More than a few times now, I've seen tough guys break down in tears after a few beers at the bar when the question came up. I've been asking doctors for decades what they privately think. There is no beneficial reason for it since the invention of soap. It's an unthinkable horror if one person mutilates the genitals of a little boy or girl, but if a million people do it, then it's just a religion. Don't believe anyone who tells you that it doesn't traumatize children. Yes, it does. And that's the whole point.
Circumcised beta-males like to tell themselves that "the foreskin serves no purpose". A few hours of study proves otherwise. U.S. studies are politically motivated outliers when compared to the diversity of research available from across the globe.
What's the solution? Educate yourself, share the knowledge, and father a child without mutilating his penis.
No, circumcision does not produce beta-males, because the foreskin serves no function whatsoever. It is similar to taking out a child's tonsils, or taking out their appendix on the day they are born. For most people, it is done for religious regions, but it is also easier to keep the body clean, and some people circumcise in order to conform to others. It doesn't make a difference.
There are so many masculine, ripped, circumcised celebrities. Arnold Schwarzenegger is circumcised, he's the most masculine male actor to have ever existed. Circumcision is the best thing you could do for yourself, your wife, and your sex life. Foreskin produces estrogens, too, which is why so many uncircumcised basement dwelling fat nerds are the way they are.