Routine Infant Circumcision Is Grounded In A Cynical View Of Human NatureAmerican parents circumcise their boys thinking to protect them from taunting, ridicule and bullying by circumcised peers, and from rejection by women in the bedroom. They also think they are protecting their sons from the worst consequences of any eventual irresponsible sexual behaviour. In other words, parents who circumcise assume that other boys are arrogant bullies, that young women are hopelessly shallow and conformist, and that their son will grow up to be a manwhore. I decline to think so negatively of my fellow humans.
It is done at birth so that a man will never know what it's like to have a foreskin. So that he has no memory of the brutality of the surgery. Most of all, so that the surgery can be imposed on him by force, for his alleged own good and that of his sex partners. There is a great fear that young men will refuse to part with their foreskins, no matter the supposed benefits, because the foreskin plays a crucial role in the pleasure derived from erection, ************, foreplay, and penetrative sex. So they must be shorn of their foreskins regardless of their consent. The trauma of genital surgery without consent will be bitterly resented... unless the surgery is carried out at the very start of life. This cynically takes advantage of the newborn's physical weakness and mental cluelessness.