Some women may prefer a circumcised penis because it looks cleaner. In my opinion, that’s no different from a man saying a vagina is dirty. We need to have a mature attitude about genitalia and realize that what is natural is normal. If nature/God had intended men not to have foreskin, then men wouldn’t be born with foreskin.

*10. The apocrine glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheromones – nature’s powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been studied.
*11. Sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, normally a protected internal organ – like the tongue or vagina.
12. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body’s immune system in a whole penis.
13. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans. The connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together while the penis develops is ripped apart during circumcision, wounding the glans and the foreskin remnant, leaving them raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration.
*14. Some of the penis length and penis circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.
*15. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularity interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.
16. Every year boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infections. They are then “sexually reassigned” by castration and “transgender surgery,” and expected to live their lives as “females.”
17. Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of circumcision, a fact the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry in the U.S. obscures and ignores.
18. By encoding violence on the brain the infant’s bonding with its mother is disrupted, with indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate physical contact is inhibited or lost, and in its place a sense of betrayal is instilled in the infant.
(*19. Although never studied scientifically, contemporary evidence suggests that a penis without its foreskin lacks the capacity for the subtle neurological “cross-communication” that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes and which contributes to the experience of sexual pleasure. Amputating an infant boy’s multi-functional foreskin is a “low-grade neurological castration” [Immerman], which diminishes the intensity of the entire sexual experience for both the circumcised male and his partner.)

*Loss of each of these items reduces sexual pleasure, gratification, and fulfillment.
Immerman, R. S. and Mackey, W.C., “A Proposed Relationship Between Circumcision and Neural Reorganization,” J of Genetic Psych, 1998.
Immerman, R. S. and Mackey, W. C., “A biocultural analysis of circumcision,” Social Biology 1998;4:265-275

Compiled by Gary L. Harryman glharryman@aol.com
4/6/99 – Last Revision 5/25/99

See Also: Glossary
Return to Mothers Against Circumcision Homepage

The tip of my penis does not define me as a man. I can still get hard, I still have immense pleasure and can pleasure my woman. There is not a single part of me that does not work and that I do not enjoy. I am not less of a man and I think nothing less of my father.

Sorry, but if you are one of those that can only define yourself by whether you have some skin over your penis or not, you really aren’t much of a man to begin with.

I just can’t care about this topic.

You do know that these studies claiming this were seriously flawed, and that this reduction is not seen in the real world–in fact, the opposite? One needs to critically analyze any claim for a benefit for circumcision. Over the 100+ years of these claims of benefits, and not a single one has stood. This track record speaks volumes.

I’ve been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and cosmetically neither is more appealing than the other so long as it’s clean. Performance is far more important than whether or not the foreskin is intact.