is it Ok for Women to expect males to be circumcised out of selfish beliefs?

Question

could men expect for their selfish "requirements" the same from partners?
or could it be after all,rather to consider it not selfish,but a "generosity"?
if it wasn't because its Harms -the courtesy would make it be else but what is,the unkindest cuts of all (Girls or Boys).

An exercise in Social and between sexes Approach (and prejudices?).

Answer 1

Any woman expecting me to cut off a part of my genitals can go to Hell!

Answer 2

More in response to Beowulf's post:

On AIDS, as SukenShip pointed out, it doesn't seem to be true when laid down with statistics from the US. The studies done in Africa were all cut short early when they got the result they were looking for. Go read the studies and you will see the flaws.

The United States AIDS Epidemic is three times worse than any other first world country. The US is the only first world country to circumcise for health reasons, and the majority of males in the US are circumcised.

Also, I am glad you brought up Langerhans cells. First there was a study done that showed Langerhans cell actually destroyed the AIDS virus. Second, Langerhans cell are also present in the Female Prepuce (Clitoral Hood) and Labia. So if these cells are so bad, we should also be removing he clitoral hood and labia of females to combat the AIDS virus. I am pretty sure women would rather use a condom than have that removed.

Cancer of the Penis From American Cancer Society*1:
However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. Click the link below and it mentions Cervical Cancer as well, but that has more to do with HPV.

UTI's from the AAP *2:
Few of the studies that have evaluated the association between UTI in male infants and circumcision status have looked at potential confounders (such as prematurity, breastfeeding, and method of urine collection) in a rigorous way. For example, because premature infants appear to be at increased risk for UTI,75-77 the inclusion of hospitalized premature infants in a study population may act as a confounder by suggesting an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infants. Premature infants usually are not circumcised because of their fragile health status.

HPV:
The most common STD in the United States is HPV and America is mostly circumcised. Doesn't seem to work again. Also I believe that the transmission rate of HPV is like 99%, what kind of protection are you really offered? But there is a Vaccine for HPV.

Syphilis is Curable, I haven't read anything on it, but I am sure just like all the other things circumcision is suppose to protect from, it actually doesn't help.

The moral of the story is wear a rain coat when going in to the rain if you don't want to get wet.

Answer 3

I'm sick of this disease-transmission-cleanliness crapola being used as a justification for continuing male genital mutilation. It's an absurd practice based on absurd religious, ritualistic directives (that somehow, inexplicably, became common among people that don't even subscribe to the idiotic religious tenents that spawned the practice).

Now people vainly try to justify the carving-up of millions of penises with the sort of lame justifications that appear in one previous answer and at the beginning of mine.

Anyone that can't figure out how to wash his dick shouldn't be trusted with one in the first place

Answer 4

In response to Beowulf's post:

Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Circumcision may reduce a man's risk of infection with the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent if he is an African, but it does not appear to help American men of color, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

"We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners," Millett told reporters in a telephone briefing.

Answer 5

My husband is uncircumcised and it has never bothered me. He's very good about keeping himself clean and I couldn't imagine making him go through a procedure that would leave the head of his penis exposed, considering that this is something he would have to adjust to. If he wants to do it, I won't try to stop him. It has to be his decision alone.

Answer 6

Yeah I agree with the first answer, it's teh parents that decide where a boy should be circumised. Circumsision is healthier, as it's easier to keep clean.

I personally think uncircumsized penises are a little ugly, but that'#s just my personal preference. In the same wy I don't like beards, or ginger hair but I wouldn't ask someone to dye their hair for me or shave their beard off.

Answer 7

It is not okay to expect a man to get circumcized. The foreskin is a natural part of the penis and so is part of him. It is there for a purpose.

Circumcision and shaving pubic area seem to have become such an obsession these days that every guy and girl seems highly pressured about it.

Answer 8

Mutilating anybodies genitals is wrong. Doesn't matter if they are male or female. It's both parents decision. Not just the mother's. Although, I'm sure that men are the one's that invented it. They invent everything, don't you know?

I never expected my partner to be circumcised, either. That is just ridiculous.This is a loaded question if I ever did see one.

Answer 9

You got it all twisted. Women do not force men to get circumcised. This is a decision that parents make for their children, not to please future sex partners, but because of their strong cultural/religious beliefs. The only time I have heard of a grown man getting circumcised is when he converted to Islam, but he knew what he was getting himself into because it's a requirement. Women do not take their men to the doctor, while dating, to have him circumcized. What is all this blame talk that is put on women? We have nothing to do with it. If you have a problem with the procedure, educate parents who make the decision for their children when they are infants and lobby to change the laws because it's still practiced legally in modern countries.

And regarding your other question:

You have no clue what female circumcision is, do you? They cut the clitoris off to prevent the girl from experiencing ANY pleasure from sex for the rest of her life. Or sow it all up so that the guy can "break in" on the wedding night. Please do some research on female circumcision before you make such cluless claims.

http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/rites/rite.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Answer 10

'Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission

Biologic Plausibility

Compared to the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection in laboratory studies [3]. It has also been argued that the foreskin may have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens including HIV [4]. In addition, the micro-environment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [2]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [5].

Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level.

Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV

In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners. If the male blood HIV viral load was <50,000 copies/mL, there was no HIV transmission if the man was circumcised, compared to a rate of 9.6 per 100 person-years if the man was uncircumcised [8]. If viral load was not controlled for, there was a non-statistically significant trend towards a reduction in the male-to-female transmission rate from circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men. Such an effect may be due to decreased viral shedding from circumcised men or to a reduction in ulcerative sexually transmitted infections acquired by female partners of circumcised men [14].


Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [2]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk of genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk of syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, while the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus-2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [5].'