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.
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.