I don't believe there is any medically justified reason beyond what would require anything to be amputated. All of the "medical reasons" people tout are thin bullshit. Anything people have claimed could be accomplished with much less invasive procedures. I'm furious and deeply hurt my parents did this to me. The whole reason is to reduce sensation during sex because sex is a "sin". My parents had the fucking gall to tell me looking at porn will impact my relationships after doing this shit to me.

we all have our own feelings about it. I'm not trying to say that the way you feel about your own circumcision is right or wrong, or how any man who decides - on their own, as an informed adult - is right or wrong to do so.

but I would vehemently argue that it is an adult man's decision to make, not a parent's decision to make for their infant son-- unless some medical condition makes it necessary to do so at that time (which are quite rare). and, yes, I understand that there are religious considerations, but, as an atheist, I'm not so sympathetic to that, either, as I classify all genital mutilation in the same category, regardless of age or gender: it is a decision to be made by the subject of the procedure, and only when they are a consenting, informed adult.

There are several possible reasons why other men might be upset, although your own equipment still works perfectly normally:

• Just like women's sexual responses differ, men's sexual responses may differ, as well. I've learned from a friend, who's had many male partners, that some men get intense pleasure from manipulation of their foreskin. Some can even reach orgasm that way. I've learned from several (intact) men on Reddit and Lemmy that their primary source of sexual sensation is their foreskin, rather than their glans. Losing a major source of pleasure could be upsetting.

• This same friend also reports that, in his experience, intact men have better awareness of their own state of arousal, and better control of it. In brief, they can "last longer." This is anecdotal, of course, but I seem to recall reading some research to back that up. That's part of the reason why he's upset by his being circumcised.

• "Circumcision" is not just one thing. It ranges from the traditional bris (a small snip at the tip of the penis, so that the tip of the glans just peeks out) to amputation of the entire mobile skin system of the penis (about 15 sq. in. of adult tissue gone). I would imagine that men who have drum-tight skin on their penises, and must use lube to facilitate penetration or masturbation, might not like it, whereas a man whose glans was still covered when his penis was flaccid might not notice much difference.

• The dorsal nerve of the penis can be severed during the procedure, removing sensation from the glans almost entirely, leading to erectile and performance issues, as well as greatly reduced enjoyment of sex.

• The healing of the circumcision wound can go not-quite-perfectly, leading to adhesions, assymetry, tight frenulums, phantom pain, and scarring. Journalist Gary Shteyngart wrote an essay about the odyssey of pain that he was thrown into when a skin bridge (an adhesion) on his penis became infected. Worse, I recall a letter published in Savage Love from a man whose circumcision scar was so thick and inelastic that it caused the end of his penis to go ischemic, then necrotic, and then fall off when he was an infant. He's left with a stub of a penis, and a pretty good reason to be upset about circumcision, I'd say.

ETA: I did not think of this, but @theleadensea@sh.itjust.works pointed out that removal of the foreskin complicates bottom surgery for trans women, I would guess because it gives the surgeon less tissue to work with.

So the problem is a lot of Americans/Catholics think a circumcision is something responsible adults do to their children to help them avoid potential health problems. They also erroneously believe the foreskin serves no purpose and is one of those we evolved with it, but it is useless kind of things.

They dont know the truth that it actually has a large number of nerve endings and its removal was originally pushed for to reduce the pleasure boys felt from masturbation, in the hope they would not masturbate. Because sex should only be for reproduction according to those who originally pushed for circumcision... It is like what is done to some women in muslim communities. Difference being woman have even more nerve endings in the clitoris and men can still experience some pleasure without the foreskin, but much less. This is why circumcision is often considered mutilation, except for those rare medical exceptions. Parents are unknowingly removing their childs right to sexual pleasure under the guise it is for their health.

It really needs to end as simple hygiene is all that is needed for the health reasons.

I mean, you lost a significant amount of your sensory nerves in your penis, but you do you.

Anyway, I fucking didn't do it to my kids because it is unconscionable to mutilate a child's (possibly) completely functional penis for aesthetic reasons.

BTW, You are bragging that you happened to be lucky. Many are not.

Obviously most circumsised people have no issues with their dicks. And a lot probably sees it as a positive. I have heard a people claim that they look better.

Doing plastic surgery on babies is still a bit weird to me.

Because sometimes there are scars. Sometimes they cut WAY too much and the skin left is too thin.

Nature designed that weiner, no need for cosmetic customization.