2. What is Male Circumcision, and why are its plusses and minuses? Why is it controversial?

Efren Clankscales: A circumcised penis has a lot less chance of getting or spreading infections. In the USA the majority ofmen are circumcised right after birth. I had a friend I worked with who he and his two brothers had several infections so all three made the choice to be circumcised. Some will say there is not as much feeling duringsex with a cut penis but that is not true at all....Show more

Fritz Hawkey: Circumcision is the mutilation of the male genitalia by morons who choose to do so for a number of stupid reasons.Seriously, anyone pro circumcision is a dumb @$$If it needs to be done for religious reasons then that's tolerable but unless it's for religious reasons there is NO reason....Show more

Otto Lingafelt: It was originally a religious idea that started from the hebrews but now it is more of a cleanliness and ease of use.

Arnoldo Budzynski: Male circumcision and female circumcision are terms that refer to some type of cutting (amputating) o! f genital tissue. Male circumcision comes in various forms but always involves cutting off the ridged band of the penis -- a part with thousands of unique nerve endings. The form of female circumcision done by most Muslims (clitoral hood cutting or nicking) is less sexually devastating than male circumcision. Male and female circumcision are pushed for the same reasons -- lower sexual pleasure, primitive ideas about hygiene, religion, looks and claims about disease avoidance. At least two studies Stallings et al. (2009) and Kanki et al. concluded that female circumcision (in these cases labia and clitoral hood cutting) lowered HIV risk to the cut women. The most prevalent FGM is the cutting of the labia and clitoral hood (not the clitoris) and it is often done in a hospital setting by a SURGEON (a great deal of S. African male circumcision is done in the bush). Some women claim the sex is fine after female circumcision, say it is cleaner and they want it done to their da! ughters. The people that push female circumcision say it is no! t mutilation. The people that push male circumcision say it is not mutilation.The ONLY reason any genital cutting practice is controversial is that it typically is FORCED on a baby or young child.EVERY HUMAN (male and female) has the RIGHT (a human right) to reach adulthood with all of the tissue (particularly all of their erogenous tissue) that THEIR genetic code provides. There are no pluses to any of these practices. The pluses are contrived by adults that want to pass the mutilation practice on to the next generation.-----" less chance of getting or spreading infections" BULL $hit!!! IN the US and EU and JP cut men and natural men get HIV, STDs and HPV at the same rate. THAT IS THE FACT!!Less feeling - DUH, how can it be otherwise when THOUSANDS of nerves are c cut?? 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.---cleanliness ? There is nothing clean about a wound in a diaper (with urine and feces)!! Also, It is actually not cleaner to have a cut up penis. It has now also been observed that natural boys have the same bacteria as natural girls and that cut boys have different (invasive) bacteria (such as Staph A). A partial penis (cut up penis) is just missing parts, but as such it is invaded by not natural bacteria....Show more

Rubi Romo: Its the removal of the foreskin.

Coleman Coscia: Male circumcision is simply the removal of the foreskin from t! he penis so as to allow the glans to be exposed at all times.There are ! basically no minus points to circumcision in actual fact. Most of aha the anti-circumcision faction claim is simply not true or is all in the mind rather than in reality.Many surveys have shown that almost all circumcised men are very happy to be circumcised. You only have to read Yahoo! Answers to see that all the questions about problems with the penis are from uncircumcised folk - there simply are very, very few problems ever encountered by circumcised males.Several studies have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of infant UTIs 10-fold. These can cause severe damage to the kidneys. There is also a proven reduction in risk of each of several STIs by up to 60% - a good enough reason in itself to be circumcised.There is no real controversy except that stirred up by a tiny group of fanatics who worship the foreskin. Amongst those you will also find a significant anti-semitic element as openly shown when an anti-Jewish comic was produced by the group when proposing! a ban on circumcision in California.For a more complete run down of the medical benefits please see the leaflet at http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFMen-EN2012.pdf and its companion leaflets. These have been produced by an international group of expert doctors and academics....Show more

