💭 Other thoughts

🧭 On infant genital mutilation

I'd like to make it abundantly clear that despite having created this website about circumcision and making a decision to get cut myself, it doesn't mean I support genital mutilation of children in any way.

People have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. Bodily autonomy must be respected! Circumcision undoubtedly has its advantages and disadvantages – and people should be able to weigh them before making a decision to get circumcised. They should be able to experience their dick while intact, to pick their style, etc.

Unless there's a medical necessity, circumcision should be treated as a body modification. It's perfectly fine to have one if you want it! But you wouldn't tattoo a newborn or pierce their body, would you? So why would you remove infant's foreskin – a procedure that's way way harder to reverse? There's no amount of “religious requirements”, “cultural reasons” or “health benefits” that would justify mutilating a perfectly healthy penis without the person's enthusiastic, informed consent.

Circumcising anyone without enthusiastic consent or a medical necessity is genital mutilation and a despicable practice.

📗 On the words “intact” and “uncut”

You might have noticed that I'm using the word “intact” on this website instead of the far more popular “uncut”. That's because, although technically valid linguistically, “uncut” is a very weird word that puts circumcision as the default point of reference. You don't hear about “untattooed skin” or “unpierced cartilage”, do you?

In a different world it might be an insignificant nuance – but we live in a world where infants' penises get irreversibly altered for no good reason. So it's very important to describe circumcision in terms that paint it as a voluntary procedure that modifies the natural state of a penis, and not as a kind of default state that being intact is described in opposition to.

🔗 Sources of info