Just about everyone on the planet has an opinion about circumcision, but very few of them are approaching the topic objectively. I believe I am the correct man to do just that.
I, Sean Lind, spent the first 30 years of my life uncircumcised. Due to a medical condition known as Phimosis, I underwent adult circumcision earlier this year. As a result I’m in a position to evaluate the topic objectively, from both sides of the fence.
One of the biggest threats to objectivity is the strong desire to be on the winning side. No matter what the topic, iOS VS. Android, Playstation VS. Xbox, or cut VS. uncut, the vast majority of people are inclined to side with the product they own.
Because of this, PS4 owners are likely to tell you all the reasons why it’s better than an Xbox, and circumcised men will be the first to tell you why it’s the only reasonable choice. In reality, few of these people have taken the time to experience both arguments, and are capable of forming a truly objective opinion.
In my case, I have now experienced both sides of this debate (albeit one for significantly longer than the other), and I’m prepared to talk about how I feel about it.
Part one: circumcision in theory
The vast majority of all circumcisions are performed on infants, a decision made by their parents. This decision is made almost entirely from some combination of three reasons:
- Family history/tradition
- Religious tradition
- Perceived medical advantages
While I’m one to support family and tradition, I’m going to say that it should be obvious these are not acceptable reasons for mutilating your infants genitals. And let’s be clear, just because it’s “common” doesn’t mean taking a knife to cut off a chunk of skin and nerves on a penis isn’t anything other than genital mutilation.
An objective person in support of circumcision needs to accept that it’s a possibility circumcision is a mistake. As such “I’m doing it to my son because it was done to me” isn’t a good enough reason. You should feel the need to support your argument with reasonable facts.
Religion is subjective and fluid. We no longer stone to death people in North America for having affairs, and all but the bigots don’t believe homosexuality is a sin (Aside: did you know the original ancient greek bible passages condemning homosexuality; Arsenokoitēs; were, according to many experts in the language, mistranslated? The word translated to homosexuals is more likely referring to pedophiles.)
The bible (old testament) explicitly forbids eating shellfish, but since we like to eat it (and it’s clearly not harmful), this was simply ignored and omitted from newer versions of the book.
“And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:” Leviticus 11:10 (King James Bible)
The bible even forbids shaving:
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Leviticus 19:27, King James Bible
There are countless examples of, even the most devout zealots, ignoring things they find inconvenient or outdated, and I believe genital mutilation should make that list. That is, unless we can find practical, objective, reasons to make that choice.
(Yes, I’m aware that circumcision is not a part of the catholic religion. But I was raised in catholic schools as a child, so it’s the only religion I know well enough to comment on. The point isn’t that “because the bible says this, Jews should act this way”, the point is just to highlight how all religions are fluid and subjective.)
As for the medical reasons, the truth is there is no conclusive data to support the argument that it’s healthier. For example, this is a quote from the American Cancer Society:
“The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer.”
This quote is from the American Academy of Pediatrics
“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.”
So I’m not saying there are for sure no medical benefits, but I’m going to side with the experts and say that nothing substantial has been found. I am saying that basing your choice to mutilate your child’s genitals on the possibility of medical benefits is a poor choice.
In theory, the argument against circumcision is clear: there are no objective reasons to do it. But like most things, theory and practice don’t always align.
Part 2: circumcision in practise
When it comes to practise, all I can do is give you my own first-hand experience. I’m a sample size of one, I may be an anomaly, but I have no reason to believe me or my dick is abnormal in any way (other than being truly glorious). As for my frame of mind, I never in my life wished I was circumcised. I was happy the way I was, but now that I have been cut I desperately want to like it even more. After All, this is the only dick I have, and it’s going to be this way for the rest of my life.
So while my bias for theory was slanted from my first 30 years, my bias for practice is slanted by my intense desire to believe I made the correct choice in undergoing this procedure. Here’s how it all compares, in day to day life.
Day to day life
When it comes to walking around with your prick in your pants, uncut dicks have a slight advantage. While a cut dick grows accustomed to being exposed all the time, there are more frequent moments of annoyance, but not to a degree where it makes much of a difference.
What about taking a leak? This is about exactly the same either way. I would call it a draw.
As for hygiene, I have to give it to the circumcised penis. It’s not that impossible, or even difficult, to have exemplary hygiene with a natural dick, it’s just significantly easier with a cut one. You never have to deal with smegma or smell, a bonus to be sure.
