The psychological effects of circumcision:

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumsission

Circumcision cuts or otherwise removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. The word “circumcision” comes from Latin circum (meaning “around”) and caedere (meaning “to cut”).

Circumcision predates recorded human history, with depictions found in stone-age cave drawings and Ancient Egyptian tombs.[1] The origins of the practice are lost in antiquity. Theories include that circumcision is a form of ritual sacrifice or offering, a sign of submission to a deity, a rite of passage to adulthood, a mark of defeat or slavery, or an attempt to alter aesthetics or sexuality.

Also, as a mark of defeat/slavery, there had been an ancient custom, in some cultures, to cut off the big-toes and thumbs, to make things like running and fighting almost impossible, or, hands would be cut off, or eyes cut out, etc. In order to reduce, torture or disgrace the captive.

An example of the medical quackery behind its supposed “health benifite”, would be: A friend of mine, was circumcised at the age of seven. At that age, ofcourse, he did not know what or why, they just went along with what the ‘doctor’ thought would treat a bladder infection. But let’s be honest here… How does removal of outer skin treat an internal organ? Ever? Does cutting off your ear treat an ear-infection? Or, would, I dunno, let’s say, antibiotics, be a better choice?

Ethical issues
Main article: Bioethics of neonatal circumcision
Circumcising infants as a public health measure is controversial. Circumcision advocates assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS.[46] The genital integrity movement, however, asserts that infant circumcision is a human rights violation and a sexual assault, and that the practice of circumcising infants or children should be discouraged or banned.[citation needed]

“slowing down the spread of AIDS.” …
Foreskins do not stop fluid exchange.

Things such as blood-letting, usedto also be “medical therapies” of the darkages. A classic case of “snake-oil”, and traditional, trible body-mutilation.

But I am going to just talk about the psychological effects. I have many friends, but the one I listed earlier, also now has psychological damage from the event. He feels like he’s lost something that he can never get back, something important. And, that’s pretty accurate. It is lost. His ability to feel sexual stimulation is drastically reduced, almost non-existent, compared to those whom still have their foreskin, and also, it’s irritating to have his penis ever rub up against certain kinds of cloth or fabric now. But the actual physical loss, is nothing, compared to the psychological loss. A person could feel quite betrayed, and sexually rather doomed. It’s hard to explain this, but, would you rather loose a finger than loose a cock? Sexuality is a human need, and it’s a very large need, at that. It’s a very vital part of survival: reproduction via mating. And an assault on one’s sexuality is like an assault on one’s means of survival, like a loss of any other vital organ. A species without a sexuality, simply cannot survive or go on to exist.

If someone’s stomach was removed, that’d be … pretty bad. It means their future is gone. Their lives will soon fade, as needs are denied. Also, if someone’s sexual capacity is lost, the future of their DNA, their genes, their self on the micro-scale, is also lost, doomed, and will soon fade.

If someone’s stomach was only half removed, though, and stabled over, then what? Would they not feel easily nausiated? Disatisfied? Limited? The hunger, the need for food, and the actual eating capacity would not match up. Harmony between need and want, would be ill-preportionately damaged. This principal also applies to one’s sexuality. The sexual need cannot be in harmony with the sexual want. “Loneliness”, craving and desire may not be equal to the actual sensation-capacity, and as a result, the wanting will be comparatively larger than the reduced sexual sensation. Ultimately, a sexual incompleteness and imbalance exists, in this way, similar to the example of the body and stomach’s hunger vs surjically-reduced eating capacity. Doomed to a life of sexual imbalance, are they.

[Impious]

Having no foreskin leads to irritation when wearing pants (it’s very sensitive!) and yeah, a lot of girls prefer it. Can’t think of anything else, though… Certainly, I don’t feel that it’s been the cause of any dysfunction.