I get dm'ed a lot of these questions, so I thought I'd just compile my responses here for reference.
Q: Why is foreskin so important?
Foreskin is one of the most sensitive and functionally important parts of the penis. it has nerve endings called Meissner's corpuscles that are also present on fingertips, meaning they're incredibly sensitive. importantly, the glans of the penis is (supposed to be) a mucosal membrane that the foreskin keeps moist and sensitive, circumcision (or even a foreskin that's not long enough) allows the glans to keratinize and become less sensitive over time. The foreskin also plays a stimulatory role in sex for the penetrated partner, as well as providing a smoother experience during penetration.
Purpura et al. (2018) describe the foreskin as follows:
Few parts of the human anatomy can compare to the incredibly multifaceted nature of the human foreskin. At times dismissed as “just skin,” the adult foreskin is, in fact, a highly vascularized and densely innervated bilayer tissue, with a surface area of up to 90 cm, and potentially larger. On average, the foreskin accounts for 51% of the total length of the penile shaft skin and serves a multitude of functions. The tissue is highly dynamic and biomechanically functions like a roller bearing; during intercourse, the foreskin “unfolds” and glides as abrasive friction is reduced and lubricating fluids are retained. The sensitive foreskin is considered to be the primary erogenous zone of the male penis and is divided into four subsections: inner mucosa, ridged band, frenulum, and outer foreskin; each section contributes to a vast spectrum of sensory pleasure through the gliding action of the foreskin, which mechanically stretches and stimulates the densely packed corpuscular receptors. The glans and inner mucosa are physically protected against external irritation and contaminants while maintaining a healthy, moist surface.
Q: Why is non-medically necessary, non-religious circumcision still practiced in places like the US?
A combination of (1) genital mutilation of boys and girls in the Victorian Era attempting to stop masturbation (don't look up what they did to baby girls), (2) cultural momentum driven by tradition and myths about cleanliness. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (yeah, the corn flakes guy) said about circumcision and masturbation:
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.
According to Chubak (2013), "Male circumcision was first popularized in late 19th-century America by Lewis Sayre, a renowned orthopedic surgeon, public-health activist, and creator of the Journal of the American Medical Association. On the basis of a few orthopedic case reports, Sayre used his influence to promote male circumcision, by redefining it as a systemic therapy, rather than a local anatomic alteration. This redefinition was consonant with the contemporary reflex neurosis theory of disease, as well as the historic humoral-mechanical understanding of the human body."
In short, pseudoscience, misinformation, and tradition. Luckily, rates of non-religious circumcision are beginning to fall, even in the US.
Q: Circumcised penises are cleaner/less likely to transmit STIs!
2/3rds of the world is not circumcised and manages to practice basic penis hygiene while having a foreskin. There are cases of recurrent infections and other problems with the foreskin that might necessitate circumcision as a last resort, in the same way you might need to get your tonsils out with recurrent throat infections. Any benefit regarding STI transmission is small and is less effective than safer sex practices. In fact, virtually all major medical associations (with the exception of the AAP) state that the benefits do NOT outweigh the risks/damage and recommend against routine infant circumcision. The Canadian Pediatric Society, for example, stated:
Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.
The AAP's official position on the "benefits" of infant male circumcision has been severely criticized. The AAP is the ONLY major worldwide medical association completely disregarding both the ethical concerns and potential damage of circumcision. Here is an example of a scientific rebuttal to the AAP statement.
Q: But foreskin is gross/weird/I don't like it!
Foreskin is weird to you because you aren't used to seeing it. In most of the world where foreskin is seen as normal and healthy, people don't think twice about it. It evolved for a clear physiological reason.
There are plenty of body parts that are considered subjectively "gross", but we shouldn't tie down babies and cut those parts off of them, either.
Q: Male circumcision shouldn't be compared to FGM (female genital mutilation).
