I think this sums it up well.

"Mr. Morris I just wanted to say, thanks to your bullshit and others spewing it I was mutilated as an infant, this has caused countless psychological issues along with physical ones. I am not the only one with these issues, The US medical consensus is "do it if you want, but we don't recommend it" That is the most non committal answer they could possibly give. Above you argue "poorly I might add" that the nerves removed due to circumcision are the same as general penile skin nerves, and that is complete garbage. The foreskin is comprised of fine touch receptors which are the same as the pads of your fingertips. That is a whole order of magnitude more sensitive than general nerve receptors, and you're being intellectually dishonest by saying otherwise. That coupled with the fact "and I mean fact when I say it" that making the glans an external organ rather than an internal organ like it's suppose to be causes keratinization to set in. This causes layers of callous to form on the glans burying the nerves of the glans under it. This causes pronounced desensitization of the glans, how can you call yourself a scientist and not acknowledge this? Not only that you lose the Ridge band of the penis which acts as a rib to enhance sex for the female causing her sexual gratification to diminish. The frenulum is known as the male G-spot that's destroyed in most cases "luckily for me I got to keep that part" and I'll add that it's the most sensitive part of my forcefully mangled appendage. The foreskin also is a mucous membrane allowing for self lubrication keeping the glans moist. Without it all the lubrication is produced by the female, and the great irony there is the foreskin is designed to facilitate a gliding motion inside the vagina keeping all moisture in from her and him so as to not create friction that would harm the female, but with the foreskin removed only she can create lubrication for one and two the penis's function is so changed as to be more like a piston creating friction and pulling the lubrication from the vagina out of it. These studies that say anything about HIV are also garbage too, they were poorly structured, and done in Africa where HIV is an epidemic. In those studies the circumcised men had to wait 6 weeks before they were even capable of having sex with anyone, where as the intact men were allowed to engage in unprotected sex for an additional 6 weeks, this is just bad science, and It's ironic that the US being the circumcision capitol of the first world still has HIV rates comparable to all the other first world countries. You're most certainly not going to read this, but if you do I just wanted to add that you have precisely zero ethics, and you have contributed to the misery of countless men by backing this barbaric act on unconsenting infants. Also Infants aren't having sex so arguing that circumcising them reducing the risk is asinine, not to mention authoritarian. Let people choose for themselves, it should be that simple. It would save countless lives if we removed the breast buds from infant little girls so they don't have a chance of getting breast cancer, but ethically we can't because they have a right to bodily integrity, It should be the same for little boys. How can you not see that?"