Uncircumcised

With all the recent discussion here about circumcision, it's become curious to me that there's actually a word - uncircumcised - for the natural state of the human male.

Does anyone else find this telling and curious? After all, we don't describe our pets as unneutered or our cats as undeclawed.

I would rather call it "intact" :-)

I would rather call it "intact" :-)

Me, too. Intact, uncut or just no description necessary.

How about just calling it 'normal' or 'regular' ...

And yes, it's telling that there is a special word for circumcision. This indicates that circumcision is not the natural and normal condition for a male. It shows there is a deliberate intervention to modify part of the body. Just as there is no special word to describe a 'non-tattooed' person, or a 'non-pierced' person ...

All these conditions are therefore unnatural in that they do not occur except by deliberate human action. One could also say there are no words to describe a 'non-blind' or a 'non deaf' or a 'non-mute' person. But these conditions can occur as a result of disease or accident, while I doubt circumcision, tattooing or piercing can be caused by a disease or accident.

It may very well be that in some cultures or groups, that these things (circumcision, tattooing, piercing) are customary, but so often people begin to think that what is customary is natural and therefore preferable or even imperative ... this may sound like playing with words but think of the implications of binding the concept of customary with natural ...

Any of the conversations and documentation by the medical community have always referred to my foreskin as being "uncircumcised". (one nurse wrote "uncircumsized" on my chart). "un" refers to undo. Thus "uncircumcised" would mean to reverse or undo a circumcision.

I think the word "uncircumcised" is hot because it implies that the circumcised penis is the norm.

I think the word "uncircumcised" is hot because it implies that the circumcised penis is the norm.

Precisely. It's 'newspeak' designed (consciously or not) to normalize genital modification/mutilation.

I think the word "uncircumcised" is hot because it implies that the circumcised penis is the norm.

That's somewhat Orwellian come to think of it. You know, like imposing peace means waging war, ignorance being conceived of as being steadfast/strength and so on ... classic doublethink.

But if it's in a literary sense, in the manner of using words to create an atmosphere, expectations and mental imagery, then I suppose only mainstream Americans, Muslims and Jews should get off on the term 'uncircumcised' ... and even then I don't see it working in that way.

One could also say there are no words to describe a 'non-blind' or a 'non deaf' or a 'non-mute' person.

...

Well, we do say 'sighted,' 'hearing,' and 'speaking.' Does make me think as to whether a 'non-circumcised' penis has retained abilities that my surgically mutilated member does not. I'm really not in a position to know. As this is in large part a sensory consideration it is rather subjective, at least from a descriptive standpoint.

Unless I'm really trying to make a point in conversation, I usually avoid the term intact. Living in farm country the word 'intact' is widely understood as referring to a male animal that has not been castrated. It is a powerful word though, and I resort to it with some frequency.

Using the term natural or normal is intriguing.

When talking to 'non-atheist' especially, I like to refer to a man's "God-given penis."

I think only in the States.

I somewhat agree with redleafdoc. "Only in the States" the norm is a circumcised penis. Commonly, "uncircumcised" is considered to be an abnormal condition that requires surgical intervention. Just my personal experience with the medical community.

Male genital mutilation.....

Male genital mutilation.....

But how about the word....why do we need a word to describe a non issue?

In french you can say « incirconcis » (latin: incircumcisus), but this word has no medical signification, it means: infidel, heathen. Circumcision has also religious aspects.

In french you can say « incirconcis » (latin: incircumcisus), but this word has no medical signification, it means: infidel, heathen. Circumcision has also religious aspects.

People in the US seem to have difficulty understanding the religious undertones and connotations of circumcision sometimes ... in other parts of the world, the question always seems to hover in the background as a sort of defining aspect of one's ethnicity or religion. Anyone circumcised is assumed to be either Muslim or Jewish ... with maybe a few unconventional types thrown in and the medically unlucky.

Back when I was a Corpsman, and doing a physical, we always described a penis as either "circumcised" or "uncircumcised." It was just the description of the condition of the penis.

However, it is much more common among American males to be circumcised than not. (I fall into the latter category.)

That's the point, and is still happening. My question is why do we need a word for intact? I think it's a subtle way to normalize the aberrant and rationalize the unnecessary.

At the risk of incurring wrath here I'm just going to weigh in. Irregardless of penile sensitivity, how it looks and other considerations--circumcised male infants and children have a lower incidence of urinary tract infections. I do not want to cast aspersions at anybody but this has been studied.

No wrath :-)

But the problem with circumcision (and yes, I know it was up to debate already many times), is that the glans becomes dry and looses part of it's sensitivity. When intact, the foreskin can slide back and forth during intercourse which creates extra sensation. The protection of the foreskin keeps the glans moistured. I have a patient (told already before), his glans is dry and numb and not more sensitive than his elbow. Before he had problems with premature ejaculation, now he has problems with delayed ejaculation or no ejaculation at all. I know there are many people who are against my opinion, but most of the time they have nothing to compare, since they are circumcised from birth on.

The only advantage I see is hygiene. There is no smegma, so no bad odor on the glans, but still then.....

The only advantage I see is hygiene. There is no smegma, so no bad odor on the glans, but still then.....

And soap is so easily and cheaply available in these modern times ... 😃

Besides, virtually any and every part of the body will develop a bad or unpleasant odor if not regularly washed and cleaned. So it's a question of all things being equal. And if you don't wash there, it's not equal.

The studies of childhood UTIs show an increase whether the penis is washed or not. Besides increased sensitivity leads to premature ejaculation.

Besides increased sensitivity leads to premature ejaculation.

That's true, but premature ejaculation is better than having difficulties to ejaculate. And for many women, including me, a foreskin has something erotic

That's true, but premature ejaculation is better than having difficulties to ejaculate.

While not taking this as proven besides having a possible anecdotal value: I've read that since circumcision reduces sensitivity, this means that a circumcised male will often tend/need to have rougher, more forceful sexual intercourse in order to achieve orgasm.

I can't think this to be any advantage to their partners. Who wants to be treated roughly and forcefully as a matter of routine?

Ah, Female Urologist why didn't you say so! Personal bias can always trump double blind studies. Agracier no one has demonstrated that circumcized males have more violent intercourse.

I've read that since circumcision reduces sensitivity, this means that a circumcised male will often tend/need to have rougher, more forceful sexual intercourse in order to achieve orgasm.

I can't think this to be any advantage to their partners. Who wants to be treated roughly and forcefully as a matter of routine?

That's true. Stronger and sometimes endless stimulation might be needed. But of course it's a personal choice. Pity in most cases, the parents choose. But i don't want to start a discussion about that.

Ah, Female Urologist why didn't you say so! Personal bias can always trump double blind studies.

My personal bias is not playing a role in this. I certainly don't want to push my opinion. If you're happy with it, so am I

Female Urologist that would mean that most circumcised men would engage in rough sex and thus a majority of American men would. That hasn't happened. We may have problems with guns but not those kind of guns.

Nothing rough

There's a very big difference between rough sex and vigorous sex. That's a personal choice.

As far as 'premature' ejaculation associated with an intact foreskin? Show me your source.

Endless stimulation? Not for me thanks. Even we circumcised get tired sometimes. Jds that was a joke or more exactly a wiseass comment.