is circumcision necessary for man?

Answer 1

YES, definitely YES



CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner, healthier and several prestigious research institutions have proved that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV, syphilis 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 infections. 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 recent studies by the US National Institutes of Health, 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 circumcision again.
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 proved that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. It has been confirmed that circumcised men are up to 70% less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://www.torontodailynews.com/index.php/HealthNews/2006121404Circumcision

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 ever shown 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.

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

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

Answer 2

Circumcision is almost never necessary. If it were so necessary, then around 80% of the world's male population wouldn't be uncircumcised.

It's incorrect to say that a circumcised penis is cleaner, or has a lower chance of contracting STDs and such, as all those factors are more influenced by other things such as good personal hygiene and safe sex. If a person has good personal hygiene of the foreskin and practice safe sex, then the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis (health-wise) is negligible. About 95% of all uncircumcised men will never have any major problems with their foreskins, and of the 5% or so that do, only in a very small fraction is circumcision necessary.

Furthermore, circumcision (especially neonatal) carries risks and complications of its own. When these are taken into account, the "benefits" and "disadvantages" are essentially negated. So why not treat circumcision as a true surgery, only to be done when absolutely needed. See links for more info.

Answer 3

No, not necessary and many times the person doing the circumcision often make a mess of the procedure that reduces the sensitivity of the penis which affects the sex life of the boy when he gets older. I have not been circumcised but I have been trying to wear it off since I was 12.

Answer 4

Gr, no it's not at all necessary in most cases and the thing about it reducing chance of HIV has no actual scientific evidence and it isn't exactly harder to clean more depending how often the glans are covered the more sensitive they are so it can sting a bit to rub while cleaning but in sexual activities having a foreskin gives you far more pleasure the nerve endings in the part they cut off are equal to 5 finger tips if you were considering getting circumcised I really wish you'd reconsider and also the smegma that people say is bad and stuff it is kinda bad but this only because it kills bacteria so it has the dead bacteria in it just clean it no big deal anyways if you were considering hope you don't but ya I hope you make the right decision! :)

Answer 5

fyi, the reason that circumcision cuts down HIV infection in africa by 50% or more is because they never wash themselves. I suppose it is a water shortage or cultural or whatever but I cannot imagine not washing that. It is the cleanest part of my body!! lol i am still so grossed out that they NEVER wash....

Answer 6

Circumcision in not necessary for a man, unless your Jewish. being circumcised makes it easier for men to keep their genitals clean and makes the head of the penis more sensitive while reproducing.

Answer 7

BIG NO.

I think it's unnecessary.

Guys in Europe, Asia and Latin America... they don't circumcise!

And even in the English-speaking countries outside the US, their circumcision rate has dropped significantly.

American men should re-consider about getting circumcised.

Sweden has officially banned male circumcision. (unless if he absolutely needs it for medical reason)

Go figure.

Answer 8

No, it is NOT.

If you're uncircumcised and thinking about getting it done, please DON'T. It doesn't do anything.

Some circumcised men have reported that they have lost sensibility because they no longer have foreskin and that the girth of their penis has decreased.

Circumcision is NOT necessary.

I was circumcised against my will at age 7 and I can tell you one thing - my future son(s) are NOT gonna be circumcised.

Answer 9

It isn't necessary, although it does decrease the risk of contracting HIV.

To the person who said there was no medical evidence:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL
"The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine."

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/12/13/circumcision-hiv.html
"The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 per cent."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/health/webmd/main1794135.shtml
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1262558

Answer 10

You didn't direct this question to men in general, so I assumed that I could answer. I wouldn't consider it as being necessary, but from what I've read, it is better to have it done because there's less of a risk for any serious infections to occur.