Just remember, anyone pushing the idea that circumcision is done for ANY reason other than aesthetic/religious grounds (namely medical) is outright lying, and a very VERY simply comparison can be made between first world nations to see this effect, considering that nations that aren't within North America generally have inverse rates of circumcision (IIRC, it's something like 1 in 5 in North America are intact, while in other developed countries it's at a similar inversion of 4 in 5 being intact), and despite those differences there is no noticeable difference regarding genital issues between these developed nations.
It's not a secret. It's not confusing. This is blatant and simple data comparison. We're not comparing backwater countries to developed countries. We're comparing nations that have comparable medical standards. And sadly, so many people cannot come to terms with the reality that circumcision is absolutely barbaric.
Routine Child Mutilation was definitely one of the biggest wakeup calls to me personally. It showed how clearly you could lay down the information and fools would still refuse to accept what was so obvious, because accepting it made them complicit with the evil of the world that they continually turn a blind eye to.
There are some studies showing that circumcision can help prevent STDs and UTIs from poor hygiene and other diseases related to hygiene, so that is somewhat disingenuous to say.
However, its impact is nonexistent if you have proper hygiene. So...they really should just be teaching people to wash their junk properly.
Nah, those studies have been bunk for a while and they rely on the comparison of first, second and third world nations as if they're all the same when they're not alike nations. The perpetuation of this myth has actually created serious harm in third world countries where they perform incredibly nasty "circumcision" in unclean environments with rusty utensils on adults and proceed to have unprotected sex thinking that they're now safe.
What's more is that STI's have virtually nothing to do with hygiene. You can't wash away chlamydia. Herpes isn't solved with a bit of soap. That involves actual medicine and/or protective prevention, which means the idea that circumcision helps prevent STIs completely bunk. The ONLY argument is hygiene, at which point you might as well advocate that we lop off the ears of every newborn because some people don't clean them well enough.
I could maybe see hygiene as "possibly" playing a very very small role in transmissibility for some STI's, but it would be so insanely negligible that it makes the claim completely moot.
All of that is true, but its in the same way that removing all water from an area prevents pests. Its weighed entirely as "this is the benefit" without balancing against the heavy baseline cost. Which is only the case when you assume the mutilation is a baseline and normalized.
Just remember, anyone pushing the idea that circumcision is done for ANY reason other than aesthetic/religious grounds (namely medical) is outright lying, and a very VERY simply comparison can be made between first world nations to see this effect, considering that nations that aren't within North America generally have inverse rates of circumcision (IIRC, it's something like 1 in 5 in North America are intact, while in other developed countries it's at a similar inversion of 4 in 5 being intact), and despite those differences there is no noticeable difference regarding genital issues between these developed nations.
It's not a secret. It's not confusing. This is blatant and simple data comparison. We're not comparing backwater countries to developed countries. We're comparing nations that have comparable medical standards. And sadly, so many people cannot come to terms with the reality that circumcision is absolutely barbaric.
Routine Child Mutilation was definitely one of the biggest wakeup calls to me personally. It showed how clearly you could lay down the information and fools would still refuse to accept what was so obvious, because accepting it made them complicit with the evil of the world that they continually turn a blind eye to.
There are some studies showing that circumcision can help prevent STDs and UTIs from poor hygiene and other diseases related to hygiene, so that is somewhat disingenuous to say.
However, its impact is nonexistent if you have proper hygiene. So...they really should just be teaching people to wash their junk properly.
Studies, huh?
Aren't we at the point where common sense is way better than 'studies'?
Nah, those studies have been bunk for a while and they rely on the comparison of first, second and third world nations as if they're all the same when they're not alike nations. The perpetuation of this myth has actually created serious harm in third world countries where they perform incredibly nasty "circumcision" in unclean environments with rusty utensils on adults and proceed to have unprotected sex thinking that they're now safe.
What's more is that STI's have virtually nothing to do with hygiene. You can't wash away chlamydia. Herpes isn't solved with a bit of soap. That involves actual medicine and/or protective prevention, which means the idea that circumcision helps prevent STIs completely bunk. The ONLY argument is hygiene, at which point you might as well advocate that we lop off the ears of every newborn because some people don't clean them well enough.
I could maybe see hygiene as "possibly" playing a very very small role in transmissibility for some STI's, but it would be so insanely negligible that it makes the claim completely moot.
All of that is true, but its in the same way that removing all water from an area prevents pests. Its weighed entirely as "this is the benefit" without balancing against the heavy baseline cost. Which is only the case when you assume the mutilation is a baseline and normalized.