Circumcision makes no sense. If we're going to remove part of a boy's penis without his consent, it would benefit society even more to remove the whole thing.
Since we've already established it's OK to alter a boy's body, who is to say removal of the penis would be wrong per se? You can't on the one hand say "Remove this" and then turn around and say "But not that!"
We've established there is no consent, so anything goes. Hear me out before you react, please. I think I have a good argument here.
If the penis is the primary instrument of rape (which it is) and if circumcision is legal (which it is), then you'd kill two birds with one stone by simply removing the penis. Sexual assault would be a thing of the past.
But there's more. One good argument in favor of circumcision is that it helps prevent disease. Therefore, penis removal would be even better since it would prevent both disease AND rape.
Granted, men would lose out on pleasure. But paraplegics who have no sensation in their groin area can orgasm when they get their necks rubbed (and such), so this is a solution to that.
Removing the penis of boys would also be a cost-saving measure. Public and private sector buildings could get rid of urinals and only have to deal with toilets.
Furthermore, penis removal would assure equality, since men would no longer have an appendage that harms so many women.
And finally, this measure would appease both Jews and Muslims. They'd get their beloved circumcision and so much more.
Since all of these arguments have now been made public, I would like to conclude this post by stating that anyone who doesn't support removal of the penis is a rape apologist. On top of that, they're people who hate Muslims and Jews, and want to waste money and keep the sexes unequal.
Therefore, in conclusion, men who want to keep their penises intact support hate. Feel free to argue against this, but that makes you a hatemonger who supports rape.