Definitions

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

  • adjective Not circumcised.
  • adjective Archaic Irreligious.

from The Century Dictionary.

  • Not circumcised.

from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

  • noun Not circumcised; hence, not of the Israelites.

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

  • adjective Not circumcised.
  • adjective Spiritually impure; irreligious.
  • adjective by extension Not Jewish or Muslim; gentile

Etymologies

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

From un- +‎ circumcised.

Examples

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • Male or female genitals that have not been mutilated

    ALSO: the natural state of the intact penis

    January 15, 2008

  • I really shouldn't even comment here. I know I shouldn't, and yet I'm going to.

    I can't speak for females. I can only speak for myself (a male, natch). In any case, I think the word mutilation is needlessly graphic and sensational. It conjures images of ground hamburger meat and unrecognizably butchered carcasses. On the contrary, the procedure is quick, safe, and probably painless (or at least, forgotten in one's adult years if it was done as an infant) and the final product is fully functional and arguably more sanitary than it would have otherwise been. My understanding is that the same cannot be said for the female version, so I'm not even going to go there. But someone had to stand in defense of the menfolk who aren't in the least bit angry that they have been "mutilated." It's not like we had our arms lopped off.

    January 15, 2008

  • Also confining comments to the male variety, I don't really see the point of circumcision (except in special cases), but "mutilated" is rather an extreme word. You might as well call piercing mutilation. Have you seen how many toddlers are pierced these days?

    January 16, 2008

  • I stand by my definition. Google images of the "quick, safe, hospital procedure" and see how you feel. :)

    January 16, 2008

  • People get stuff removed all of the time. I think that the difference is that they don't sedate the babies to the same degree that they would an adult. The poor little boys are fussy for a while after they've had the procedure, understandably so.

    January 16, 2008

  • I echo uselessness's sentiment that I really shouldn't comment here. But I'm going to anyway.

    There is no comparison between the circumcision of an infant male and the mutilation of a near-pubescent or post-pubescent female. The female's anatomy will not function normally, or if you prefer, "naturally," after such treatment. The same cannot be said of a male who's been circumcised. On that basis alone, there's no comparison. To call circumcision "mutilation" is insulting to the tens of thousands of women who've been abused and, yes, mutilated.

    Edit: p.s. google images of any "safe hospital procedure" and you'd get just as grossed out.

    and I'll shut up now. Thanks for listening.

    January 16, 2008

  • WOE. Does everybody here understand that the amount of skin removed from an infant male (within the first week of life) contains nerves and stretches to the size of a 3x5" index card? Does everybody realize that a step in a traditional circ procedure is medically referred to as "tearing of the glands"?

    Also, male vs. female circ arguments are controversial because our language limits the terms. Pointing out that there is a difference in how they are done does not change the fact that BOTH procedures fall under the heading "circumcision".

    Forget the cleanliness myth, BOTH male and female circs are done to decrease sexual pleasure, though the effects on the female are arguably more devastating. American male circumcision became popular when the Puritans convinced themselves it would eliminate masturbation. I would argue that it hasn't, just as it won't stop the spread of AIDS, which is the current myth.

    January 16, 2008

  • I understand what you're saying! It's one of those procedures that is just traditional, and I don't know why it's done. Of course, that's never a good reason to do anything. I guess my thought process is that I, a circumcised male (it was done when I was an infant), am fully functional; I have no pain or lack of feeling "down there"; I have absolutely no memory of the operation or remorse that it was done; and I'm not crippled in any way. For those reasons, making a big deal out of it just seems silly to me, despite the seemingly horrific nature of the procedure when it occurs. To live a normal adult life, it is of absolutely no consequence whether or not a person has had it done.

    Now the female version is another story altogether, and I can't approve of that in any manner.

    January 17, 2008

  • uselessness, I like you, but I'm gonna have to challenge your use of the words "fully functional", well, the word "fully" anyway. It's like saying a tongue without taste buds is "fully functional"; sure, you can still use it to lick, move food, swallow, and speak, but it's not as nice to eat with (as you'll know if you've ever burned your tongue - except foreskin never grows back).

    January 17, 2008

  • I'm circumcised, and while it's impossible to know for sure, I get the feeling I enjoy sex as much as anyone. I think my Jewish friends would say the same, and they've been practicing circumcision for a lot longer than the Puritans (though I had been under the impression that circumcision in America wasn't common until the early 20th century).

    Comparing male and female circumcision doesn't make sense--female circumcision is more equivalent to lopping off the entire head of the penis. And I don't think anyone is claiming it "stops" AIDS, but very reputable sources (the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, see Wikipedia) say it reduces the risk of transmission.

    For that reason alone, if we were having a boy baby we might consider the procedure, though it certainly seems optional in any case. But we have a girl on the way, so we don't have to worry about it :-)

    January 17, 2008