The foreskin. It doesn’t mean any harm. Sure, it ain’t good for much, but is that any reason to slice and discard?
I am a standard American circumcision survivor, from a long line. My 2-year-old son, however, remains fully sheathed. My SO and I did a lot of research and heard a lot of yammering from both sides:
“Circumcision is nothing but ritualistic mutilation, and subjects infants to unnecessary pain.”
“Un-circ’s get infections.”
“Cut weeners lose sexual sensitivity due to constant stimulation.”
“If you don’t cut, he will look weird to the other kids in gym.”
“If you cut, he will look weird to every other gentile in the world.”
“Well, my pappy’s circumcised, and that’s good enough for me.”
My wife’s own two brothers weighed in with their very own late-in-life snipster accounts, one for medical reasons (which was not horribly painful) and one for cosmetic (which was). Neither have circumcised their own sons.
Beneath all the extremes, however, was a more sensible undercurrent, whose consensus seemed to be that there was no compelling medical reason to cut, and likewise no ruinous aftermath for those who are anyway.
In the end, we didn’t buy the social arguments. As a kid, I never even knew what a foreskin was, much less spend time checking out other locker room shlongs. Besides, more and more parents are opting against, so my boy is less likely to be the lone scabbard-bearer. Why lace the already traumatic experience of womb-eviction with more pain and indignity?
That’s how we figured it, anyhow. How about y’all? Do we spare the scalpel and spoil the son? Or should we just leave shorty be?

