A cross-sectional study of men with genital piercings.

LaMicha Hogan · Katherine Rinard · Cathy L. Young · Alden E. Roberts · Myrna L. Armstrong · Thomas Nelius

11 citations0/0 files storedBritish journal of medical practitioners

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Tattoo and Body Piercing Complications Urological Disorders and Treatments Genital Health and Disease

Abstract

Purpose: More men with genital piercings (GP) are presenting to health care facilities, yet a paucity of medical literature exists about their body modifications, health issues, and medical needs. Historically, they have turned to a piercer or the internet for medical advice which may put their health at risk by receiving inappropriate guidance or delayed treatment by an experienced, well-informed clinician. Methods: A comparative, descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using an 83 item web-based survey.Demographics, risk behaviours, procedural motives, and post-piercing experiences about men with GP were examined, as well as depression, abuse, self-esteem, and need for uniqueness. Similarly published studies were also compared. Results: 445 men from 42 states and 26 international sites reported 656 genital piercings. The average participant was 36 years of age, Caucasian, possessing some college education, married or in a monogamous, heterosexual relationships, and in excellent health. Deliberate decision-making was present: 36% chose a Frenum/Frenum Ladder GP and 56% chose a Prince Albert GP, with 25% experiencing urinary flow changes. Outcomes were related to their motives: sexual expression, uniqueness, and aesthetics, with improvement of personal and partner’s sexual pleasure. Conclusions: Several unsubstantiated assumptions about men with GP were challenged regarding the amount of STDs, GP complications, and overall demographics. Currently their GP care information is still obtained from a piercer or the internet. Clinician awareness of GP is important to educate and inform adequately, give professional advice, and provide a realistic picture of structural complications.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Body piercing: medical consequences and psychological motivations 2002Tattoos and Body Piercings as Indicators of Adolescent Risk-Taking Behaviors 2005Personality and misconduct correlates of body modification and other cultural deviance markers 2006Tattooing: An expression of uniqueness in the appearance domain 2002Body piercing, tattooing, self-esteem, and body investment in adolescent girls.2008Body-modifying concepts and dermatologic problems: tattooing and piercing 2007The hole picture: risks, decision making, purpose, regulations, and the future of body piercing 2005Self‐reported characteristics of women and men with intimate body piercings

Cited by

2012Tattoos, Body Piercing, and Healthcare Concerns 2013Complications of Genital Piercings 2015Gender Differences among Self-Reported Genital Piercing Stories

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.