Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

I can't believe we live in a society where a woman can express a preference for male infant genital mutilation and nobody thinks twice, but if I were to come out here and assert how pleasing I find the results of female genital mutilation on women, you'd rightly decry me as a monster. I like it when my female partners shave areas, etc - but I'd never even entertain the idea of asserting how pleasing I'd find them if only their genitals had been mutilated as a child.I don't see how anybody's asthetic concerns should influence the decision whether or not to mutilate an infant. It's child abuse, no question; it's a staggering act of painful barbarity inflicted on the young by institutional medicine. There's no medical benefit and the "cleanliness" aspect is specious at best; are you telling me that it's all that hard to get a teenage boy to spend some time playing around down there with some soap in the shower?

As others have said, it's not going to matter in the least for about 15 years at the soonest. As the anti-circumcision movement continues, I doubt that there will be any societal pressure to fit in in that way, because the circumcised are going to be the ones that are the minority, anyway.

I know. I'm just saying, it's an indicator of sexism in our society that a woman can just freely toss off a statement like that; a statement that is roughly equivalent to a man approving of female "circumcision" because he thinks vaginas look better without the clitoris, and the sensation of intercourse is improved because of the sutures they put in.I'm sure your girlfriend doesn't approve of child abuse. But the fact that the process is most commonly associated with infant genital mutiliation, and not as a voluntary cosmetic change done by adults, should give anyone pause before they casually assert how cosmetically pleasing it is.It's like approving of the asthetic qualities of land-mine victims; "I like 'em without legs cuz I can roll 'em all around." It's ghoulish, when you get right down to it; I don't blame your girlfriend or you because it's what we're culturally accustomed to. I'm very much accustomed to my own modified - I can't even bring myself to say "mutilated", which would be more accurate, really - penis, after all, and wouldn't want to be magically "restored". But I know that if I had not been circumcised, I would prefer it that way, too. Yeah. Not specifically directed at you. None of it really was, actually; more like I was using your post as a springboard to comment more generally on how society views the genital mutilation of infant men - that is to say, as no big deal at all.Shouldn't it be a bigger deal, though?

No, the intent is identical in both cases; in both cases, children are being sexually mutilated to anticipate the asthetic concerns of their future sex partners. But they were told to do so not out of cleanliness, but as a covenant to be kept with God, to signify their unique status as His chosen people. Anyway, do you have any evidence that the incidence of penis-related diseases was lower for the Jews of that time than their neighboring Gentiles and other peoples?