zigzag
We are talking about circumcising newborns, correct?
Routine circumcision is a cure in search of a disease.
The true motivation isn’t the boy’s health. From some (not all) women’s perspective, it’s about controlling a boy’s sexual energy. Cut away his foreskin, and you (believe that you) can reduce his sex drive, “taming” him, domesticating him. (This alludes to Maimonides’ after-the-fact [Login to see the link] for removing the entire foreskin.) Many mothers’ greatest fear is that their teen son will impregnate another teen.
Circumcision gives these moms a feeling of control. It’s a stand-in for castration, which many would do if it were reversible. Give him his balls back once he’s ready to bring Mom grandchildren.
Circumcised fathers are a different nut, even harder to crack because they’re personally invested. To spare their son circumcision, they have to acknowledge that their own penis isn’t what it could have been, and never will be. Most take the path of least resistance, “It didn’t hurt me, and I’m fine, so he’ll be fine, too.” Or they fall back on the old “be like Daddy” trope, which has no basis other than conjecture.
Circumcised dads would also have to accept that when they were at their most helpless and dependent, the people who loved them had them strapped down and stripped of the most sensitive part of their body forever. That’s too hard for many to swallow.