So the winner? This one is nearly a draw, pros and cons on either side. But the slight discomfort of walking around is less significant than the hygiene factor.
Again I’m not saying uncut dicks can or are any less hygienic by default, but cut dicks are basically always great.
- Natural Dicks – 0
- Circumcised Dicks – 1
The look/reactions from women
Some women have a preference for one type of cock, others don’t. I’ve had girls tell me how happy they were I was uncut, and I’ve heard other girls talk about how they hate the very same thing. But to be entirely honest, of all the women I have spoken to and introduced to my new dick, most of them don’t really give a fuck either way. They may have a preference, but I’ve found this preference to be about the same as a preference for eye color. While it matters, it’s rarely ever a deal breaker, or even an issue.
That being said, I hang out with an extremely liberal and progressive crowd of people. The world may be filled with dickist women with a hate on for one or the other, but that has not been my experience.
I’m going to have to call this a draw.
- Natural Dicks – 0
- Circumcised Dicks – 1
This one isn’t even close. Masturbating is significantly better uncut. As an uncut man you can wrap your hand around the head of your penis, fully enclosed by your foreskin, using it as a barrier between your penis and hand. As a result you can masturbate without lube, without chafing, for hours on end if you desire.
With a circumcised dick you are required to slather yourself in some form of lube, making masturbation more cumbersome and messy. Not to mention you’re going to get lube all over your keyboard/mouse.
Winner: Natural Dicks.
- Natural Dicks – 1
- Circumcised Dicks – 1
Now we get into the things that really matter: sex with another human. I’ve debated long and hard about oral sex, and it’s really difficult to make a strong case one way or the other. While I feel girls have an easier time working with an uncut cock, it has become more difficult for me to get off from oral.
Even getting off manually during oral isn’t ideal, but it’s technically going back to the masturbation issue. Like many men, if I’m struggling to get there while getting head, or she’s in need of a breather, I like to give them a hand, which was much easier and enjoyable when I was uncut.
The ability to take advantage of an extremely sensitive head is a clear advantage to those giving and receiving oral. For that reason, natural dicks have to win this one.
Winner: Natural Dicks
- Natural Dicks – 2
- Circumcised Dicks – 1
This one is extremely close, but in all honesty I have to give the circumcised penis a slight edge here. When having sex with a condom a cut dick is always receiving maximum possible stimulation, while an uncut dick will sometimes have the foreskin work its way between the head and the condom, reducing the sensation slightly.
For sex without a condom, it’s again very close. We run into the same masturbation issues mentioned in oral, so finishing is a bit less enjoyable, but all in all I’m going to give this one to circumcised dicks for the condom advantage.
- Natural Dicks – 2
- Circumcised Dicks – 2
While it’s a draw for practise, I need to add a caveat: the death grip.
One problem some men run into in life is being almost entirely unable to cum in any way other than using their own hand to finish. This is caused from years of masturbating with a death grip, training your dick to need massive pressure and stimulation. While I have no data to back this up, I believe this issue is far more prevalent in circumcised men. The head of an uncircumcised man is so sensitive, that sort of pressure just isn’t required.
Now this problem can be avoided entirely, and fixed if you’re already in it. It’s just something to think on, and perhaps have a conversation with your child about. If talking with your child about masturbation is too awkward for you, you need to grow the fuck up. It’s your job to teach your kids these things, instead of them having to find out from reading Dan Savage in their 30’s.
The Final Judgement
With theory going to natural dicks, and practise being a draw, my final ruling is this: I don’t think having your kid circumcised is a huge mistake, but I don’t think you’re getting enough benefit to justify the mutilation (and possible trauma) to begin with.
My only exception to this will be for medical reasons. From my own life, and all the googling I can do, it seems highly likely Phimosis is congenital. If you believe you may have passed down this issue to your son I would highly suggest having your child circumcised at infancy.
There is no question or debate: circumcision is far better done at infancy than as an adult.
While it really is barbaric to subject an infant to such a thing, a 2-minute process as an infant will always beat an hour and a half long surgery requiring six weeks of healing with stitches in your dick.
In case you skipped ahead to the end: circumcision should be viewed as the alternative, and only a true benefit in the case of congenital medical conditions.
I am looking forward to hearing your comments, from guys and girls. Let me know where you weigh in on this subject.