IS NON-THERAPEUTIC CIRCUMCISION MORALLY PERMISSIBLE?

Is the non-therapeutic circumcision
of infant boys morally permissible?

You may have the idea that the foreskin of the penis is nothing but a disease-incubating, hard-to-clean nuisance, my moral points notwithstanding. But you’d be wrong. The foreskin serves more than one important function.

First, it protects the soft, moist, and sexually-sensitive glans penis from environmental degradation. The “head” of a circumcised penis, in contrast, becomes leathery and tough, as well as desensitized, as it rubs against clothing and other foreign elements year after year. Second, it serves a sexual function as well.
The nerve endings on a foreskin’s inner surface become exposed when the penis is engorged—while the foreskin glides over the glans during intercourse—increasing pleasure for both partners and making vaginal dryness less likely a problem.

As one of my readers, citing this study, relates:

The foreskin contains 85% of the sexually receptive nerve endings of the penis. The “ridged band,” also known as the “preputial sphincter” is the most sensitive part of an intact male’s body, containing 20,000 meisner’s corpuscle nerve endings.
These are the nerve endings that sense light touch, as in the anus or lips. They are also found in highly concentrated patterns on the palms of our hands and soles of our feet.
[To get a rough idea of the difference between an intact versus a circumcised penis on the sensitivity dimension] compare the sensation of gently gliding a finger over your palm versus the back of your hand.

In fact, circumcision first became a standard medical practice in the US, and subsequently a mindless cultural habit, specifically as a means to combat masturbation.

The aim, that is, was to reduce the sexual function of the penis:

In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce [foreskin] is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate.
(“On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood.” The Lancet, Vol. 1; 7 April 1860.)

We’ve moved past the folly of anti-masturbationism; we should move past the cruelty of circumcision as well.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

http://blog.practicalethics. ox.ac.uk/2011/08/circumcision-is-immoral-should-be-banned/ 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

.