My father was raised on an Iowa farm with 6 brothers in the 1920s and 1930s to Italian immigrant parents, obviously a-religious.Neither he nor any of his brothers were circumcised. I am eternally grateful to my parents for not having me circumcised, although it was so "different" , that I was self-conscious for years in the locker-room at school---there is no way to cover up your penis and not look like a dork, so I remember I would pull up the skin surreptitiously moments before I thought it would be exposed to the eyes of members of my gym class. HOWEVER, I know what desensitization is, and my thesis is that, however an uncircumcised penis may be the father of premature ejaculation, an uncircumcised penis is an organ that basically is getting desensitized 24 hours a day, and MAY contribute some of the more unfortunate
sexual habits of the American male.
Circumcision may not have been "a way of life" then as it has become today---and maybe a poor farm family of 6 boys had better things to do with its scant money than pay for "extras" like circumsion---there are no doubt LOTS of factors contributing to they way things were then and the way they are now. And I don't soft-pedal the "barbarism" argument---it is just one factor among many, and maybe ANY ONE OF THEM could and should be enough to help get this practice on the path to unpopularity , which is where it belongs.
CORRECTION"---in the above "an uncircumcised penis is an organ that is basically getting desensitized 24 hours a day" , should of course read "a CIRCUMCISED penis is an organ....etc." making the most important distinction between an uncirc'd and a circ'd penis.