"Uncircumcised" is kind of a peculiar double negative if you think about it. It kind of has the sense that there is something left undone, whereas "intact" is more correct when you want the distinction to be clear.
At the risk of hearing from militant anti-circumcision activists (believe me, they're out there), I have to say "intact" is a somewhat charged word. It implies that someone who has been circumcised is not intact, or is somehow defective. Whatever you think of circumcision, we don't want people to be any more unhappy about their bodies – especially their penises, an organ that's the subject of far too much personal obsessive worrying – than they already are. Circumcision is a procedure, and those who have not undergone the procedure are uncircumcised. For comparison purposes, how about saying someone is "unmarried"? I don't have a problem with that, either. ("Single" is okay, but I'd have a problem with "free," or "lonely" for that matter.) Neither "circumcised" nor "uncircumcised" implies any kind of judgment, or creates divisions between people, whereas I feel words like "intact" and "whole" do.
What do you think about when you masturbate or have sex? Would you tell your significant other if they asked?
Answer this question | Suggest a question
Answer this question | Suggest a question
I know you're a stickler for correct grammar and terminology, so how about the word "intact"?
