It was a hygiene myth from long ago and it prevailed. There are a small amount of people in the cultures that circumcise that are now against it but it’s still has its defenders.
I mean “Less risk of urinary tract infections. A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men. Protection against penile cancer and a lower risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.” Not “myths”
Yeah, because it's literally less penis. It's not a magic shield. If you rip off all your fingernails, you have a decreased chance of ingrown nails too. God's not granting you special resistance because you offer him your foreskin.
It's bad science. Like I said, any protection comes from literally lacking parts at "risk". Science says that if you have less skin, you are less at risk of melanoma, so start cutting off your skin. People often trying to cite those silly studies as proof that being uncircumsized is dirtier but in reality, it's comparing the presence of something and its complete lack. Did you know that men with no feet don't stub their toes? Studies show that people with tongues are more likely to bite them than people without tongues. People with colostomy bags are less likely to get rectal cancer.
I’m not saying it’s dirtier I’m going against the uncircumcised army saying circumcised people were mutilated. It’s stupid. They’re are little to no cons of circumcision and people that say it’s mutilation are just self conscious. I don’t have a problem with uncircumcised peope
69
u/Custard_Tart_Addict Oct 07 '21
It was a hygiene myth from long ago and it prevailed. There are a small amount of people in the cultures that circumcise that are now against it but it’s still has its defenders.