🍕

"As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the fore-skin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment: the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision."

-Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed 1190 C.E.

How long until parents can get a labiaplasty and laser hair removal for their daughters, I wonder?

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. (https://youtu.be/D_dzeDvx2QA) The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion, dryness, contact with clothes, and keratinization. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This also decreases the superficial friction applied to the vaginal walls and creates more of a massaging effect. (https://youtu.be/cOZQ-2rV2zQ) Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif) Full study: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847)

https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20

To want it as fashion for yourself, fine.
To want it as fashion on someone else, not fine.

But the vast, *vast* majority of the time, circumcision is non consensual, non therapeutic, and forced on minors. Hence the ethical issue

"It looks better/women will prefer it" is an all too common justification given in America, where it is done for secular reasons

It's commonly touted for a justification for infant male circumcision in America, yes

Was that first google search authored by Brian Morris by any chance?

Oh boy

He's a circumcision fetishist who publishes tons of heavily biased reports

Like that one you referenced above.

American women claimed to prefer it because they think it's cleaner and has less STDs. No checking of they have actually experienced uncircumcised penises, just playing off of cultural myths

What other healthy body parts may parents have amputated for purported health benefits?

Well, one also has to consider the value of the body part being removed. Removing toes will reduce your risk of cancers, prevent toe injuries, one could even argue it makes it easier to clean your feet. But toes are also used for balance and gripping. Sure, you can live while missing a few toes. But that is hardly a justification to remove healthy toes off of newborns because the parents want it that way.

Falls back to my first question: what other healthy, normal body parts do we allow parents to have amputated off of children? Well the answer is none. So why is the male prepuce (foreskin) the only exception?

Well one has to look at the absolute chance of getting xyz disease. If you're overall chance of getting xyz is 10%, then that 85% reduction is really only bringing you down to 1.5%.

Also, the standard to interven on another person's body is medical necessity. Now, if the doctors made a diagnosis that thick child *will* get xyz disease but removing this organ will increase their chances of surviving, that may be an appropriate solution.

*But*, before that, we also have to take into account alternative, tissue preserving solutions that may be available, as amputation is viewed as a last resort

If someone got conjunctivitis, it could be cured by removing the eye.

I mean, it works.

But is that an appropriate response when it could be healed within a week with $20 of antibiotics?

If there is a medical reason that tonsiliectomy is warranted, no. Because that would be medical necessity. But that wouldnt be the parents bringing their kid in to the doctors office saying "Hey doc, take put my kid's tonsils." A doctor would have to find an present condition where the tonsils need to be removed.

Btw, tonsillectomy is not anywhere near as common as it once was because a) we can treat tonsillitis without removing them and b) doctors finally had to admit that tonsils have functions. Tonsiliectomy used to be a trendy thing for a while and many people would get their tonsils removed even without any problems

Here is a listing of possible complications

https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html

You also have to include the guaranteed loss of the foreskin as a negative to the circumcision