I hesitate to post this, but I think it's worth reading

[ceejay]

It's widely accepted now, and has been for some time, that male circumcision reduces the chance of contracting HIV for heterosexual men. The WHO has a programme of prophylactic circumcision for men in Sub Saharan Africa. What I cannot find is any research done into the effect on transmission rates of circumcision of homosexual men. We should not assume that it will be the same as that for heterosexual men. Transmission rates amongst gay men in societies where circumcision rates are high (the USA, for example) suggest it may be otherwise.
It's also not clear (to me, at least) exactly what the various studies mean. They have, so far as I can find, mostly been quite short term (a year or two). That makes it very difficult to distinguish between alternate hypotheses to explain, say, a 66% reduction in transmission for cirumcised men over such a short period of time:
1) That the reduction of risk is spread evenly, and each individual has a 66% lower chance of transmission over this period.
2) That it is spread unevenly, with some individuals gaining near immunity and others receiving no benefit.
Biological variability being what it is, the chances are the truth will lay somewhere between the two. Longer term studies with statistical analysis of rates of new infection over time could answer that.
So, guys, the research has not been based on people like us, only demonstrates partial protection and allows the possibility that for some individuals risk of infection does not reduce at all. Don't stop using the condoms.

[lvdkeyes]

Worth a read

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 003617.htm

[loke]

Since you want to be scientific about this , this is a part of an american study ;

Some believe that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis and prostate in old age.
There is no evidence that circumcision protects against cancer of the prostate.
When the penis is not cleaned regularly and properly, smegma can build up.
It is thought that this smegma may contain a carcinogen, a cancer-causing agent. Higher rates of penile cancer have been found in uncircumcised males who have very poor hygiene.

Uncircumcised men who have very good hygiene, though, have very low rates of this cancer.

As a gay man I can assure you my hygiene is very good when it comes to my penis .

If some men has very poor hygiene , well maybe thay have a higher risk to get the disease , but I think we are talking about very low numbers here.

Just think about it , 90% of European men are uncut , so if this had been a big problem in Europe we would have done something about it a long time ago .

[AnotherGuy]

It is true what Loke says. The risk of getting penile cancer is almost zero in circumcised men. If you have a good standard of hygiene you can reduce your risk of getting penile cancer to almost that level that circumcised men have.

[Alex]

As a gay man I can assure you my hygiene is very good when it comes to my penis .

Glad to know that.

[christianpfc]

I hope you are aware that condoms are not 100% safe, especially when used for anal intercourse.

I am, but as far as I know they are the safest method to prevent spread of STIs and pregnancy.

Regarding the connection between circumcision and reduced risk of contracting HIV:

Would you fuck someone whose status you don't know because he is circumcised and the risk therefore reduced? Would you let someone fuck you whose status you don't know because he is circumcised and the risk therefore reduced?

If you can answer one of these questions with "yes", then I wish you a happy fucking and I will pray for you and your partner to stay negative (if applicable).

[lvdkeyes]

I can see you are missing the whole point, so I will stay out of this debate any further.