[user104658]

People massively overcomplicate this issue, and also make far too much of the "glorious foreskins!" arguments... anyone would think it was a slightly freudian issue . And don't get me started on these "intactivist" websites . For a start, they're populated 90% by The Angry Mums Of Facebook, spouting really odd things about their son's "perfect intact penises" . I swear they probably have foreskin statues decorating their houses. It's an odd, odd group of people.

As for the issue itself, it's a fairly simple one.

- Removal of the foreskin does make some difference to sensitivity

- And can OCCASIONALLY lead to lubrication issues if things are a bit "dry anyway"

- ...but the differences between cut and uncut penises are hugely exaggerated. In most cases, there is very little difference in terms of sensation or function, and claims to the contrary are sensationalist.

- Circumcision does significantly lower the risk of contracting an STI, and especially HIV..

- However that's not HUGELY relevant IMO because anyone having "risky" sex (unprotected sex with partners who they aren't fairly certain are clean) should obviously be using protection anyway.


BUT

- No, parents should NOT have the right to permanently modify their children's bodies in ANY way unless there is a valid medical reason to do so.

- At age 18 it can then be totally down to the individual, like any other body modification (piercings, tattoos, etc).