It makes sense that there would be less disease transmission without the, er, holding area for germs. However, the obvious prevention would be not having sex with infected men!
Yes that would be nice, but hey you could even marry a guy and only have sex with him, but if he's having an affair on the side you could still get HIVif he picked up from his affair.
I know two kids who were church going virgins until marriage and then he slept around on his wife.
Im a control freak so Im all about lowering odds of bad stuff happening.
For me this just proves my attitude that uncut men are turn off due to their "holding area" as you put it. ROFL
You're just intolerant to men who want to sleep around with other males!
Transmission of HPV is also greatly reduced by circumcision. And since it's endemic, at least in the U.S. (with various studies showing between 60% and 75% of all women having had it at some point), and I think everywhere else too, this is not a small consideration. While most HPV strains are harmless, a few of them are responsible for over 99% of cervical cancer cases. And plenty of those cases are in women who never slept with anyone but their husband.
The risk of transmission from a female to a male in the US seems to be very low. However, it appears in Africa, there are a lot of men who get the virus through heterosexual sex. Some countries have up to 40% of the adult population with HIV, and it's hard to see how that would happen without plenty of heterosexual transmission. I have read claims that there is a lot of homosexual activity in Africa; but studies show that the fraction of the male population that is homosexual is something like 2%, at least in Europe and the US. So I think it is wise to conclude that heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa is very real, Michael Fumento (The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS) not withstanding.