Uncircumcised

  • Sean2001 wrote:

    ethanc2009 wrote:

    im cut but my best friend is uncut how we met actually. a lot of latinos at my school so a good mix of cut and uncut
    I don't understand this at all. How was you being cut and him being uncut a factor in how you met?
    we met at the bathrrom at school and i saw his penis and that it looked different so i asked him about it and weve been bsst friends ever since

  • i’ve never understood why they can’t do some sort of partial circumcision. I mean, I understand the reason for doing a circumcision for cleanliness is what I understand but you would think that they could do something like not cut as much off.
    I am circumcised and it doesn’t bother me. I just kind of wish that they could have left some skin I guess.

  • I still hate the term “uncircumcised” - it implies that circumcised is the standard / normal when it’s not, it’s the completely unnecessary mutilation of the foreskin for religious or cultural reason - neither of which are valid or ethical to do to a person without their having an informed / adult say in the matter of an intimate part of their body

    the religious reason means you’re forcing your religious belief on an infant and that’s not okay

    please try using the term “natural” instead

  • Birds18 wrote:

    i’ve never understood why they can’t do some sort of partial circumcision. I mean, I understand the reason for doing a circumcision for cleanliness is what I understand but you would think that they could do something like not cut as much off.
    I am circumcised and it doesn’t bother me. I just kind of wish that they could have left some skin I guess.

    From my Greek/religious upbringing, apparently way back in the ancient times, they'd only cut the overhang. It definitely seems strange in today's world, but people would do all sorts of weird tricks and things to make it seem like they'd have a full skin or whatever. Eventually, the total removal became a thing because exactly why I said above.

    Because the newborn's body is so tiny, it's really hard to judge. I saw a website that had all sorts of amounts removed.



    Kyle07 wrote:

    I still hate the term “uncircumcised” - it implies that circumcised is the standard / normal when it’s not, it’s the completely unnecessary mutilation of the foreskin for religious or cultural reason - neither of which are valid or ethical to do to a person without their having an informed / adult say in the matter of an intimate part of their body

    the religious reason means you’re forcing your religious belief on an infant and that’s not okay

    please try using the term “natural” instead

    I hear ya.

    Amongst my friends, it seems the vast majority of guys are circumcised and the vast majority of girls have very little experience with foreskin. (Some people have, but most haven't. One or two kinda don't want anything to do with it.)

    Is it "normal" if 80% of the country gets modification or is it "normal" to be born a specific way, considering ~50% of people are born that way? Keep in mind that the majority of Europe doesn't circumcise. Over there, it's "normal" to have foreskin.

    And I look on my laptop and here's an "undo" option. This assumes I did something and then want to change/revert what I did.

  • We can debate till we're blue in the face whether adults should have their baby boys circumcized or not. I really don't want to have that debate. I'm just here to tell boys that whether you're circumcized or not, you're ok. Don't let people tell you that you or you're penis is bad or ugly simply because it has or does not have foreskin. Don't get cocky (pun intended) whether you have a foreskin or not - circumcized boys or not better than uncircumcised boys, and uncircumcised boys are not better than circumcized boys.

  • Kyle07 wrote:

    I still hate the term “uncircumcised” - it implies that circumcised is the standard / normal when it’s not,...
    I think this is bringing a particular perspective to this. As far as language goes, my crtiicism is that, in English, the prefix 'un' does not always distimguish between "not done in the first place" and "done but then undone", and uncircumcised and undone are examples of the variations.

    On using the term "natural" instead, the disadvantage to that is that it needs the context to say in what respect you are natural where "uncircumcised" is always understood to describe the state of one's penis. The word "natural" works if contrasted with circumcised so if you asked the question "Are you circumcised or natural" but I think there may be other cases where there could be some confusion.

    Birds18 wrote:

    i’ve never understood why they can’t do some sort of partial circumcision. I mean, I understand the reason for doing a circumcision for cleanliness is what I understand but you would think that they could do something like not cut as much off.
    I am circumcised and it doesn’t bother me. I just kind of wish that they could have left some skin I guess.
    I am not sure how being partially circumcised would be an improvement over being uncircumcised. It is probably more important to understand that the cleanliness argument is a very poor one. Keeping things clean really needs to be for a reason. Some have claimed that increased cleanliness from being circumcised reduces the incidence of urinary tract inflections in young boys and it may, very slighly but the biggest risk factor for UTIs as a young child is being female - girls get them much more often than boys and, when young children do get them, we have antibiotics to get rid of the infection again. Why would anyome want surgey to very slighly reduce the risk of something that can be treated by a short course of drugs? That contavenes the principle of using the least invasive therapy that is effective.

