Mitigating a tiny, fractional risk is not worth the amputation of the extremely innervated tissue that is the foreskin, whose function is to keep the glans moist and not chapped, shriveled and dried, as would be the case in mutilated penises. Cut men have no idea of the loss of pleasure due to the loss of sensory feedback due to this babaric elective procedure, unless they elected to do so while healthy, in adulthood, post sexual experience.
It is not for no reason that circumcision “reversal” procedures are advertised with increasing frequency these days.
Europe, Australia is largely uncut. Half the males in the US have their penises mutilated. Not much of a difference in STD rates (the US might actually have higher numbers for HIV) between the three, and certainly not worth the loss in pleasure for the male for a risk which simple hygiene practices solve with no issue. But then, how will surgeons get their cut?
Is that you, Dr. Edell?
“It is not for no reason that circumcision reversal procedures are advertised with increasing frequency these days.”
Insecure liberals.
It's a brutal operation!
I couldn't walk for most of a year afterwards!