Sexual Health » Men's Health: "The Great Foreskin Debate"

EdenFantasys Store

The Great Foreskin Debate
  • Print
  • E-mail
These are just my opinions, most of which are backed up by science. If anyone disagrees with me, please don't hesitate to comment. I would just like to share my ideas and help inspire others to do some research for themselves.


I'm cut and I don't care, I hate this whole argument in general. I don't tell you what to do with your vagina, leave my cock alone.


I can't really agree with argument 3. If it's a religious practice, won't it be more meaningful if it a person consents to whatever body modification their religion requires.


I've watched "The Doctors" a few times, but when I watched it was other subjects they were talking about. However, I did notice they gave tons of wrong information, information based on nothing more than tradition, and scare tactics.

For me, personally, I think it should be up to the child to decide when the come of age, not up to the parents.


I don't see how having foreskin is going to make it any more or less likely to get an STD. Unless maybe the guy is a lazy slob who rarely baths or nover cleans his dick. But that same guy I would think would still have the same problems eventually.

geekkink, You statement makes me laugh. I to am cut and don't give a shit. But I don't take these thing as people telling me what to do. It's just someone sharing teir opinion. hahaha


regardless of the reasons it's done, the aesthetics of how it looks, any other "personal" opinion at all, it comes down to one thing - circumcision is essentially a form of mutilation.

We rightly condemn those cultures that practice female circumcision for religious/cultural reasons; we laugh at those tribes who put rings around a growing girl's neck (see countless old National Geographic photos) also for cultural reasons; we are shocked when we hear about the old Chinese practice of binding a woman's feet to keep them small, and there was a news story not so long ago about a family who had their kid taken away from them because they wanted to get him tattooed.

So what are we saying? It's fine to slice a part of his dick off because "it isn't necessary"... well, neither are earlobes. Because "it's healthier"? Okay, out with the gall bladder and the appendix. Etcetera. Because "it looks better"? Well, let him make that decision.


Very nicely put! I love your different arguments, and I agree with a lot of it. I find it such a tough one though -- to decide who should have the choice over circumcision. I understand a baby cannot decide themselves, but whew! Such a tough one! I do agree with you on it being legal for reasons that some people are so serious/religious about certain things such as this. I also do feel that it's good for parents to have the option. Also, I think they should be taught how to maintain, basically just like you said. Most parents, okay SOME parents are not knowledgable or either they don't care? When I ran a daycare center I seen this firsthand, and was appalled by the infection I encountered in one infant. The thing that showed me something was wrong was I kept noticing a putrid odor during changings. HAD to be painful or irritating at least for that baby, but time and again the parent's shrugged it off. Today, I don't know what ever came of that child.

Anyways though, yes. I love the different points you made here. Very well done! A pleasure to read.

* and to the Jenny Swallows, above commenter* I think the author was only saying "hey, I personally am used to a circumsized penis, and it's natural to have a preference over looks." That is the impression I got anyways, not that the author was "downing" anybody's body parts. Also, there weren't only points made about the looks of a circumsized/uncircumsized penis. The author also refers to the risks of uncircumization -- infection, etc. It actually is true that those who aren't circumsized are at higher risk, mostly as babies/children when they cannot properly care for themselves and/or are not cared for properly down there. Also, if one is not taught to be diligent in keeping thing hygenic, they'll not know how or know why it's necessary. But I totally understand why some would want to hold the decision themselves. I would think if one did allow the child to make the decision, once he was old enough to do so, he may find it a lot more traumatic to experience circumsicion if he did decide to go through with it. Who knows though. Like I said, both sides of the argument are understandable.


The depiction of the Rabi in your picture is super racist....


Political correctness leaves no room for artistic interpretations, however I do understand your point of view geekkink.

H & D  

I just wanted to say thank you for your article. I didn't circumcise my son because I feel it is up to him later on. Everyone was telling me I am wrong to do so, but I just feel it's barbaric to do cut on an infant.


Circumcised! My husband wasn't and wishes he was.


Geekkink, it's not only the picture of the Rabbi that is antisemitic, the entire comic that it is taken from is, as well. The comic is about a superhero called Foreskin Man, and one of his archnemises is called "Monster Mohel" (a "mohel" is a trained practitioner of circumcisions for the purpose of Jewish ritual). To dub any religious practitioner opperating within the law as "monstrous" is monstrous in itself. So although I understand where you're coming from with #3, LunaLuthor, and regardless of your intention your point really plays up these antisemitic arguments. Circumcision is crucial to Jewish boys and men in establishing a Jewish identity and has the same level of importance and similar meanings as baptism in the Christian faith. For this reason, I think "barbaric" is a poor choice fo words. If consent is the issue here, none of the Jewish men I know have any negative feelings about their parents having chosen to have them circumcised, especially as it is a marker of cultural pride. As for #1, which I imagine is key to your perception of circumcision, studies of circumcised men have not been able to prove a reduction in sensation. This is different from female circumcision, in which the clitoris is removed and with it all clitoral sensation. This is why male circumcision is legal and female circumcision is not. As for the non-religious practice of circumcision, the "health benefits" of circumcision have been hotly disputed for a long time now, so it's hard to say whether circumcision is beneficial or not. Circumcision is, of course, an important subject to bring to the table, and I thank you for your perspective.


Thank you LiviaDrew for stating that so clearly and eloquently. I agree with you.


I have been with both cut and uncut men. I never noticed that the uncut ones were "dirty" They took care of themselves and bathed every day so that was a non issue. While I have heard about the STD factor, I can not help but wonder if it is another case of Circumcision will cure/help stop. At one point it was advised to help stop males from masturbating.

Personal preference is uncut. It was more stimulating for me. I am not sure if that stimulation was more physical or mental although.



No discussions yet.

Articles from the EdenFantasys community that you should definitely read.

Project Articles

Other projects

What's Hot

Sexis in your inbox

Keep up on new articles, projects, columns and more