Ah yes, and now skip over the entire bit where I proved you wrong, again, by providing more detailed and sourced information. Guess we’ll have to just do it again. Not a modern notion. Not something “anyone alive” would’ve used?

For example, as late as 1970, a widely used textbook, Campbell’s Urology, recognized circumcision as a way to AVERT MASTURBATION. According to numerous scholars, the nineteenth century obsession with masturbation, and anxieties about male sexuality more generally, forms an important backdrop to the mainstreaming of circumcision within medicine.

Or did I read that wrong somehow, hmm?

Oh, right the source

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/circumcision

What’s that “edu” mean in their address…? O.o

Routine circumcision of infants got a boost in the US from pediatrician Benjamin Spock, whose popular book The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, first published in 1945, endorsed circumcision. Spock stated that he thought circumcision was a good idea, especially if most of a person’s peers were circumcised, because that makes a person feel socially regular. Pediatrician Sorrells explains that Spock reversed course in 1989 and became firmly opposed to circumcision, but by then his views had already left their mark. In the US, circumcision of newborn males became almost universal by the late 1960s, with rates in some parts of the country exceeding ninety percent. Hodges makes the point that by the 1990s, the majority of US doctors had never even seen a human penis with its foreskin intact. Even in textbooks, US doctors were likely to encounter images of penises where the foreskin is either absent fully or incompletely covering the glans. In fact, the only time a US doctor would see an image of a penis fully covered by a foreskin is in images that depict so-called phimosis. According to Hodges, as a result of cultural biases, many of the images of phimosis found in the US medical literature would appear normal to Europeans viewing the same images.