    There can be problems with either the glans or foreskin becoming irriated and swollen but that is much more common in those who can't retract the foreskin to clean underneath it and doesn't even affect all of those. Most people who are not circumcised probably go through the whole of life having never experienced this problem. The same argument applies to receiving a blow job. Few people would like to suck on a smelly, cheesy dick but that can easily be remedied by washing it.

    Then we have the reduced risk of HIV transmission. Just like washing under the foreskin is better solution to potential inflamation, so wearing a condom is much better protection against HIV than being circumcised. Then, of course, the HIV risk only applies to people old enough to be having sex. It isn't a reason why anyone should be circumcised as a baby.

    In short, there is no reason for even partial circumcision of a new born. Most of the world does just fine not doing it. It's popularity in the USA is mostly due to social inertia with whichever American pediatric association it is that still supports circumcision walking the line between quackery and outright corruption.

  • Birds18 wrote:

    this is a stupid debate. People have been using the term circumcised and uncircumcised long before any of us were even alive.
    Terms for many things have changed over the years, language evolves. LGBTQ+ didn't exist until fairly recently, the terms used prior are considered slurs or derogatory now by some people.

    That being said, natural seems to be a good way to describe a penis with a foreskin because boys are born with one, but so many boys have it removed that to them their status is "normal"

    And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.

  • CooperJ wrote:

    That could not have be said better!!

    But we who are not circ'd still get stared at in the pe locker room. I've been teased too. But, I know I'm lucky to have my foreskin.
    I bet if you polled the boys from my PE class, half would say I have my foreskin and half would say I don't. It bunches up at the glans so the head is exposed, so a quick glance most likely wouldn't confirm my status.

  • Reread what do you original post said. Your personal crusade is not going to change the names of people.

    maseb wrote:

    Birds18 wrote:

    this is a stupid debate. People have been using the term circumcised and uncircumcised long before any of us were even alive.
    Terms for many things have changed over the years, language evolves. LGBTQ+ didn't exist until fairly recently, the terms used prior are considered slurs or derogatory now by some people.
    That being said, natural seems to be a good way to describe a penis with a foreskin because boys are born with one, but so many boys have it removed that to them their status is "normal"

    And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.

    maseb wrote:

    Birds18 wrote:

    this is a stupid debate. People have been using the term circumcised and uncircumcised long before any of us were even alive.
    Terms for many things have changed over the years, language evolves. LGBTQ+ didn't exist until fairly recently, the terms used prior are considered slurs or derogatory now by some people.
    That being said, natural seems to be a good way to describe a penis with a foreskin because boys are born with one, but so many boys have it removed that to them their status is "normal"

    And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.
    reread what do you original post said. Your personal crusade is not going to change the names of people and you’ve changed the subject.

  • Birds18 wrote:

    Reread what do you original post said. Your personal crusade is not going to change the names of people.

    maseb wrote:

    Birds18 wrote:

    this is a stupid debate. People have been using the term circumcised and uncircumcised long before any of us were even alive.
    Terms for many things have changed over the years, language evolves. LGBTQ+ didn't exist until fairly recently, the terms used prior are considered slurs or derogatory now by some people.That being said, natural seems to be a good way to describe a penis with a foreskin because boys are born with one, but so many boys have it removed that to them their status is "normal"

    And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.

    maseb wrote:

    Birds18 wrote:

    this is a stupid debate. People have been using the term circumcised and uncircumcised long before any of us were even alive.
    Terms for many things have changed over the years, language evolves. LGBTQ+ didn't exist until fairly recently, the terms used prior are considered slurs or derogatory now by some people.That being said, natural seems to be a good way to describe a penis with a foreskin because boys are born with one, but so many boys have it removed that to them their status is "normal"

    And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.
    reread what do you original post said. Your personal crusade is not going to change the names of people and you’ve changed the subject.
    You're right, my reply is off topic and I''ll drop it