Ask Lemmy

No.

You are wrong.

There are literally 0 upsides.

There are 0 medically valid reasons to fully or partially circumsize a penis that is not suffering from some kind of rather rare, actual congenital malformation.

The only things you list as upsides are aesthetic, fashion choices, they're only 'popular' where you are ... because they are common where you are.

It literally is a disfiguring injury.

It signifcantly changes how the thing looks, and works. Thats disfigurement.

No, it is not as severe as female clitoral removal.

But, the foreskin has a ton of nerve density in it, comparable to how many nerves your head/glans has in it, as opposed to the significantly lower nerve density on a cut shaft.

A circumcised XY male person literally is not physically capable of experiencing the same level and variation of sensation, of sexual pleasure, as an uncircumcised person.

It also removes the ability of the penis to 'glide' along the foreskin when inserted, which means it changes how it functions.

Automatic male circumcision at birth is literally a brutal, nonconsensual method of reducing the pleasure an XY man can experience from sex.

Thats what it is.

Thats a cultural norm in the US, mainly, and not so much anywhere else.

For the record:

Circumsized guy here, done at birth, then, I learned things.

The US is a brutal and delusion place by the standards of basically everywhere else.

We are the weird ones, we are the brainwashed ones.

We just happen to also make the most porn, and we invented the internet, so our cultural norms have had an outsized importance and level of influence.

Outside of the US, male circumcision is generally only done by fairly extreme religious groups, and for very rare but actually medically necesssary and valid reasons, like some kind of actual congenital abnormality/malformation of the penis that is present at birth.