There is conflicting evidence, but I have read that the difference is mircotears that can occur from sex. Not enough to feel any discomfort, but enough for body fluids to find their way into the blood stream easier.
But high risk behavior is high risk at the end of the day, and normally transmission rates between hetrosexual couples is less risky because it’s primarily vaginal. (It’s also possible to have sex with someone multiple times who’s burning and not get an STD.) “Prepped” vaginas are less likely to have any tearing because of natural lubrication, unlike anal sex, where again, even though the one receiving doesn’t feel any mircotears they still can occur and increase of the risk of transmission.
This article makes an excellent argument for anybody wanting to know why circumcision is stupid..
Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality | Practical Ethics
My point is this...
American men are more circumcised than any other Western man...
There was an AIDS/STD epidemic in the USA...and there still is one in Black America
Africans due to Islam and tribalism...circumcise their boys... and there's an AIDS epidemic there
Circumcision doesn't prevent or even reduce any risks to make it worth doing...
And even if it did...the removal of breast tissue reduces breast cancer but nobody ever take their 13 year old daughter and have her breast tissue scooped out to avoid breast cancer...
The issue is about body integrity and do parents have the right to have unnecessary medical procedures done to their kids and it really boils down to...are children property of their parents
Cutting off the foreskin is mainly promoted in the West by the USA for a medical reason...when circumcision in the USA was about preventing boys from masturbating...which why it was widely adopted in the first place...and before that...genital cutting simply was ritual and cultural practice to identify members of a tribe or religious group
Today is still promoted under the guise of..."well I am cut so my son will be..." or worrying about if a woman decades from now will accept his penis...
Ultimately there is a gender bias...and nobody in the West approve of a girl to be circumcised or ritually marked like in Indonesia or Malaysia and it's less invasive than male circumcision. It is even politically distasteful and backwards to even suggest that Muslims and other groups to be allowed to practice female genital cutting or marking in a medical setting in the West.
Female circumcision has been correlated to reduced HIV infection rates in Africa...but how many Western women are willing to get cut to reduce risk of HIV? Are we gonna start suggesting we cut girls now?
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses
INTRODUCTION: Kenya like the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be plagued with high rates of AIDS/HIV. Research has shown that cultural practices have serious implications for the spread of HIV/AIDS, as well as other communicable diseases. One of the practices that have been speculated to have an impact on AIDS/HIV is female genital mutilation (FGM). Despite efforts to eradicate the practice, prevalence of FGM in Kenya remains relatively high. Researchers have postulated that various forms of FGM may be associated with the spread of HIV/AIDS. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between FGM and HIV/AIDS using a representative sample of Kenyan girls and women. METHODS: Data (n=3271) from the Kenya 2003 Demographic and Health Survey was used for this study. Chi-square test was used to examine the distribution of selected risk factors across HIV/AIDS status. Odds ratios from multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables.