The Circumcision is Mutilation Debate

I don’t think there is any unassailable truth in the circumcision is mutilation debate as a lot of things depend on your perspective.

Some (for reasons I can’t fathom, but that does not matter for the sake of the argument) value their foreskins a great deal, and even invent language to reflect that.

The ancient Greeks who were foreskin-obsessed even insisted that it is not one but two organs the posthe (the part the covers the glans) and the acroposthion (the overhang).

I assume if you have invested so much in the adoration of that piece of skin you are going to be horrified of parting with it no matter what.

On the flip side, the skin of the penis is really just a long tube of skin. If you look at a penis with the foreskin retracted it already looks like a circumcised one with some extra wrinkles.

Circumcision merely takes up the slack. Having it done does not feel like a mutilation any more than getting a facelift does.

Even if you feel a special attachment to your foreskin (or you are upset that you do not have one) you can’t demand that we all buy into your point of view and feel somehow mutilated.

From our point of view nothing of value has been removed from our body. Our penile skin was merely tightened up a little to make it smoother and less unwieldy.