Despite the versimilitude of the title, hinting at some sort of essay, this post intends to provide an area of discussion over this topic. Given the very diverse ideologies employed by those who go their own way, and the relevance of female preference towards circumcision, I felt this was a rather appropriate topic to broach.

A recent post on this site showcased a woman detailing a circumcision, where the comments overwhelming denounced it as a barbaric practice and the foolhardy nature of religion and customs, but is it really? The notion of sex and our fixation on it, (especially that, for which mgtow rejects), can be considered barbaric; thus, circumcision is also so by that logic, for sex and circumcision, in fact, most religious practices, are set in place to increase the numbers of adherents. However, from what I can recall, the Jews were the first among the western civilizations, and still continue to circumcise their young while most Christians would denounce those practices. That's why you'd see rulers like Peter III with physiological disorders where sex is very painful to them due to the improper retraction of the foreskin, which would cause all sorts of political turmoil and succession crises. Thereby, circumcision could be seen as a medical necessity, except to those going monk. Nonetheless, since women preferred cirucumcised penises, and men saw this, they put two and two together which formed the inscipience of circumcision practices.

TL;DR: This whole post was just to spark discussion over the nuance of circumcision practices, whether it be due to religious, medical, sexual, or other reasons, where I provided some historical background and their implications.