English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why are American parents NOT circumsizing their sons anymore? All doctors agree that circumcision helps STOP the spread of HIV & STD's, and that it's cleaner for men and the women they're involved with?

This report from the CDC states clearly that Circumsized men have "signifigantly lower risk for HIV".

Why would you want your sons to NOT be circumsized? ..
What about the next generation of girls who will pay the price for not having this simple procedure done??

I posted this Question before and it must have upset some people--but this is a legitamate Question. If this Question upsets you, then Answer this question like an adult; not some immature child --just because you can't understand medicine & science.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

2006-12-22 13:35:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health Diseases & Conditions STDs

9 answers

As a woman that has been with both types, I can say 100% that I prefer them to be circumsized. It's cleaner for sure. I don't want to do a whiff test every time I get ready to have sex because then if it isn't as clean as the guy thought it was, you have to stop and go shower and all that crap. It should just be clean to start with and a man can still have a pleasurable orgasm without it. If it's done at birth then he will never know the difference and therefore isn't losing anything. I think that it should still be done but to answer your question, I have no idea why it's not.

2006-12-22 23:53:39 · answer #1 · answered by Erika 4 · 2 1

There are 2 parts to the answer to this question. 1 involves a matter of health and mortality strictly here and now here on earth.
and
2:
involves the real reason for circumsizion in the first place. In the historical distant past there were 2 main kinds of races and peoples. It was more important then, than now, for women to know which they allowed. If women allowed circumsized (race and type) men, then over generations people would become a highly better breed. (The circumsizion was one strong clue the ancestors were high in grade..) There is an unknown aspect this matter: Perhaps the breed of men has become sufficiently high. The answer and inspiration has already been decided (by the Creator); and it is for man to receive that inspiration and do as directed with it..

2006-12-22 14:05:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

would you circumcise a toddler woman in case you got here upon the files reported that they were a lot less in all probability to get an std? i'd also opt for to hearken to the medical reason circumsized adult men have "critically decrease chance for hiv". I actually have 2 boys and neither of them are circumsized, in truth their father and that i had a wide arguement about it previously each and each and every were born (father has been done). in case you prepare your little ones solid hygeine practices and chance-free sex themes, then why would or not that's mandatory. The foreskin is a residing little bit of tissue that has nerve endings and sensation, why remove it? in case your son had a larger chance of testicular maximum cancers through hereditary aspects would you've his balls bumped off? of route not. there is also a chance of too a lot pores and skin being bumped off or different aspects because the baby grows. My husband has been circumsised and he has a scar operating the full length of his shaft and a lot less sensation interior the realm of the scar. Why would you opt for to run the prospect of negative your son? because as with all surgical operation there's a chance of complications.

2016-10-16 21:14:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Circumcision, while it reduces the risk of HIV transmission, far from prevents it entirely. Thus, other pros and cons of the procedure need to be considered, as do other methods of preventing HIV.

2006-12-22 16:32:46 · answer #4 · answered by someone 3 · 2 0

TOTALLY FALSE.


Circumcision rates are INCREASING nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.


CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner and several research bodies have concluded that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV or herpes.

Uncircumcised penises are difficult to keep clean, and more prone to infections and penile cancer, studies have shown.
A circumcised penis is naturally clean and virtually free from urinary infection. You will not have to worry again with careful washing of your penis.

Is it NOT true that the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) does not recommend circumcision. They simply say they leave the decision to parents. But recently, and specially after the New Zealand study, the AAP has been discussing if it may be necessary to change their policy and recommend circumcision to all newborns as they used to do, so in the future we may see that the AAP advocates again circumcision.
Have a look at: http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

About STD's:

As I said, several studies carried out by prestigious research bodies have concluded that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. Circumcised men have been proved to be up to seven times less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://icuxbridge.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14095142&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=-circumcision-protects-against-aids--name_page.html

As for women, studies also show that circumcision also protects female partners from AIDS-HIV and other STD's. Browse this article: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

About sensitivity of a circumcised penis:

No medical or physiological study has proved that circumcision reduces sensitivity, opposed to common belief. It is completely FALSE that circumcision reduces penis sensitivity. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) confirms this on their web site; have a look at: http://www.aap.org/pubed/zzzjzmemh4c.htm

Circumcision is an easy and nowadays *painless* procedure, which has many benefits, and virtually no risks.
Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.

Finally, this site has a lot of useful and *unbiased* information. Make sure you have a good look: http://www.circinfo.net

2006-12-23 02:40:54 · answer #5 · answered by Scuba 3 · 1 3

there are ten's of thousand's of nerve endings in the foreskin of a penis. while circumcising may initially be a healthy clean alternative. you may also want to concider that an uncircumcised penis en joy's 10 times the sensation than a cir'd member. safe sex should always be #1 and cleanliness should always be #1 in that area.

2006-12-22 13:45:14 · answer #6 · answered by ben wa 2 · 2 2

theres no excuse really, by not getting them circumsiced they are helping the spread of aids and putting their children at risk.
there is nothing shameful about being circumsiced and although it is quite painful for a couple of days there are no long term effects.

parents have become deliberately ignorant about it to avoid the subject.

dear me...

2006-12-23 02:15:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

first of all, we should be teaching people that safe sex is the only way to stop HIV/AIDS from spreading. how in the world would a girl have to pay for a guy not being circumcised? they should be having safe sex anyway.

2006-12-22 13:39:03 · answer #8 · answered by redpeach_mi 7 · 3 3

As others have mentioned, you're chopping of the most sensitive part and therefore mutilating your baby. To see the difference, tingle the palm of your hand. Then turn it over and tingle the back of your hand. That's the difference.

2006-12-22 15:58:10 · answer #9 · answered by i8pikachu 5 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers