I was circumcised shortly after birth, although my family and I are not jewish. I think, at the time, parents were advised that it was considered good hygiene. We all see men of both types and it doesn't even register on me. I wouldn't get circumcised just for nudism. Makes no sense to me. We're all beautiful unclad!
Like virtually all US males born in the Fifties I was circumcised at birth. I really have no opinion on the subject either way. What little I know on the subject indicates that an uncircumcised male needs to learn at an early age how to keep the area under the foreskin clean. There is also some discussion about reduced sensitivity since the glans is no longer covered much of the time.
I did have an acquaintance in the Army who was circumcised as an adult. About the only thing he did say was that sexual relations were better after the procedure.
Is there any relevance as to whether a person is circumcised or not in naturism? I would say not at all but I will share a couple of thoughts on that later.
I was circumcised in my early 30s because the skin was needed for use to extend my urethra and the flesh from the foreskin offers the best option. The second option is the inside of the cheek of the mouth which is apparently a lot more painful and uncomfortable, so I was glad to have my foreskin available for use. Unlike most people who have their foreskin removed at birth I properly remember what it is like to have one and I would say that losing it has a dramatic effect on the feelings and sensitivity and the loss damages the pleasure felt in that area.
On a purely emotional level there is also a sense of loss, a part of your body that has always been there is suddenly not there, like losing a finger, toe or ear lobe, it is something that has been amputated, even if it has little use it is still a part of you that is gone, ad a part of you attached to a part of the anatomy that is given a lot of importance within our minds. A man growing up with this from a baby will not be aware of the idea that something is missing because they have no recollection, just as a person born blind may not miss their sight as much as someone who becomes blind, which is of course much worse than being circumcised.
I think the cleanliness idea is maybe used as an excuse for circumcision in babies. Like any part of our bodies if we wash it will be clean and if we don't it won't. I read people using a similar explanation for genital, armpit and facial shaving. Maybe a man who dribbles soup into his beard and doesn't shower may end up with a smelly face, but a shaved man can walk around with food on his chin too. I don't believe my cleaning regime has changed since being circumcised and I certainly don't feel any cleaner.
Incidentally I had a friend who had his foreskin removed in his early twenties because it was too tight (although a skin thinner like a hydrocortisone can help in that respect). The operation was not one that went well and it resulted in a lot of pain, an infection and very uncomfortable swelling of the whole region including testicles. Months later it was funny but at the time he was quite concerned, traumatised and in agony.
All I can say is that I would never opt to have any operation without a good reason.
Back to naturism. Really it should not matter if a man is circumcised or not in naturism, and in my mind we should be no more interested in the penis in naturism than in any other part of our body. Our fascination with certain parts of the body such as the penis or breasts comes from outside of naturism, and although it is hard to completely ignore that fascination it is optimum to not be too concerned. Just as we should care about the size or whether or not people opt to shave. Similarly we should not be concerned about the size or shape of breasts, they are just a part of our body's and although in dressed society they are used to allow judgement, mockery and self loathing, in naturism they should hold no such power.
For a naturist to decide to become circumcised purely because of naturism would not necessarily be a wrong thing to do, but it would be putting a level of importance onto the look of your penis that could suggest the idea of naturism is more about showing parts of our body rather than simply being without coverings.
On a personal level, living in a country with very few men circumcised I feel a little self conscious about being circumcised (maybe also because I was circumcised at an older age). I would imagine if I was living in a county that was primarily circumcised that I would feel a little self conscious about not being circumcised, so there is an aspect of fitting in. It can at times feel like that when it comes to having body hair. There was a time that so few people had body hair that it seemed that I was the only man unshaven, but know the trend is reversing a little. In an ideal situation we should all just feel free to be the people we are with the bodies we were born with and if we opt to do things like shave then it shouldn't matter one way or another. Although I did wonder when I was a younger man why some people choose to shave as it just seemed to attract attention to the shaven parts. Years later it became so common place that it almost became a naturist uniform.
My own thought is that naturism is about not covering up our bodies, rather than attempting to expose them. If we are people who like shaving, are circumcised, have piercings or tattoos then that should be part of what we uncover to be naturists, but if we make changes to ourselves because of naturism then are we not just dressing up in a different way? My chest hair gets very hot and bushy. It rubs against my neck and makes it sore when I am sweaty. I trim it every month of so because it actually makes me more comfortable while wearing clothes, rather than for naturism, so I feel it just makes sense for what I want from myself without considering naturism at all. My circumcision was done for use of the flesh for medical reasons, it would be wrong if being circumcised effected my acceptability as a naturist, even if it does place me in a minority among UK men. I like to think that no one really cares either way. As that is naturism isn't it? We are accepted no matter what our bodies are like as long as we do nothing to attract unsuitable attention.
Wearing a sign around my neck saying "Look Down At My Penis" would be just as wrong as being told that we have to wear swimming trunks on a beach or going around with my hand or some object in front of my penis to stop people seeing it. We should be considering the whole of a person, looking at their faces when we talk and not overly concerned about anything else. It is why we do not allow "penis profiles picture" on ANW and ask that faces are given priority in images. Naturists shouldn't care that their breasts or genitals can be seen and shouldn't care if they cannot, and that is something we should all consider within our naturism. Some naturists photographs are too concerned about ensuring certain parts of their body are given greater focus than others, and some naturists photographs act like they are caught in some naughty game and have to try to cover up by strategically placed objects in front of the parts of them that they are ashamed of. In reality a photograph, just like real life naturism, should show little interest in what can and cannot be seen.
The best way to be as a naturist is to be natural and that is best captured when we act in exactly the same way as we would when dressed but without clothes. That should be the case for photos, for naturist life and how we consider our bodies. We shouldn't really change anything about ourselves to be naturists other than remove our clothing.
I had to have a operation when I was about 5 years old as both my testicles were stuck in the tube, at the same time my parents chose the option to have me circumcised, if that was not the case now my choice would be to keep what was already their as it is a natural part of the body not purely for naturism purposes.
