Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life

There is a risk of causing shame to men who are circumcised with statements like "Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life".

It is great that there seems to be an emerging dialogue where we question whether we should be circumcising without medical necessity, and challenge long-held assumptions with science. But it is still a highly personal issue, and a degree of sensitivity in the language would go a long way.

I don't know, am I overreacting here?

Cows being worshipped and protected from being killed for meat in Hinduism might have been a reaction to famines where cows could eat grass, weeds, plants that humans cannot eat and provide valuable protein to people in the form of milk for a long time vs. being instantly killed for meat. Which also explains why a significant fraction of Hindus are non-vegetarians but only eat chicken, fish and some goat/lamb, since those are not normal sources of milk.

On similar lines, I wonder if circumcision was thought to have some utility in those times before it turned into a religious edict. May be to reduce pleasure to decrease teen pregnancies which put a strain on families to raise a baby, or maybe slow down the spread of some widespread venereal disease.

Someone loved dropping that line in a study about circumcision.