I was circumcised at birth and I'm at odds with it. In the U.S. during that era it was simply a matter of course. To some degree it still is, but parents in the U.S. are becoming more aware of the fact that it is unnatural and unnecessary. Some are even referring to the procedure as genital mutilation. But many Americans still believe circumcised penises look better. I think that's because they are conditioned to believe that penises are supposed to be that way. Circumcision is so common here, many women are actually put off by foreskins, which must seem absurd to most European women. In the end, I think circumcision at birth is wrong, not to mention being an unnecessary trauma for a new born. The question is, are we violating the rights of infant boys by altering their bodies without their consent?
What is cut off is typically one half of the penile skin, which consists of thousands of highly sensitive nerve endings. As a result, the glans are no longer protected and become dry and desensitized from being exposed all the time. If too much skin is cut off, what's left is tight and may be very uncomfortable during an erection. To some degree, this makes sex and masturbation less pleasurable for the man, and some believe for the woman also. I believe there is no good reason to cut off an infants foreskin, unless an individual male has a compelling medical condition or physical impairment. Men should have that choice when they are old enough to make a rational decision.
Some believe circumcision helps to prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV. With the exception of certain places in Africa, where HIV is so prevalent, and which also may have more to do with hygiene than circumcision, medical studies have proven this notion wrong. Religion is no valid reason, either. This has to do with ancient, antiquated beliefs that have no place in a modern society. (When the procedure is done for religious reasons, at least the boy is older than an innocent infant and they usually don't cut off more than the very end of the foreskin). Actually there are a number of Jewish organizations that are trying to get circumcision taken off the program. And hygiene is no valid reason. This notion assumes men aren't savvy enough to keep themselves clean. Luckily we don't apply the same rationale to women, whose genitals also have folds of skin with inner areas that stay damp and would be inclined to develop odors if the area isn't kept clean. Except for some third world countries in Africa and the Middle East where they are still living in the middle ages, no one is cutting off any female parts. Fact is both men and women are conscientious enough to practice good hygiene.
Thankfully there are procedures available to restore your foreskin. I'm using one of them myself. It involves a small device that connects what little foreskin you have left to a rubber band that provides a gentle but constant tug. I've been at it six months and the results are incredible. With my penis in a normal flaccid state, about one half of my glans are covered. I'm going for full coverage. Still, there won't be enough foreskin to cover the glans during an erection, but that's neither here or there for an old guy like me. Though it is impossible to get those lost nerve endings back, at least my glans will be protected and will become more sensitive, and I will look more like the way Mother Nature intended me to. It's a long process, but thousands of determined guys are doing it. It simply becomes a daily routine much like putting your shoes on before going to work. Plus my wife has had a good sense of humor about my little project, commenting from time to time about the progress I've made.
You might ask what does circumcision and foreskins have to do with naturism. Simple. Everyone knows a man's penis is a focal point on his body. Unless he has a big scar across his chest, one of the first of his features you are going to glance at is his penis (just try to deny that). Many men, myself including, want to look like nature intended. Nevertheless, I guess this is all academic in the clothed world. But in our world nothing is left to the imagination. A man's penis is part of his physical persona, something that is quite important to him. I'll gladly suffer the year with my little device to get my foreskin back.
This blog is not meant to disparage guys that prefer to be circumcised, or women that prefer men that way. To them that's the way it is, and it seems normal. Plus a circumcised guy doesn't remember the agony he suffered shortly after birth, so to him the whole issue is incidental. But it's like the general consensus on nudity: grow up in a nudist family and you will never see anything shameful about the nudist body; grow up and live in a world where almost all the boys are circumcised, and odds are you'll think foreskins are unnecessary or unsightly. I suppose it's a matter of 'to each his own.'
So how do you see it? Do men look better circumcised? Should their foreskins be cut off at birth? Or do you think men should be able to make the decision for themselves?