Autumn Vacio: Circumcision offers no health benefits whatsoever. All it does is give newborn males a nice wound making them 12 times more likely to catch MRSA:http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb564917....It is also responsible for a greater incidence of urinary infection in both babies and adults as these studies show:http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2008/10/06/adc.20...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434500Of course the american propaganda says otherwise but that's because circumcision proponents aren't afraid of manufacturing evidence. A good example of this is the study they did on UTI incidence at american military hospitals. Circumcision was routine at these hospita! ls. UTI incidence amongst the circumcised babies was shown to be less ! than amongst the intact babies. This was not due to any claimed protective benefits from circumcision though...At these hospitals babies were left intact if they were born prematurely. Circumcision is not carried out on premature babies due to the health risks involved. These babies were catheterized though and it would have been the catheterization which was responsible for the greater incidence of UTIs amongst them, not the lack of circumcision. The doctors who carried out this study would have known this, but they were not interested in the truth. They were after a particular result and weren't afraid of using a bit of subterfuge in the process.Circumcised men also suffer a greater incidence of genital warts/HPV (linked to penile and cervical cancer) than intact males, according to a US national health survey. But the pro-circ brigade prefer to promote an african study in which the opposite effect was manufactured: http://intactnews.org/node/119/1314979135/circumci...! The often-cited evidence for protection from HIV is just as suspect. Proponents of circumcision usually cite the african trials carried out by pro-circ US doctors in which two groups of african men were circumcised or left intact, and later checked for HIV infection. These trials were ended prematurely which ensured that the recovery period from the circumcision procedures had the greatest effect in skewing the results in their favour. The circumcised guys would have had to refrain from sex for a significant portion of the study period which obviously reduces their chances of catching the virus. Complications following the procedure would have skewed things even more. The circumcised group were also given condoms following their surgery while the intact group received none. One of the 3 trials showed a greater rise in HIV cases amongst the circumcised at the moment the study was cut short â€" HIV cases amongst the circumcised were liable to surpass those in the intact g! roup if the study had continued for its initially-prescribed duration. ! Also, at the close of the trials, the doctors protected their dubious conclusions by giving circumcisions to the intact control group so no meaningful follow up work could be done.US doctors also carried out an african study into male-to-female HIV transmission which was also terminated prematurely for different reasons. They were getting the opposite results than they wanted â€" the partners of the circumcised guys had a 50% greater incidence of HIV than the intact group:http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/P...A study in Puerto Rico showed that circumcised men were 50% more likely to contract genital warts and were 30% more likely to have HIV: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897699...and there's no sign of protection from HIV for circumcised gay men in the US: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/09/us-circu...The protein Langerin, expressed by Langerhans cells (concentrated in mucosal tissue like the inner foreskin), has been found to fight HIV:http:/! /www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...Also, circumcision is responsible for at least 100 infant deaths a year in the US (as many as SIDS): http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-ca...Oh, and the practise of circumcision is indirectly responsible for conditions like paraphimosis and many infections suffered by the intact too. Boys frequently inflict these on themselves through misguided attempts to make their penises look like those they see in the pornos. A boy's foreskin isn't expected to be retractable at the start of puberty but many kids are under the illusion it should and consequently end up hurting themselves and causing serious problems. Y!A is full of young teens who do this.Circumcision also reduces sexual pleasure for both sexes. Constant exposure of the glans to the air and rubbing against clothing results in desensitization, which would also account for the increased erectile dysfunction seen in later life. Since there is no foreskin to d! raw back when the penis is inserted into the vagina and no foreskin beh! ind the rim of the glans, friction is increased with the woman's natural lubrication getting scraped out by the circumcised penis, hence more pain for the woman. The scraping out of the protective mucosal linings of the vagina is probably responsible for the increased transmission of infections too.The only advantages circumcision brings is giving a guy a cartoon penis and maybe increasing his chances of getting a bj, but mutilating babies for that purpose is seriously whacked!...Show more

Clementina Collelo: 1

Kip Ockenfels: It has many positives, notably hygiene and lower chance of giving female partners infections.The World Health Organization is recommending circumcision in Africa to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Troy Monsivais: It's mostly for people like you to ask questions about.