Male circumcision vs condom use?Should circumcision be adopted asa preventive or reduction measureonly?
- JackieNoLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
As a pleasure preventive measure??
As a penis size reduction measure ???
FYI: Real population data shows no protection against HIV infection by cutting off parts of a babies penis. However, the harm caused by baby boy penis parts removal is well known. The parts of the penis that are cut off are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a newborn baby is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION.
There are no real world studies that show cutting off penis parts helps prevent HIV, HPV and other sexually transmitted infections in men! In the US no lowering of HIV risk has been noted, and the US has a high circumcised adult population with a high HIV rate and Europe and Japan have a very low number of adults that are circumcised and have a very low HIV rate. In the US only the number of sexual partners and NOT circumcision status is linked to HPV. There is clear evidence that baby boy penis parts removal does not shield the man the baby becomes from STDs in developed nations.
Evidence of this comes from the Laumann study (USA, 1997), based on over 30,000 American men, which showed no advantage to the circumcised group. The most recent comparative study from Dunedin, New Zealand (cohort of about 500 men) backs this up, concluding: "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". SOURCE: Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008.
In the US cut and natural men have HIV and HPV in the same % and example of this comes from the US Navy: Although known HIV risk factors were found to be associated with HIV in this military population, there was no significant association with male circumcision.
Some studies show that circumcised men pass HIV to partners at a higher rate and acquire STDs at a higher rate. In other words natural will save STD costs:
from Puerto Rico
"Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection."
The HIV prevalence rate among circumcised males between the ages of 15 and 49 in Zimbabwe is higher than that of the uncircumcised male" after a Bill Gates funded circumcision drive. Loss of pleasure and just a wound with no health advantage. In fact real world data shows a natural penis is not at higher risk for HIV, HPV and all other STDS.
The nerves are real. The dynamic action of the NATURAL genitals is real. The discussion as to this topic needs to get REAL. This practice is a real WOUNDING, it is real harm to the baby and the man he becomes.
A study in the International Journal of Men’s Health noted that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction. than natural men. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. There are other studies as well..
The knowledge of the this WOUNDING affecting sexual pleasure and function goes back years so there is NO IF as to SEXUAL HARM, it is a matter of HOW BAD IS IT for any particular guy. Maimonides (the Torah scholar) noted that the act that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and diminishes the pleasure. Kellogg declared a ‘war on masturbation’ at the end of the 19th century and advocated circumcision to curb male sexual urges by removing the main male pleasure zones. The zones have the only fine touch and stretch sensors.
- MithrasLv 68 years ago
You need to do some credible research to see how the public is being duped into thinking circumcision prevents disease.
Look at the statistics in the US,...a major circumcising nation, until better education began to spread.
Up till 1995, the circumcision rate in the US was as high as 85%.
That means 85% of the males in the US have been circumcised, as well as those who are just coming onto the sexual scene right now.
Why then is the STD/HIV rate so high in the US, while in Europe, a non circumcising culture, has a much lower rate?
No credible medical organization in the world supports circumcision.
Equally academic European medical organizations as the American Medical Association refute this. It is through cultural brainwashing they are pushing this most unnecessary and damaging procedure on males.
Why not circumcise all females as well? The foreskin and clitoral hood are both the same tissue in the developing feotus and retain many of the same properties.
Try suggesting this and see what kind of response you get.
- BryanLv 48 years ago
Circumcision is not a preventive method for HIV and other STDs. Western Europe, which does not circumcise its infants, has lower STD rates than the US. This is because circumcision is not a substitute for condom use or abstinence.
Besides, circumcision is extremely damaging and has no benefits. The foreskin is not a vestigial piece of skin. It is erogenous tissue that is essential for proper sexual pleasure and function. The foreskin has three major functions.
1. It prevents the glans (head) from becoming dry and numb. The glans is a mucous membrane that is not meant to be exposed to the outside environment.
2. The foreskin reduces friction during sex, increasing pleasure for both partners.
3. The foreskin itself contains tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings that contribute to most all of a man's sexual pleasure. If these are removed, that person will be cheated out of a huge portion of a man's sexual pleasure.
Forcing this on infants is sickening, especially since anesthesia is not used in 96% of those circumcisions and that infants can and do feel pain. I believe that infantile circumcision is a human rights abuse that needs to be outlawed.Source(s): http://circumstitions.com/HIV.html http://circumstitions.com/STDs.html http://norm.org/lost.html http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/inf...
- Anonymous4 years ago
A very good question young man, a condom is part of the male genitalia It will start growing once the penis is fully formed, It varies from person to person but the normal range is 15-18 depending on your genes your condom will be a different color (*the most common being brown*) It will take up to a month to form once this is done you are ready for intercourse. *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* - If your don't see the start of a condom growing once your 18 you may have genetic disorder in which the condom doesn't form naturally, there is an operation which can be preformed in which the plaster a synthetic condom over the tip of your penis (*you will need to get is changed once a month*). - It isn't rare that an infection might occur while the condom is growing, if this happens contact a doctor immediately before irreversible damage is done. I hope you find this little article helpful :)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 8 years ago
All penises, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, require a condom to protect from STD's. Do you understand how STD's work? Many of them require only skin-to-skin contact to transmit. This is why the condom has to be used. Other STD's are obtained through the transference of bodily fluid and that can be transmitted to a circumcised or uncircumcised penis. Also, when a man has sex, it's rough on the penis and there are microscopic tears in the skin, and that's where transmission of diseases can occur as well.
- StevenLv 48 years ago
No, circumcision is that it should be a personal choice when the person is old enough to decide for themselves. I was circumcised as a infant and wish I wasn't. Just let it be your son's decision.
- Ray JLv 78 years ago
Contrary to what the Pope says circumcision does NOT lower STD transmission rates (even of AIDS). Condoms, however, do.
- ConnorLv 78 years ago
There is no solid scientific evidence that has proven male circumcision has any preventative effect what so ever in preventing contraction of STD's.
You are improperly reading research. There is no proof circumcision has anything to do with contraction of STD's.
I'm not one to believe genital mutilation should be done at all.
I don't believe men are too stupid to use condoms. At least I'm not so mutilating my penis isn't necessary. But thanks for making that rude assumption.
-ConnorSource(s): Pre Med
- Anonymous8 years ago
don't cut anything there...