I don’t think I’ve hidden my love of the uncut cock.  I love all cock, but probably because stupid Americans often have ideas about circumcision or lack thereof based solely on urban myth or outdated ideas, I feel I should champion the rights of the uncut cock.

I used to be one of those stupid Americans.  Well, I still am a stupid American, but not in the area of circumcision.  Not any more.  I had never seen an uncircumcised penis, and certainly hadn’t played with one, when I would espouse such ignorant ideas about uncut penises being dirty, having smegma, smelling, looking gross, and so on.  I was an asshole.

Eventually I fucked a guy who wasn’t circumcised.  And another, and another.  I realized that so long as the person has good hygiene that there’s nothing more dirty about an uncut cock versus a cut cock.  And uncut cocks are easier to give handjobs (though I admittedly lack skills in this area in general).  Then I fucked a few more guys who were uncircumcised, and then I married an uncircumcised cock.  Oh, I mean I married a man who had an uncircumcised cock.

I have been an anti-circumcision advocate for years.  No, not formally, but when the subject came up, and when people said things about uncut cocks being dirty, etc., I felt it my duty to educate the morons.  To be fair, most of the people were just ignorant, like I was in my teens.  Most of the time I was talking to women, and some men, who had never had relations with a penis in its natural state so I could always win the “it’s not clean” arguments with them.

But the stupidest arguments came from talking to people who said they would circumcise their theoretical future sons.  “So his penis looks like his father’s.”  How many father-son pairs bandy about their dicks, comparing notes?  And how many children don’t take, “That’s the way he is, and that’s the way you are; you are different” explanations from their parents?  Contrary to strict Freudians, children aren’t all that obsessed with their parents’ genitalia; they’re more concerned with their own.  I saw both my father’s penis and my mother’s muff (and vagina, but that’s a different story) when I was a kid and they both looked very different from what I had going on, which was explained to me by saying they were adults and I was a child.

Parents really need their children to look like them that much?  Then why don’t they go ahead and dye their hair, get them those nose jobs, provide them with liposuction?  Because kids’ hair tends to be lighter in color than their parents’, their noses cuter and more button-like, and their bodies chubbier.

Or how about the argument that little boys don’t know how to clean themselves properly?  Guess what, future parents?  You have to teach your children – boys and girls and innersexed – how to clean themselves.  Hygiene is important for all children to learn, not just girls because their inherently cleaner, which is utter bullshit anyway.  If a child can figure out how to clean a vulva including inside the labia majora, then a child can figure out how to clean a penis including underneath the foreskin.

Another lame argument I hear is that the incidence of sexually transmissible infections – HIV being the biggie – and certain forms of cancer are lower not only for the circumcised man, but also for his sexual partners.  While it’s laudable for a future parent to be concerned about her son’s health, isn’t it just a little creepy to be that involved in his future sex life?  So involved that you’ll cut off a part of his body now – without his consent – to prevent something that may or may not happen in the future?  To me that’s about as creepy as getting a preventative double mastectomy for your minor daughter because her aunt had breast cancer.

This last argument – lower incidence of STIs – is supported by our very own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  However, even the CDC admits that the various studies, especially regarding a much lower transmission of HIV in heterosexual men who were circumcised, were conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa, where education about HIV transmission and prevention is not widespread, where dry sex is commonly practiced, and where unprotected sex with sex workers is the norm.  Supposedly the survey of the studies controlled for all these factors, and that may be true, but provided parents raise their Western children (and everyone with whom I had these discussions was Western) properly, none of these things would be true.  Well-educated, privileged parents would teach their spoiled children about HIV/AIDS and other STIs, and how to use barrier methods for birth control and disease prevention when having relations with sex workers or anyone else.  Chances are the topic of dry sex would not even come up.

Of course I feel like I win each of these arguments with logic.  But my trump card is what actual doctors recommend for babies born in the US.  The American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement begins, “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”  The AAP policy statement goes on to say that the potential benefits and risks of circumcision should be fully explained to parents, taking into account cultural and religious factors.

This is where I again call bullshit.  Really?  A man in the sky told people that cutting off part of their sons’ penises would mean they were chosen by Him and therefore special?  Maybe special because if they lived through such a procedure – considering the lack of sterilization, medication, etc., thousands of years ago – that would mean they were stronger than the boys who hadn’t had to endure such mutilation.  Because we all know there is no man in the sky.  And if there were would he really be all that into cock?  Wouldn’t he want to fuss with pussies too?  Oh, no, because God created man in his image.

So is God circumcised or not?

I swear.  True (logical) story.