Actually, there are several studies documenting this to be the case. Sorry to have to agree but its true. There is a higher rate of HIV transmission among uncircumsized male (and our favorite females). Studies have shown a 2 fold increased risk in transmission, and some studies have shown as high as an 8 fold increased risk.
OK as risk of being unpopular (although I am using an alias) I feel I should start this thread. I have always had a preference for cut T-girls. I always try and find a nude picture to review and if I cant find one then I just ask, tactfully of course. As you may imagine some providers get upset and have called me everything accept a child of God for asking this question, but I like what I like. After all there are several girls who wont see Blacks, overweight men etc. So I feel justified in asking. Now I find that there is greater risk of transmitting / contracting the Virus if you are uncircumcised. Given this I will continue to stay away from uncurcumcised girls. There are several articles on this I would invite folks to review. If google "Uncumcised and AIDs" a sundry of articles will come up. For the record I get tested regularly and practice safe anal sex and for the most part safe oral sex. If there is one Girl who was considering this rather safe and mundane practice of circumcision and this post helps convince them that it can reduce by 8 times their potential of contracting HIV then I feel justified in making the post. My intent is not to denegrate anyone just provide information. Best wishes.
.. I'm not convinced.
Actually, there are several studies documenting this to be the case. Sorry to have to agree but its true. There is a higher rate of HIV transmission among uncircumsized male (and our favorite females). Studies have shown a 2 fold increased risk in transmission, and some studies have shown as high as an 8 fold increased risk.
Such as sanitation, dietary/cooking habits, and personal hygiene of the particular village or township that the scientists are studying. The second page of the linked study points to these considerations, and also to the fact that the study was quite inconclusive.
It stands to reason that the tribe or village that has resisted acquiescence to modern medical practices (outside of the Jewish faith, circumcision would fall under this catergory)could also be less advanced technologically as to sanitation, acquirement of food and preparation, and personal hygiene norms - as well as modern medicine and its usages.
Until these are factored into the study, I'll remain unconvinced that having a few layers of extra flesh will make one more susceptible to disease. It could even be argued that these extra layers serve as an extra defense from disease. I don't buy the "more susceptible to scratching and tearing" argument, as my circumcized member is far more tight and taut, and thus more susceptible to cuts than a sturdier and intact foreskin.
There have been multiple studies and not just in Africa and not just by one or two organizations. The data is the data, I would be hesitant to just call this elitist.
... now are you going to attempt to argue that cultural elitists don't exist in the Western world? Who may very well want to subdue a culture to a lifetime of wage slavery and a McD's on every street corner in Ghana? Who want to destroy every ounce of culture and tradition that remains in the non-Western world?
I think not.
Who me? Certainly not, I would hope that Doctors/scientist - for the most part would be above that sort of thinking. Secondly there are other studies conducted outside of Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, etc. But I would like to see more studies conducted. If we could slow down and/or eliminate this terrible virus, I am willing to explore all options.
There have been studies for years about this subject...even in Germany, and you know how they feel about it. It isn't just HIV. There is a higher incidence rate with other STD's also. Elitist? What about these studies is elitist?