veigus wrote
I just don’t understand the logic behind these peoples’ thought process. They all act like their son can’t decide to have himself circumcised if there is a medical reason justifying it. “Let’s just proactively circumcise because there is a 1% chance of the boy having a problem with his foreskin.”
I find that this is almost uniquely a US thing. Perhaps unsurprising as they are the only country that practices routine infant circumcision for non-religious reasons. The amount and depth of ignorance regarding foreskin among medical practitioners (let alone the general population) is staggering.
They have this exaggerated idea of how often medical problems that require intervention occur and of course the treatment is always pre-emptive total amputation. They never seem to wonder why other countries where circumcision rates are low don't have queues of people lining up to get their "problem" fixed. They presumably think that men who lived before 1900 were dying from infected foreskins, cancer of the penis, or smegma volcanoes.
Also, only humans seem to have these phantom medical problems. All the other mammals are just lucky I guess. (Actually, now that I think of it, I'm kinda surprised that US vets (vetinarians not veterans) haven't tried to promote getting your pets circumcised as a way to make more money).
