Shame on You Robert Bazell

(5)

But first a note about 'prayer and luck:' I see both methods of avoiding STDs as about equal concerning the eventual results. Indeed, luck might even yield better results given that God might be offended by such prayers.

Regarding circumcision versus soap and water, here are the major arguments:

Circumcision is effective half of the time because of the dried out, leathery nature of the circumcised penis. Over many years the penis has adjusted itself to the elements. It has dried out and formed protective tissue over the glans. This (thick) tissue is what protects against invasion by STD-causing microbes. Most STDs probably enter the penis via the urethral opening. This same leathery tissue contributes very little to sexual enjoyment.

On the other hand, the natural (tap) penis has a warm, wet environment under the foreskin. There, germs can prosper and multiply unless the penis is regularly skinned back and washed with soap and water. It follows that unless the natural penis is washed after a sexual encounter it will be more likely to harbour unwanted life forms which may have been transferred from the sexual pardner.

This brings us to 'probability:' circumcates are half as likely to be infected as normals. Is that really an argument for neonatal sexual mutilation? I think not. Such a small benefit is hardly compensation for such a huge loss in lifetime sexual enjoyment, especially when much more effective measures than neonatal circumcision are available. Shame on you Robert Bazell.