Soap and Water Versus Circumcision

(4)

I think you will agree that this '25 year study' strongly suggests that circumcates are 50 percent less likely to come down with an STD after having sex with an infected pardner. I also agree. But is that a valid argument for neonatal penile mutilation? Absolutely not! There are many other ways of avoiding STDs: condoms, abstinence, genital cleansing (after the act), prayer, luck, etc. Circumcision is only one of many ways.

But consider what circumcision does besides 'making it 50 percent less likely' that you will be infected: circumcision is a horrible mutilation which decreases sexual pleasure by cutting away ennervated tissue which was designed by Mother Nature to both protect the penis and fascilitate sexual pleasure. Circumcision may please the Jewish god WHTZSNM, but Mother Nature would be absolutely appalled by the 'procedure' which makes it difficult to masturbate without a lubrication (pig fat, for example. Or olive oil).

(I just noticed that Reuters was the source for the study quoted some time ago by MSNBC. Wierd. Do The Jews own Reuters nowadays? If so, times have changed.)

I think we can all agree that 'prayer' and 'luck' are not reliable methods of avoiding infection. Considering that abstinence is not a serious option, this leaves soap and water as the single most likely rival to circumcision (excepting condoms). In the next post I will examine these two methods: soap and water vs circumcision.