If that’s what we’re talking about, count me in except for the outrage. It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way. What negative repurcussions are you suffering from it? Was the surgery botched, is that why?
Reduced sensitivity is not necessarily bad is what I'm trying to get at. Complete lack of sensitivity is a real problem, a botched circumcision will do that. But a botched circumcision is just like any other botched surgery: a cock-up. Surgeons make mistakes and cut nerves they weren't supposed to in other kinds of surgeries too. To put more stringent labels on an accident, such as a crime on humanity, feels a little extreme.
An intriguing speculation. Might possibly be tested by a survey for correlation between circumcision status and premature ejaculation, though screening out confounders could pose a challenge.
The first reason is merely personal, I don't like saying it. While I did not mention this in my other comment, I prefer to use the term "genital cutting" instead. This is because the term imparts more meaning and understanding about the practice when people use it. "Circumcision" isn't a common word, it is derived from Latin, and doesn't have an immediate etymological obviousness the same way "genital cutting" does.
>"It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way."
Understandable. For the majority of us who had this procedure done routinely, our modified anatomy is all we've ever known. There's no way for us to experientially compare. If it weren't for the internet, I'm certain I would have lived my life without ever knowing I was actually missing something. To be clear, though, this would be a result of near complete ignorance rather than evidence that the procedure has no downside or effect whatsoever, something which many do assert and cite lack of widespread complaint among men as evidence.
>"Was the surgery botched, is that why?"
To be upfront, I am so deeply against what was done to me as a newborn that even if the doctor performed the most clean and by-the-book cut in all of human history, I would still be just as resentful as I am today. That being said, I do have complications that I sense are a result of the pediatrician cutting too tightly. Not only does the remaining skin have uneven stretch marks, I have a really bad "turkey neck" problem. This isn't a medical term, I don't think there is one, but my urologist has confirmed that much of the skin on my penis is actually scrotal skin. Despite this, my urologist does not believe the procedure was "botched" and according to him what I have is fairly typical. This last bit is perhaps macabre, but he could also tell my pediatrician was left-handed, based on where the scar begins and ends!
I'm sure that if the pediatrician was much less aggressive that day I would be better off, but that is not the root of my lament. I am still missing the nerve endings and protection that would have been provided by the missing tissue. To use an absurd analogy (that you should not take as an argument): If I had my part of right arm amputated, I would probably be better off if the doctor didn't remove as much of my forearm but I would still be missing my entire hand.