Appendix: without medical attention, an infection is deadly (peritonitis).
Yes, that's true. And this is also a perfect counterpoint to your own argument. Something which has a use, but can possibly have problems later in life is NOT removed as preventive measure in modern medicine. Doctors used to remove tonsils and appendices of children as a precautionary procedure, and they no longer do so. Infections are no longer as big a deal as they used to be and are quite manageable. Now if an infected appendix can be fatal, but the medical community has deemed that they should not be removed as preventive medicine, why should it be different for foreskins, which have no such life threating implications?
You need to consider that medical systems have sqewed evolution by allowing people with deffects to survive and reproduce. And in tribal settings, a women wouldn't choose a man whose foreksin can't retract.
Which "tribe" would you be talking about here? Or is this just a genral term you're using for primitive human culture, about which you can provide no evidence and no one can provide counterpoint?
While the anti circers see an non retractable foreksin as perfectly normal, it is not. It is unclean, and definitely leads to more infections.
That should be a fairly easy statistic for you to find. Would you like to present it, or are we supposed to take your word for it? Also a non-retractable foreskin is "normal" in the sense that it is part of natural human variation, but it can possibly be problematic. However, in the vast majority of cases, stretching and/or steroid cremes can fix the issue. Why should you amputate a body part when you can instead fix it? And why is it necessary to perform circumcisions on minors before they even show signs that they may have this problem?
In today's society, by the time the female learns that a mate has uretractable foreksin, they are well into their relationship and she is then willing to overlook that aspect. But if the guy had a t-shirt stating "my foreksin can't retract" and walk around on Times Square, he'd only attract some gay anti-circers.
In the past, the whole tribe would know if a guy had deffective foreskin.
Again, your assertion that no one in the past would have anything to do with a man whose foreskin couldn't retract. Why do you think this? And why do you feel this would matter to anyone in today's society? People today (especially in the US) seem infinitely more interested in whether the man has foreskin at all than rather it can retract.
Yes, many with long foreskins have no problems. But on an evolutionary scale, without cricumcision, the long foreskin genes would slowly go away because these people have higher rate of problems. And remember that daily showers and hygiene is something that happened just minutes ago when you consider an evolutionary scale of 40,000 years.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how the concept of natural selection works. First off, where do you get the idea that those with longer foreskins have more foreskin problems? That's like asserting that women with larger breasts are more likely to get breast cancer. (They aren't by the way.)
Even in the most severe cases of phimosis, a simple slit is usually enough to completely fix the issue. But this is therapeutic medicine. Why would you amputate a body part because it might have a problematic condition later in life that is not life threatening and can be treated by fairly noninvasive means?
Just because medecine and frequyent washing can make foreskins work today does not mean that foreskins are "ideal" and that they developped perfectly.
Nothing is perfect, but the penis as it currently exists is designed to have a foreskin. While the design may not be "perfect", you really have no case for claiming that the altered state is "better".
Consider that almost all medical books and all sex books prior to the anti-circ campaings described the foreskin as fully retracting during erection. Yet, this is not as widespread as what the books state since a large proportioon of guys have the foreksin remain over part of head during erection until manually retracted fully.
Why would the medical/sex books have described the normal penis as having the automatically retracting foreksin during erection if a large proportion of the population has longer foreskins which continued to cover part of head during erection ?
I'll tell you why: because this is what is instintively seen as the ideal uncircumcised penis. One with remaining forekskin during erection is seen as not yet fully developped. (aka: a kids penis).
Those books deal with the averages, not the ideals. They probably described the adult penis as about 6 inches long, which by your logic means they would think half the guys on this forum were deformed. And we have also re-learned relatively recently that the foreskin is intended to be able to remain mobile and continue to cover the head, at least partially, during masturbation and intercourse as a "gliding" mechanic to reduce friction and lubrication loss. These studies likely post date the publication of most medical literature you would find nowadays.
And I am not talking about american medical or sex books (since they never mentioned foreskins in the 1970s and 1980s except to note it was usually removed at birth). I am talking about books from europe which I read while a teenager to seek more information about what a "normal" foreskin was. And as you may know, Europe has not adopted circumcision so their medical books would be based on a much wider experience by doctors exemining patients. (whereas in the USA, few doctors have much experience with foreskins since there are so few around, or at least were so few around).
Europe had its own circumcision craze for a while. Britain did for a bit, and a few other places did as well. However, in most cases it died out almost entirely. In any case, many of the studies which tried to comprehensively analyze the anatomy of the foreskin were done in the 80's, and so may not have been available when said books in Europe were published.
