@consa01: They do make "larger sized" condoms, ya know, however. A "warm and moist" environment 'can' be a breeding ground for bacteria. Although, it does take bodily fluids to contract STD's...via blood and semen (mostly).

@Phire1: There is research that concludes that circumcised men have erections that average a bit less tan those of intact men. The hypothetical mechanism is that the foreskin supplies the extra skin needed to accommodate erection. More skin translated to more erection. I cannot say more, because the only erect penis I have ever seen is my own...
Condom size is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. Anticircumcision activists argue that the foreskin and frenulum are very sensitive in their own right, and are removed by circumcision. Furthermore, circumcision permanently exposed the glans, which gradually toughens, dries out and loses sensitivity. Most circumcised men are OK sexually in their 20s and 30s, and some are OK longer than that. But I wonder if condoms move many/most circumcised men from acceptable sex to boring sex. If this is the case, this could help explain how the USA has high incidences of adult circumcised penises AND STDs.

@Mordimoux: Thank you for the link. I haven't read it yet but will. I think that there is no way for human fluid to not get past a foreskin in order to impregnate or spread STD. I think this is rubbish that some religious folks propagate.

*moot

@Mordimoux: HIV is a serious problem is one first world nation. That nation is... the USA, the Empire of the Gentile Bald Penis ;)

@Mordimoux: The African clinical trials are not relevant to the North Atlantic nations. There is only one African nation, where intact men have a materially higher risk of being HIV+: Kenya.
The African clinical trials were badly designed, badly executed, and badly analysed. All they concluded was that circumcised men were less likely to contract HIV from a single act of unprotected PIV. If circumcised men are more likely to disdain condoms, the "benefit" of circumcision will decline as a circumcised male grows older. Detecting this phenomenon (which is an instance of "risk compensation") would have required that the clinical trials last at least 10 years. Instead, the clinical trials were all cut short after 2-3 years, ruling out any chance of detecting risk compensation.

@lastbabyboomer: LOL

@lastbabyboomer: What you have written is no proof at all.

@consa01: Yeah, cause blood and semen can't seem to get past foreskin. LOL

@alberta01: Because your provided link says "WebMD" I am not even going to bother

@alberta01: That CDC document is a draft that has yet to be formally released. Most studies claiming that circumcised men are less likely to contract STDs drew their subjects from the Third World (esp. from villages in eastern and southern Africa) or the slums of London or Baltimore. Such studies shed little light on whether your son or mine should be circumcised at birth.
The CDC merely rubber stamped a 2012 report by an AAP Task Force on circumcision. That report has been heavily criticised. The AAP claimed that "the benefits outweigh the risks" but did no weighing! The AAP admitted that the long term risks of infant circumcision, which include the risks for adult sexual function and pleasure, are unknown because they are unstudied. Benefits cannot outweigh risks, when a large category of potential risks has been unstudied.

@consa01: You'd think it would just be "common sense" that blood and semen CAN get past foreskin. Foreskin is not a "condom-like" enwrapment.

Interesting that anyone would tell me to look it up because I have internet being that they miss the point as to why I/people post shit like this. Because many people Believe this crap! That's why! Look at some of the answers only here, so far. I've heard this bs so many times elsewhere. Just thought I'd see how many here think this way. haha

@silentkillx2: From what I understand, a non-circumcised schlong does not "stay" in it's foreskin once hard. But I guess human fluid just can't get past the foreskin enough to impregnate a female much less share an STD

@Realniceone4you: Lol

Haha

@DrH71: I am uncut and can assure you that cleaning Down There is no problem at all.

@Goralski: LOL

@Faust76: Riiight... because human fluid can't get past a foreskin

@Phire1: If you chop all of it off, the STD risk goes to zero though.

@Gubbe: I don't think this has anything to do specifically with being an "Amercian." It's just dumbassery

@Phire1: Cleanliness is a factor in bacteria being transferred.

@bijouxbroussard: I have read Tobian's work, and he is naive about sex, and biased in favour of the bald penis. He overlooks the fact that Europe, Japan and Australia have better STD health than the USA, even though they do not circumcise. The sort of studies Tobian fixates on were conducted in the AIDS belt of Africa (where most subjects live in very poor villages), or in the slums of London or Baltimore. The results of such studies are not relevant to deciding whether your son or mine should be circumcised. Tobian is also completely oblivious to the possibility that circumcised penis + condom = boring sex for one or both partners, in which case circumcision would promote STDs.

Everyone born in Dunedin New Zealand in 1972 and 1973 is being carefully followed lifelong. Of the 500 odd males in this longitudinal study, 42% were circumcised in infancy. The circumcised males also experienced 42% of all male STD episodes.

@bijouxbroussard: The main factor in HPV is multiple and casual sex partners, a lifestyle that cannot be condoned. HPV is one of many reasons why condomless casual sex is a social evil.

@Phire1: they talk nonsense too...

@alberta01: I wonder how human fluid can't get past that foreskin........