Has great health benefits including reduced hiv transmission by up to 60 percent. Cleaner and easier in general for the man plus it looks really nice circumcised. Thoughts on making circumcision compulsory? I think it's a great idea and can help a lot medically.
Should circumcision be mandatory?
What Guys Said 28
I don't know why humans would ever be born with something that should apparently be cut off... so no I completely disagree with you. The part about HIV transmission is basically the same as the cleanliness part so as long as you actually clean under your foreskin like you should, then you'll be fine. And no, circumcision should not be mandatory because you think it looks better. So no I completely disagree, circumcisions should not be mandatory.2
It should be outlawed. Your health benefits are largely debunked bullshit.7
Absolutely not. Circumcision has not been shown to reduce any Syd transmission in developed countries. Only condom use, regular testing, and abstinence can prevent stds. Contrary to what you're asking, routine infant circumcision should be illegal. Removing healthy, functioning erogenous tissue from and permanently altering the sexual function of a minor that cannot possibly consent is just plain wrong.0
Decapitation should be mandatory. Removing the entire head at birth will result in 100% reduction of HIV infections. It will also offer a 100% reduction in blue and pink anons.1
Yeah it also make the tip of his cock less sensitive so worse sex for him... Yes, nice... Scars can occur... No thank you... I don't see myself gaining anything from cuting my fucking cock... If men should do it why shouldn't women it can be bad now can it? ;(3
if it's cared for then the foreskin can stay and no health issues ensue. the reduction in disease is basically a myth, even if it did reduce deserve it won't be by enough to make a difference, a condom would work better.
foreskin also helps for sex, it's better for self pleasure and it keeps it all sensitive.
little if any benefit to removal of foreskin but losing some nice perks once gone, no thanks.1
but uncircumcised have a range of different health benifits including fewer bladder and kidney infection a number of other stds are reduced and of course the penis is larger.4
Male Circumcision is misandry of the highest order. That little snip of infant skin would have grown to be 15 square inches of highly erogenous tissue, the most sensitive part of the penis, which greatly affect sexual function. No wonder American girl are so sexually frustrated when 80% of males in the US are sexually mutilated.4
I personally an not circumsized, and I think it is barbaric to cut off a organ of a newborn child, I think unless you are a jew or muslim, you shouldn't have to do it. Also, as long as you properly clean it you will not get any negative health effects. Also the foreskin provides natural lubrication, and your penis is more sensitive, and sex feels better.4
Studies show benefits, but not enough to be universally mandated
So I don't think they should be compulsory2
Don't like "mandatory". Next thing you know, they will regulate your pubic hair.1
Oh please hell no, I am not circumcized. I do not have hiv, my girlfriend doesn't think my dick looks weird, and if we have to have bits of our penises cut off as babies, maybe women should have pieces of their vagina cut out.2
An idiot will spead diseases and stink like sewers even if he's circumsized. Your argument is invalid as its almost preventable with common sense and minimum education.1
Coz your mentally fuckin handicapped. Let's cuts your tits off and see how happy and bouncy and enthusiastic you are about mutilation afterwards. I pity the guy that you get lumbered on1
BULLSHIIIIIIIIIIT. IT DOES NOT HELP IN THE FIRST WORLD AT ALL. Fuck off with genital mutilation.2
Only if you look like this:
No.. we shouldn't circumcise guys for your unrealistic porn standards1
As a happy foreskin owner, I say: hell no.2
No it should not be mandatory what a man does with his dick is his business.1
Choice cis always good0
I think Im but not sure0
yes i agree.0
Of women? Sure.0
Female circumcision has more benefits, I think that's what should be mandatory.0
Yes, women should be circumcised at birth, absolutely. Not only does it prevent promiscuity and lustful thoughts when they are older, it's got medical benefits too. It also looks cleaner and teenage girls don't masturbate when circumcised. It's a great idea. More women need to think like you do.1
What Girls Said 4
No. Because with proper safe sex practises - that everyone, regardless of circumcision or gender - should be utilising there is no benefit. Its not hard to clean a penis, personally I don't think it's more aesthetically appealing.
It's a barbaric practise done to infants without their consent. If there is a medical reason, or a man decides when he's old enough to understand the process then by all means but anything other than that is superficial16
I don't think it should be.. because there's no scientific data to prove your theory of health benefits.. I personally think it's alright if the kid has been circumcised when he was under 3yo... but adult circumcision can be very painful and I don't think it's worth it2
No, the benefits are very small. Honestly it should be the choice of the person who owns the penis when they fully understand what's going to happen.1
Should appendectomy be mandatory?0
Select as Most Helpful Opinion?
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.