Freddie compares circumcision and abortion:
Often times, in this debate, you encounter people who take it as self-evidently absurd (and, often, funny) that anyone could be emotionally invested in the presence or absence of foreskin. You get these dueling sets of evidence, about STDs and penile cancer, and about pleasure reduction, etc. To me, trying to convince people empirically that the foreskin is important is exactly the wrong way to go about having the argument. Because just as with a pregnant woman and her choice, it is absolutely immaterial that anyone else be able to understand why a man might feel one particular way about his foreskin. It really doesn't matter if anyone on the Internet can be convinced about his feelings. It only matters that we recognize that it is his body.
I had dinner with a Masai warrior last night (no kidding) and he told me that the Masai mutilate their sons at the age of 14. Of course, those boys don't have much of a choice. But in America, why can't parents allow their own sons to make that decision for themselves before they hit puberty? Say around 13 or fourteen?