karen hill wrote:

No. From what I understand, it is to protect children from
unnecessary surgery. In an adult male, it seems obvious that the
foreskin is sexualized because it is on a sexual organ, in the same
way a clitoral hood is.

Far from it. I'm a gay man, and I can tell you that, while I've *heard* of
the foreskin being sexually responsive, I've never seen it in real life.

As for the foreskin being useless, I'm not a doctor or male so I
cannot comment on its usefullness. But I do know that medical doctors
have changed their minds on certain principles in the circumcison
debate. For example, they said that babies cannot feel pain, but now
the AAP says they feel incredible pain. There were studies done that
said men who were circumcised practiced a wider variety of sex acts,
including anal sex. I doubt many women want anal sex.

Oh, my dear, I think you ought to talk to some women of the younger
generation - or perhaps give it a try! :-)

Then there is the issue of sensitivity. You cannot remove tissue
without losing sensitivity. The foreskin has sensation because it is
skin, and I wouldn't want to lose my clitoral hood, after all isn't it
just a piece of useless skin?

It's true that what sensitivity there is - despite not being particularly
erogenous - is lost, but what is gained is access to - and improved
stimulation of - the far more erogenous glans.