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.