I'm a 26-year-old gay guy who's been in a relationship for almost 7 years. When the BF and I first hooked up, neither of us had ever been with anyone sexually before; therefore, we had unprotected sex all the time (because we knew that we weren't going to catch anything). However, a few months into the relationship the BF got a nasty UTI, and we decided to start using condoms for hygiene/cleanliness reasons (let's be real: if the genesis of the word "santorum" has taught us anything, it's that sometimes anal sex involves fecal matter). Fast forward 6 years, and all the gay guys we've talked to about this stuff are baffled that after almost 7 years, we still use condoms with each other. Well, the BF and I are both uncircumcised and the truth is, sex doesn't feel any different with a condom for us. We started using condoms way back when for easy cleanup and to avoid UTI's, but neither one of us ever noticed the sex feeling worse, or even different. Therefore, I have never even once been tempted to have unprotected sex (when we have threeways and whatnot), because it's going to feel the same anyway; why subject myself to the risks?

Anyway, my real question is this: do circumcised guys generally find unprotected sex to be more enjoyable? This has been the case in my informal surveys. And if so, do you think circumcising boys may have the unintended consequence of creating men much more likely to have unprotected sex? I know I've read articles about studies saying that having foreskin may increase the likelihood of contracting HIV (something about the infected fluids being trapped under the skin and making it easier for the infection to be transmitted), but I've never read anything about circumcision making guys want to bareback, even though logically, that seems to be the case. What do you think? Does foreskin promote condom use?

Uncircumcised Never Could Understand riskTakers

P.S. I want to thank you for the work you do and specifically thank you for helping me to become a sexually well-rounded adult. You will never know the lives (and other things) that you've touched, and the all the good you've done. Since I can think of no other way to thank you, I'm attaching a picture of my dick. Feel free to share with your readers or keep it to yourself.

I'm not aware of any studies that break down protected vs. bareback preferences by circumcision status, UNCUT, but I'll ask the Kinsey Institute folks when I see them tonight. Your theory does make some intuitive sense: being circumcised decreases sensitivity, as it leaves the glans of the penis constantly exposed, and anything else that further decreased sensitivity—like, say, wearing a condom—might make it more difficult for a cut guy wearing a condom to come. I suppose. But I've heard from plenty of uncut guys who prefer bareback sex, UNCUT, and I suspect you may be universalizing your experience. And let's not hand any more excuses to cut guys who like to bareback with random and/or anonymous partners. They've come up with reams of rationalizations on their own and don't need any help minting new ones.

Oh, and thanks for the pic, UNCUT. It's... um... really something. I would keep it to myself but your dick is definitely something that many of my readers would enjoy having their lives—and others things—touched by.

UNCUT's not-safe-for-your-work picture is after the jump.