My two cents: if circumcision is to be done, it should be done while the recipient is still an infant, and will thus have no memory of it afterward. Once it's established that the boy has a working memory, the time for circumcision has passed. Otherwise, it should only be performed if there is an immediate health risk and circumcision is the best treatment (although in all honesty I can't fathom what would require circumcision as a treatment).
There are pros and cons to both having a foreskin and not, and I do not believe one way or another that one option is superior over another.
Uncircumcised penii are harder to keep clean than their circumcised brethren.
Circumcised penii are less sensitive to stimulation compared to uncircumcised penii.
During coitus/intercourse, the foreskin peels back to expose the glans anyway. It would surprise me greatly if during intercourse a male's foreskin did not peel back. That could potentially interfere with ejaculation. Difference being is that it would be a distinctly more intense sensation for the uncircumcised penis.
Circumcision will not kill you, and there is no immediate harm aside from the discomfort of contact against the now exposed head, something that the owner will grow accustomed to.
|