Only thing worse than circumcising a baby would be circumcising a more mature person who doesnt have the nueroplasticity to adapt to the change. Not saying it should be done. But it definitely shouldnt be done after infancy. I happen to know someone who made the mistake. It was catastrophic.
The whole point in arguing that it should be done later, is that most men bond with their penis. It brings them joy and they feel a sense of masculine pride about it. They will fight to keep their manhood whole.
And for the idiots who don't protect their friggin penis, does it fucking matter? Does it matter if it hurts more as if it were done in infancy? You fucking deserve pain for voluntary letting someone pull a knife on your penis. Why not let them castrate you while you are it?
Arguing to have it done later is to give men a choice to safe their penis.
Arguing it's better done in infancy is to argue to not give men the option to protect their penis.
Im still arguing its best not done at all. Just pointing out that doing it after infancy will truly destroy your sexual pleasure. And although i cant be sure the pleasure is unaffected. Im confident through experience that being circumcised as an infant does not DESTORY your sexual pleasure. But yes if you give them a choice the number of corcumsicions would be near zero for sure. A good point.
If you are 16+ years old, you let someone pull a surgical knife on your penis, and you realize that this made your sex life worse, you deserve it.
Even if you were factually correct, there is no point in arguing this case if you are genuinely against circumcision and not trying to be subversive. Because some parents will use that as an excuse to mutilate their child.
(post is archived)