Circumcision of girls in the USA is already illegal. Has this led to some sort of total government control? I don't think so. Circumcision is really not a big part of that issue and to suggest otherwise is fear-mongering.
I'm not sure what kind of evidence would convince you that male circumcision affects sexuality. You might visit the site sexasnatureintendedit.com created by an American woman who claims to have experienced a difference and then performed surveys for other women. A little bit of investigation will also find that internet sites such as youtube have many men describing the difference that circumcision has made to their sexual experience.
Moreover, if you just consider the logic of removing 15 square inches of erogenous tissue which is the most densely nerve-laden part of the penis, thusly rendering the penis immobile and permanently exposing the head, you must admit that negatively impacting sexuality is quite probable. All accute organs of sense, such a the penis, eyes, and tongue, are what I call pseudo-internal. They are biologically internal to maintain sensitivity through protection and lubrication. Removing the eyelids or permanently exposing the tongue would most definitely affect one's ability to see and to taste.
Considering the concept of evolution and the evolutionary process, all male mammals have a prepuce and the human bodies of male and female were 'designed' to come together with genitals intact. It makes sense that if parts of the genitals are amputated or excised that this will affect the mechanics of the sexual union.
And for the more scientifically-minded, there is the study by Sorrells et al which concluded that the five most sensitive parts of the penis are on the foreskin, the most sensitive part of the intact penis is more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis, and that circumcision ablates the most sensitive part of the penis.
The aesthetic preference for a circumcised penis is largely isolated to the USA where the circumcised penis has become the norm. It is true that most American porn contains circumcised men, but there is also a great demand for porn containing intact men, especially within the gay community. In most other countries the standard porn is largley intact.
The USA is world-renowned for having a very twisted and solipsistic view of "beauty", largely fueled by commerce and ignorance, and leading to untold suffering among its population, especially the young. Outside of the modern US with all its dysfunction, the intact penis has not only been considered normal by other cultures but also aesthetically pleasing. Recall Graeco-Roman culture and indeed the whole history of western art.
Secular circumcision did not begin the USA for aesthetic reasons but for socalled medical ones. It was introduced in an effort to inhibit masturbation. It wasn't until the second half of the 20th century by which time the procedure had become well established that people even began to consider the look of the circumcised penis as "normal". And it wasn't until the end of the 20th century that people began to claim it was more attractive.
As a gay man I can say that I most definitely prefer the aesthetics of an intact penis, as well as its function and sensation. In fact, I have seen many circumcised penises that were outright grotesque because of botched jobs, which are more commmon than you'd think. Excessive scarring, chunks missing, skin bridges and skin tags; I could go on. There is no way I would consider these things to be cosmetic enhancements or aesthetic improvements. Even "good" circumcisions still often involve skin discolouration and drying out of the glans.
It would be wrong to consider circumcision or the pursuit of beauty to be modern human ideals. Circumcision is an ancient practice, and humans have been trying to make themselves look better for millennia. You are using a really twisted logic here to justify circumcision. By your reasoning we should also support foot-binding in old China.
Circumcision is a permanent amputation of healthy functional significant erogenous tissue, and in most cases it is done to non-consenting minors and infants. This will not do. I don't care how much you cut or trim or shave your hair, it will grow back. Even if you pull it out by the roots it will eventually grow back. The same is true of nails. And neither hair nor nails have nerves and blood vessels.
The opposite extreme isn't total government control, its total liberty of the child to wait until he or she is able to consent to make permanent cosmetic changes to his or her body.
it doesn't matter whether there is any impact upon the body or not, the fact is that its the sexual mutilation of a minor, before that person can consent. What if the child would grow up thinking it more appealing to have a foreskiin? Why not let the child decide when he's old enough to?
Its not about how you raise a child. A child isn't your personal property, a child is a living breathing autonomous being. There should be some constraints on what a child can or can't do, which are regulated by parents, but within reason.