Males-Based on these facts, if you had a choice,which would you choose?

Question

In my sex ed class today, our professor told us that uncircumcised males are at higher risk for HIV infection, but their penises receive more pleasure than circumcised ones. In circumcised males, the sex is less pleasurable, but the penis is easier to clean & has lower risk of HIV infection.

Answer 1

Your information about HIV is false as is the information about keeping it clean. I assume you are from the United States. I would recommend NOT cutting ones genitals. Here is some proper information.



It's perpetuated by culture, just as FGM in other areas and the majority of people who force it on their children do not know the true facts.


No medical institution in the developed world actually recommends the practice.
The following link contains the position of medical societies in English speaking countries on circumcision. Specifically British Medical Association, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Canadian Paediatric Society, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Australian College of Paediatrics and Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons:
http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm


Here is a video of the operation. Watch it if you want to learn more. Please do watch it.
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=352478&fr=ybr_sbc
It is not just a little snip here and there. Watch the above video of a circumcision in progress.

The foreskin keeps the glans soft and moist and protects it from trauma and injury. Without this protection, the glans becomes dry, calloused, and desensitized from exposure and chafing.
Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure.
The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood.

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and therefore very significant during sexual intercourse. Circumcision removes as much as 75% of sensation [ http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf ].
The foreskin reduces the force required by the penis to enter the vagina. It also increases the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Here is a study to back this up: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Performing circumcision on a child can and does result in the deaths of children due to blood loss and/or failure of the immune system.
It can and does result in very significant scaring.
It can and does result in sexual problems later in life.

Circumcised males have a much higher rate of sexual dysfunction. [ http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ ]




A lot of the information perpetuated about it preventing diseases is false.
The study that you are less susceptible to aids if you are circumcised is flawed. Here is a discussion of the report and its methodology by "Doctors Opposing Circumcision": http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html .

Have a read through their statement. It is very informative. It shows the methodological flaws and poor conclusion in the report that the WHO has jumped upon. Everything is aptly sourced.


Men may often feel a need to justify their own circumcision by the generation of claims of health benefits.[ http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/ ]
"The medical literature is full of protective claims for various diseases, such as sexually transmitted disease , male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection. All such claims have been disproved."[ http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html ]




"The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is having exactly the opposite effect. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS."

Condoms have been proven to be an effective means of combating AIDS.

Are you aware that Stallings study also shows that female circumcision also reduces HIV transmission? [ http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 ]
Female circumcision type II is the removal of the prepuce, part of the clitoris and the labia. Because of the function of the male foreskin, male circumcision is comparable to type II female circumcision. [ http://www.mgmbill.org/mgm101.pps ]
Should we circumcise girls or is this practice different or is it that one is "culturally" acceptable and one is not.
We do not nor should we circumcise girls.

They are both mutilations of the genitals.
The vast majority of the world(83%) is not circumcised.
There is no good reason to perform male genital mutilation.


Ignore the rubbish about keeping it clean. It's more difficult to clean the folds of the labia. Is it difficult to keep the labia clean?


See these sites specifically:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
http://www.mgmbill.org/
http://www.nocirc.org/
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.noharmm.org/

Here is a tracking of circumcision news articles which is kept very up to date:
http://www.cirp.org/news/

Have a look at this website:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

Have a look at these videos:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=137650&fr=ybr_sbc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1736954830543671382&sourceid=searchfeed

Answer 2

If the foreskin is kept clean and washed frequently then there is definitely no problem. There have been millions of men who have never been circumcised and it has presented no problem at all. If there is any doubt about catching an infection of some kind then people should be using a condom. Certainly there is less pleasurable sensation for both parties in the circumcised penis, but for the sake of not having to bother to fold the skin back and wash properly then the cut is the way to go. It is a matter of personal choice. There has been a lot of cervical cancer caused, or so they believe by uncircumcised penis' there is no absolute proof of this. In societies where circumcision is required for religious reasons there is little or no evidence of cervical cancer. If there was a problem with the foreskin being too tight to roll back beyond the head of the penis for proper washing then I would definitely have it cut.

Answer 3

Personally. I have been circumcised. If I had a choice I would not have been. I feel that the male penis is best untauched by knives. Friends have told me the pleasure they feel etc and I would prefer to be uncut.

Answer 4

uncircumcised everyone who says circumcised has been circumcised and everyone who hasn't been circumcised will say uncircumcised . and the hiv is mainly seen in Africa not America. and i think the person should decide not the doctor and the other i dont believe it being more pleasurable er how would you know you're not uncircumcised :/

Answer 5

I wouldn't know as I am circumcised but I can't imagine sex being any more pleasureable than it is and I'm glad it's easy to clean up. What do you think the woman likes more ? It makes a difference.

Answer 6

Hi, my best answer is to use protection (condoms) Your professor is wrong. You will get HIV regardless of circumcision and how often you clean your penis. Regards...

Answer 7

As a future Urologist, I advocate non-circumcision.

Circumcision is not necessary for function, however it does lower the risk of HIV and penile cancer. It is traumatic, though, and removes a significant number of nerve endings from the penis.

I mainly think that it is barbaric to do to little kids.

Answer 8

I'd go circumcised, trust me the sex is not less pleasurable, it is cleaner and there are less hassles when you get older of not being able to retract the foreskin, which is quite common.

Answer 9

In my spare time I include "in my pants" at the end of every other sentence because I'm clearly cooler than you :D

Answer 10

circumcised

i dont believe the whole "less pleasurable" its plenty pleasurable being circumcised ;)


B.