"Male genital mutilation" is a political term that tries to be as urgent as possible in calling attention to an ethical issue, in much the same way "female genital mutilation" is. While undoubtedly FGM is on the whole more harmful and devastating to the average victim, there are two things about MGM to consider. (1) First, the negative repercussions of infant circumcision are widespread, difficult to quantify, and hard to talk about, especially in a country where we already have little to no sex education. As someone who has sex with quite a few people with penises, I've had a frankly disturbing number of partners tell me about the negative effects their circumcision has had on them, mostly around sensitivity, making many types of sex not pleasurable for them because they don't get enough sensation. Very few of them would qualify under the term "botched circumcision", although those cases certainly exist as well. (2) Regardless of the quantifiable negative effects of MGM vs FGM, there are larger ethical issues at play. It's simple: medically unnecessary, irreversible procedures should not be done on children of ANY gender (including intersex children) too young to give informed consent, especially on their most sensitive parts and in ways that can affect their sexual functioning for the rest of their lives.
Q: What about circumcision for religious reasons?
Circumcision of male children is a traditional part of both Islam and Judaism, among other traditions. although it may be important culturally, I believe that any surgery altering someone's genitals has to be done with their express informed consent, and religion should not be an exception for this ethical principle. if I were in charge of the laws, I would make male circumcision in religious contexts only legal after the age of 16-18, in addition to being illegal for children under this age with the exception of medical necessity. In a society that respects human rights and bodily autonomy, these kinds of compromises have to happen.
Q: I was circumcised as a baby/child and I'm fine with it!
Amazing! Many, many people with penises who were circumcised against their will are not, and one individual's experience and lack of regret/feelings of violation is not a basis for ethical policy regarding bodily autonomy. elective cosmetic circumcision should absolutely be allowed for people above ages 16-18.
Q: I was circumcised and I feel lowkey traumatized/violated about it. Is that normal?
Anything you feel about having your bodily autonomy violated, regardless of when said violation happened, is valid. An important, sensitive part of your genitalia was taken without your consent. I myself have felt deep violation and anger over the years. Especially in the US, where there is so much disinformation (even coming from medical organizations like the APA), tradition has created a level of societal gaslighting where we're supposed to act like the practice is somehow normal and okay, despite most of the world viewing it as a last resort medical procedure or religious ritual. My advice is to talk about it with other people who've gone through the same thing, get educated, spread the word (especially with people in your life having kids), seek therapy if necessary, and look into restoring your foreskin to reverse at least some of what was taken from you. Circumcision is already on the decline in the US, and is dying out completely (outside of religious contexts) in most of the world. People are waking up slowly but surely, and with enough work, I do believe we can get to a point in the world where we look back on the non-therapeutic genital mutilation of non-consenting minors of ALL genders as the immoral practice it is.
Q: That's all well and good, but they got me when I was a baby/child. There's nothing left to do, right?
Wrong! Most people have enough foreskin left between the glans and circumcision scar to slowly tension and stimulate cell division that will literally create new foreskin cells. With enough time and effort, this skin accumulates, starts to bunch up and roll over, and functions in many ways like a normal foreskin, especially if the frenulum is still partially intact. If the frenulum was removed, unfortunately that structure can't be restored through non-surgical means. But the sexual and psychological benefits of foreskin restoration are life-changing even if function isn't restored 100%. Even getting to the point where the glans is dekeratinized through something like the Your Skin Cone can make a huge difference when it comes to sensitivity.
Q: What foreskin restoration methods do you recommend?
I can only speak to two methods: manual restoration and the TLC-X device. Manual restoration is necessary if there's not enough skin rollover to place in a device like the TLC-X. I don't have any experience with this, but this Twitter user used only manual methods and looks almost indistinguishable from uncut to me.
I've used the TLC-X on and off since 2015 and seen great results. I'd say I'm about 75% of the way to where I'd like to be in terms of coverage. If I'd been more regular with my use, I probably would have gotten to 100% within 5 years.
This website is a great place to get started, as well as /r/ForeskinRestoration.
Q: Foreskin restoration seems like such a long, involved process. Why should I do it?
The time will pass anyway.
Q: Why do you care so much about this?
I have a penis so I have skin in the game. (ha)
I care about bodily autonomy and want to see a world without forced genital surgeries on children of all genders too young to consent to them, along with all the psychological and physiological damage such surgeries can cause.
Foreskin is sexy and natural.
gracieabrams
tangentwithtanner
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
stormborns
dailybridgerton
turnnoffyourmind
yousharknotpass
titsay
