This is the Fallacy of the Vivid Instance. You don't know the literally billions of men (seven out of ten of the world's men) who are intact and have never had any trouble, but you're prepared to recommend circumcising every baby on the basis of this one - who may not even have been circumcised, or needed it if he was. (US doctors are taught nothing about the foreskin except how to cut it off.) The real problem with this child is the exaggerated shame that prevented him seeking treatment. (And he might have concealed the problem because he'd heard about getting it cut off, or even been threatened with that.)I know someone who was not circumcised. As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected. He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone. The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor. It still embarasses him to this day.
That in itself should be enough reason not to do it.Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be ...circumcised.
How does that make it not matter?But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised.
You could justify drug rape using that argument (and no, I'm not comparing them in any other way)2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain.
With the rate down to 55%, no you're not. But that's just saying he must have part of his penis off to make him conform. And when he comes home and asks why he's different from the others, I'd rather be able to tell him that their parents had part of their peepees cut off and we didn't, than that they didn't and we did.And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.
It's even easier to clean if it is hard.You clean a intact dick with soap and water it's not that hard.
That's a good comparison. About as long as to floss between two or three teeth. And it's more fun. (See above.)From what I hear it takes less time than to floss properly.