@Delta
This "procedure" is violently robbing a child of specialized sexual structures, sexual function and autonomy over their body.
Virtually all men who are left intact as children do not choose to get a penile modification surgery as an adult.
If there is any reduction in STD's, it is due to the fact that a majority of the highly erogenous genital membrane tissue has been ablated from the penis and the remaining membrane tissue has developed layers of keratin. That is a profound loss and one that can only be weighed as adult. However, I personally think it is wild that a man would ever do that voluntarily without dire medical need like gangrene. Everything should be done to preserve this important tissue.
Lastly, any claim for STD reduction rates is still quite hotly contested. When you hear something like the often touted 60% reduction in HIV transmission, that is the relative risk. The real metrics tell a much different story. In this study, 1.2% of cut men acquired HIV vs 2% for intact men. Therefore, the absolute risk reduction is only .8 of a percent. In addition, only the men that had been cut were given condoms...
Bioethicist Brian Earp gives a detailed breakdown of the profound flaws of this study here - [A fatal irony: Why the "circumcision solution" to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase transmission of HIV | Practical Ethics](http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/)
