Routine Infant Circumcision Is Grounded In A Cynical View Of Human Nature

American parents circumcise their boys thinking to protect them from taunting, ridicule and bullying by circumcised peers, and from rejection by women in the bedroom. They also think they are protecting their sons from the worst consequences of any eventual irresponsible sexual behaviour. In other words, parents who circumcise assume that other boys are arrogant bullies, that young women are hopelessly shallow and conformist, and that their son will grow up to be a manwhore. I decline to think so negatively of my fellow humans.

It is done at birth so that a man will never know what it's like to have a foreskin. So that he has no memory of the brutality of the surgery. Most of all, so that the surgery can be imposed on him by force, for his alleged own good and that of his sex partners. There is a great fear that young men will refuse to part with their foreskins, no matter the supposed benefits, because the foreskin plays a crucial role in the pleasure derived from erection, ************, foreplay, and penetrative sex. So they must be shorn of their foreskins regardless of their consent. The trauma of genital surgery without consent will be bitterly resented... unless the surgery is carried out at the very start of life. This cynically takes advantage of the newborn's physical weakness and mental cluelessness.
consa consa 61-65, M 4 Responses Jun 10, 2012

Your Response


I think it's pretty pathetic for a woman to look at a man uncut and see something wrong with it. That is how he was made. And if you have sex with a man who is cut and one who isn't-- assuming they are the same size and both aren't wearing a condom-- the one with his foreskin will be more pleasurable because of the friction. It's a fact.

BiPixie, find a place in EP (or elsewhere) where you can share your personal experience with vaginal intercourse with and without foreskin. It is very important that every English speaking woman with this sort of experience get her story into the public domain, anonymously of course.

When men wear condoms (as they should during casual sex!!!!), foreskin makes little or no difference for what she feels. My wife and talked about this a fair bit during the early years of our marriage. There are ways of putting a condom on that allow foreskin motion to take place, but very few couples know this technique. I myself don't know it.

You clearly appreciate the "they're born that way" argument because you are bi. All people who deviate from vanilla str8 are quite open to the argument that Nature's design deserves respect, because they belong to sexual minorities that they firmly believe deserve respect. The USA is a curious country where being an adult male with foreskin is to belong to a sexual minority. This despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans have no religious reasons to be cut.

If you have a suggested forum where I could do so in a private way, I'd be happy to. I thing it's a plus on the uncut side that people don't talk about as much, myself as well... It's mostly upsetting to me because it's a scared innocent child that people are hurting for no real good reason. Reason just seems to go right out the window for conformity... to something that isn't worth conforming to at all. And for straight men, I'd like for them to care less what the other dudes in the locker room feel about their naturally normal penises. People will always find reasons to bully others, so that is the worse reason I have heard to cut.

I am sorry I hurt my son's phyche.

To make a boy grow up circumcised in a society that does not circumcise can be acutely embarrassing. It is not clear that the typical circumcised American male is emotional damaged goods. As for thoughtful research investigating that point, don't hold your breath. But it is quite possible that your son is physically and emotionally OK. Although I am grimly anti-circumcision, I freely grant that most circumcised boys and men are OK, especially before age 50. Circumcision is evil, not because it damages MOST or ALL men, but because it damages SOME men, in ways that often take several decades to become evident.

OK I feel better, and yes his 2 sons are circumcised too.
Thanks for the encouragement, I think he's fine! but I'm predudiced. He's my only kid.

An opponent of routine circumcision nce wrote: "the greatest evil of circumcision is that it produces future circumcisers." Circumcision is like a genetic mutation passed from father to son. My father wanted me circumcised badly, but I am pleased to report that my mother won that battle. Here in New Zealand, most families gradually abandoned circumcision without fuss, mainly because doctors were free to advice against it. Most American doctors east of the Rockies act like they are not free to follow their own professional consciences. If your foreskin grew back as a result of efforts on your part, congratulations on marching up a long hill. If it grew back spontaneously, you are the first case of that sort I have ever encountered. You should tell your story in a forum that specialises in anti-circ issues, anonymously. In the 1930s, middle class Protestants born in urban maternity wards were done "without discussion." But many boys born into rural, working class, and Roman Catholic families were not. I grew up surrounded by circumcised boys. I never suspected that they were psychologically damaged by that fact. But some wise and observant women have gently disagreed with me. Maybe I have more to learn here.

Unfortunately ALL things that happen to one during one's life are recorded - both in the physical body and the psyche... They may not be conscious, but they are always there; and can surface at any time due to an appropriate trigger, unless hunted down, exposed and dealt with effectively.

Little did I think at the time my son was born that his circumcision (without my permission) would cause him to be ABSOLUTELY ADAMANT against all Advice and pleading, that his sons would also be "done", BECAUSE HE WAS!!!

I was circumcised because I was born in the 1930s; it was done as a matter of course then, no arguments allowed. Interestingly enough, my foreskin now - at eighty years old - has grown again, and can sometimes totally cover my penis glans. (Now that I don't really need it!)... well, I suppose there must be SOME reason for it doing that...