Cutting It Short
Would circumcision still be popular if we called it “Penis Reduction Surgery”?
It goes without saying that American men are [brainwashed to be] obsessed with penis size. Everybody measures, but nobody thinks they “measure up.” Everybody wants Big Dick Energy, but those who exude it above the belt aren’t always the ones who are packing heat below. For every person who tries to reassure their partner that his penis size is perfectly fine [and it doesn’t matter in bed, anyway], there are fifty other guys having unnecessary anxiety attacks and guzzling sketchy supplements because they aren’t stretched [or severed] like the stallions on PornHub.
Trust me, I know. I was convinced I wasn’t big enough until my fifth sexual partner saw my penis [by consent] for the first time and instantly exclaimed “oh thank god” — and then had to explain that she didn’t want anything bigger because, as it turns out, treating a cervix like a castle gate and an over-endowed erection like a battering ram is nobody’s idea of a good time. Who knew? [Okay, ladies, you can put your hands down, now.]
But here’s the thing I still don’t get. America is one of the only nations that continues to practice routine infant penile circumcision on a massively standardized scale but without the most ethically viable reasons [such as a collective religious mandate or the widespread risk of penile illness due to a lack of accessible healthcare infrastructure]. But if we’re so hung up on being hung, why make penises smaller?
Because circumcision does exactly that — there is literally no way one can argue otherwise. An intact penis has 100% of itself; it’s as big as it’s ever [naturally] going to get. A cut penis, by definition, has less than 100% of itself. Think about it like a toilet paper tube: which is bigger, the tube with a roll or two of soft, fluffy, triple-ply paper wrapped around it, or the tube that’s just bare brown cardboard with nothing else left?
In the flaccid state, a foreskin doesn’t only add a millimeter or so of additional circumference around the shaft and glans of a penis, but, depending on how much “excess” there is at the tip, it can add up to inch in visual length as well. And although this extra layer of skin may not seem as noticably significant when fully retracted on an erection, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still there, adding grateful girth (along with its more important and appreciated “gliding action” during sex).
So, again, I ask: if American men are obsessed with wanting bigger dicks, why do we allow (and systematically encourage) parents and doctors to cut them down to a smaller size? I’m not advocating for the toxic “stallion” stereotype in the first place, but maybe we wouldn’t crave it so desperately if we all still had the full packages we were born with?
I wouldn’t know. I never got the chance to find out.