LAD wrote:steve wrote:Statistically it can be shown that, all else being equal, men with uncircumcised penises have a greater risk of contracting AIDS than people like me, who have been trimmed, and are display-caliber. The mechanism is probably that the foreskin traps booty-juice, which then has more time to transmit the virus to the diz-hole.
There’s not much point in responding to this w/o knowing if these stats are limited to the American demographic, etc. I suspect this "all else being equal" determinant rides rough shod over a lot of socio-economic, age, and regional factors. In any case, it seems like a very lame thing to give even cursory credence to.
HIV transmission has nothing to do with penile dewlap.
It was in Science News (a weekly digest of peer-reviewed scientific publications). The article was mostly about Africa, but it gave the impression that once other things are factored out, there was still a slight increase in HIV infection risk (okay, maybe not AIDS always, but HIV isn't too far off) in uncircumcised men.
I didn't mention (but now I have an excuse to) another Science News article that said a procedurally-significant number of boys had been infected with Herpes Siplex viruses during their circumcisions. The avenue of transmission being that some orthodox religious groups have the foreskin bitten off, rather than cut off. I'm sorry, I don't remember which religion "enjoys" this practice.