not a set of myths. Condoms are necessary as a nearly foolproof preventative whether circumcised or not.
Other myths are: 1. Doctors want to get rich by doing circumcisions.(Rich on minor surgery?) 2. Circumcision is a mutilation. (Look up the word in a good dictionary.)
3. Circumcision ruins the sex life. (The opposite is true. Full penile sensation is a result.) 4. The foreskin is the most important part of the sensitivity of the penis because of its mass of nerve endings. (Those endings from the same nerves are in the shaft. With circumcision they are activated. Hence full penile sensation from shaft to glans to frenulum. So it is better if the frenulum is not excised along with the foreskin.) Etc.
2006-12-28 09:57:14 · answer #4 · answered by teiddarhpsyth 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The chances are equal. They are saying that if he doesn't have a STD and has sex with an infected person his chances of getting it are higher if he is uncircumcised. Circumcision is just a way Dr's. make more money and is totally unnecessary.
2006-12-28 06:10:10 · answer #5 · answered by Fruit Cake Lady 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the person does have an std.
2006-12-28 06:14:04 · answer #6 · answered by micg 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YOU CANNOT SPONTANEOUSLY CONTRACT AN STD. The studies are dealing with uninfected partners who have sex with INFECTED partners.
If you have unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who doesn't have an STD, you have a ZERO CHANCE of contracting an STD.
Knowingly having sexual intercourse with someone who has an STD is stupid, whether you're circumsized or not.
2006-12-28 06:13:28 · answer #7 · answered by surfinthedesert 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that has a think to do with the risk factor
2006-12-28 07:44:31 · answer #8 · answered by Mark 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only if you don't clean it.
2006-12-28 06:07:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