ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

A Circumcised Man is Best for a Woman's Health

Updated on May 27, 2011

San Francisco's Penis Ballot

It's true, overall. Not counting its more visual appeal, for women (or gay men) it is safer than males that are not.

Studies show that circumcision greatly diminishes the possibility of a woman from the exposure to  the human papillomavirus that does cause cervical cancer and helps in the prevention of the woman in the transmission of the HIV virus that causes AIDS. In both cases, studies show that the cells on the inside of a male's penis foreskin somehow increase the percentage of getting HIV because the cells become infected with it. A man's penis that is circumcised removes the foreskin and eliminates this danger for transmission.

San Francisco, of all cities, has the opposite position on the ballot that would prohibit all males from being circumcised if 18 yrs. or under. regardless of religious customs etc. Those who are behind this ballot seem to ignore the fact that studies do show a 50% reduced risk in the transmission of HIV when the male is circumcised!

Makes you wonder who is behind this idiot ballot measure? How in the world would it even be enforced, at birth? Will there be "Penis Police" in the men's room? SF is one place to avoid if you are looking for sex.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Granny's House profile image

      Granny's House 6 years ago from Older and Hopefully Wiser Time

      @ Beaks. You are so right.

    • profile image

      Beaks 6 years ago from USA

      The legislation is to allow young men the opportunity to make their own decisions about their bodies instead of allowing their parents to make the decision for them. Kids under 18 shouldn't be having sex anyway.

    • perrya profile image

      perrya 6 years ago

      Choose the study in which you wish to believe in. There are studies on both sides of the fence.

    • profile image

      Ron Low 6 years ago

      Why ignore Wawer/Gray 2009 where they reported that circumcising Ugandan men made them 50% MORE likely to infect their female partners with deadly HIV?

      When Wawer/Gray reported a possible reduction in female-to-male transmisssion years earlier the world went nuts over the news, but this latest finding has not been followed up on or refuted. The WHO hasn't even bothered to revise their 2007 policy statement.

    • perrya profile image

      perrya 6 years ago

      yes, of course, but in the heat of the moment.........

    • FGual profile image

      FGual 6 years ago from USA

      There would be even less risk if condom and monogamy were practiced consistently. That could bring the risk down to zero.