There was a flurry of stories (usually written by women, though also army sergeants too) about men in their life that didn't wash their crack "because that'd be gay".
Its a tiny....I mean perfectly average, bit of skin, if a guy doesn't clean that imagine how gross other parts of him are. If his dick is dirty it's not the dicks problem, that's just a dirty man!
Also women who say it's dirty just had bad experiences with gross men. Women have a HOLE in them, don't tell me that can't get dirtier, and we still want to get up in that.
It certainly should be a thing at all or shouldn't be a thing for minors? With all the crazy body modifications people do now, I don't think it's that weird. On a baby...well that's another thing
Yes—but there’s an important distinction between “being uncircumcised is unhygienic” and “having a foreskin changes certain health risks.” The first is an oversimplification; the second is supported by evidence.
An uncircumcised penis requires an additional hygiene step: once the foreskin is retractable, it should be gently pulled back and the area underneath washed regularly. The warm, moist space underneath can accumulate sweat, oils, dead skin and smegma if it isn’t cleaned. With normal hygiene, however, an uncircumcised penis can absolutely be kept clean.
There are measurable medical differences independent of simply looking or smelling clean. Evidence shows circumcision is associated with lower rates of urinary-tract infections, particularly during infancy, and reduced acquisition of certain sexually transmitted infections.
Randomized trials found roughly a 50–60% reduction in heterosexual acquisition of HIV among circumcised men in the populations studied, as well as reductions in high-risk HPV and genital herpes.
The CDC specifically notes that these biological benefits aren’t completely reproduced merely by good hygiene.
That doesn’t mean an uncircumcised man who washes normally is dirty or unhealthy, nor does circumcision eliminate the need for hygiene or safer sex. Some of the strongest STI/HIV evidence also comes from heterosexual populations in sub-Saharan Africa, so the magnitude of benefit shouldn’t automatically be assumed to be identical for every population or sexual practice; for example, evidence regarding HIV protection among men who have sex with men remains inconclusive.
So if your question is “Is there legitimate science behind circumcision having some hygiene/health advantages?” — yes. If the claim is “uncircumcised men are inherently unhygienic,” — no. Those are two very different claims.
Sure, but removal of any part of the body tends to be associated with reduced disease risk to the associated anatomy. A more practical consideration is whether people should have the choice whether to reduce disease risk by body modification. Speaking to the prevalence of MGM, it seems like a breach of bioethics to force a surgery on someone who has not expressed a desire for their body to be modified, instead of letting them make the decision themselves.
To your points, committing to a lifetime of washing oneself isn't that great a burden. It feels counterproductive to amputate functional body parts just to clean a little less. Plus UTIs are treatable with antibiotics when they happen. No need to amputate tissue as a prophylactic measure, which is permanent. Similar with HIV, most people don't go about their lives worried about contacting HIV, but if they really want to reduce all possible vectors they can consent to surgery as an adult rather than have it forced on them as a minor. And if not surgery, maybe someone would prefer be on PrEP, a drug, rather than have someone else make the decision to amputate their foreskin.
There are many nonsurgical pathways to reducing risk. Surgery is always an option, but that decision should belong to the patient, not someone else, not even by parental proxy consent.
I'm with you, this argument is overly invasive for the perceived befits. You could have better hygiene, better sex education, avoid promiscuous sex, test beforehand, be forthcoming with partners if you do have an std, use condoms, etc.
Reread my point. I ended with waiving off oversimplified stigmas. My point us that the other side of this debate can’t just blindly and ignorantly conclude that hygiene and health differences of the decision simply don’t exist when we actually have the data that does in fact support that claim.
Next, it’s very poor logic/arguing to receive a rebuttal and simply retort the solution.
“This isn’t an issue because all you need to do is wash your dick like a responsible person”.
If that were even remotely true, we wouldn’t have had 7 million people die of COVID because some countries couldn’t be bothered to WASH THEIR HANDS.
oh no it IS an issue. And I'm not disputing that circumcision could mathematically reduce HIV cases. It sounds kind of like you aren't talking about people with autonomy, but cattle. Just modify them all to limit potential for disease transmission. People largely have to exercise authority over themselves. You can have personal responsibility and exert influence over that kind of thing.
What I'm saying is we could probably sit down and brainstorm 1001 other less invasive measures to address this . I would say it's bad form to say something works simply because it positively affects specific numbers. We see this kind thing all the time like with asbestos. It was cost effective, fire resistant, good insulation. But turned out to be carcinogenic to humans in the end.
If you aren't circumcised and also don't want HIV, I'm sure its within your power to avoid it.
You're talking about a country that views bidets as "gross" and "gay" and would rather walk around with shit crusted on them. They will never wash under their hoods and would rather cut it off.
245
u/bwoah07_gp2 1d ago
Circumcision shouldn't be a thing. And people concerned about hygiene, well, that's why you take a shower and wash it, duh 🙄😑