Uncircumcised and STD Contr..

Ok, here's the deal. People always claim that having a foreskin makes you more prone to contracting STDs like HIV, AIDs, and whatnot. How is this even a valid argument? If you have sex with a person with an STD, and go unprotected, a lack of foreskin isn't going to give you protection from microscopic viruses and bacteria that can enter your body in a myriad of ways. Arguing that the foreskin allows disease to permeate through it is a feeble argument as well, since there still is skin left on a circumcised penis. So why do people even argue that circumcision gives you boosted resistance to STDs? What other basis is there to this flawed argument?

The thinking is because the foreskin has Langerhan's cells, or because it can tear, or becuase it is soft compared to the dried up circumcised penis (which is silly because if the reasoning is that it's less sensitive, why promote it?)

It's just a way for people to promote circumcision with no logic. All men need to use condoms unless they are in a safe relationship where both partners have come up clean and hopefully not cheating. Think back to all the things circumcision supposedly prevented (like masturbation and bed-wetting and epilepsy) this is just as fictitious as those.

I also think it's no reason to cut babies at all. Teens could be presented with the info before they start having sex and make a choice about whether they think the studies are true and it's worth getting cut and taking a risk, or whether they'd rather wrap it up.