What's up with the "un" meaning?

[Anastasiya]

I read often that some of you don't like the term "uncircumcised" because that implies that one was circumcised and then it was "undone." Where do you get that from?

Doesn't the prefix "un" mean "not"? I mean, if I say someone is uneducated, it means he's not educated, not educated and then somehow "undone". If I say someone is uninterested it means he's not interested, not once interested and then no longer interested. Or unacceptable - means not acceptable, not that it was at one time acceptable and is now no longer.

So wouldn't uncircumcised mean not circumcised, rather than circ'ed and then "undone"?

I hope someone can clarify this because it seems to be a popular thought among a lot of you that I'm just not catching on to.

thanks!

[fishface]

From what I understand, "uncircumcised" is a disliked term because it refers to circumcision as being the norm or natural state, thus if you are not circumcised you are uncirced as opposed to being INTACT (which truly is the natural state). Does that make sense or am I talking in circles?

[Nodtveidt]

The "un" prefix is synonymous with "not" in most cases. To say "uncircumcised" doesn't mean "I was and now I'm not", it simply means "I'm not". Of course, as fishface states, this word itself is highly disliked because of its implication that circumcision is the "standard".

[Daisyuk]

Would you normally go around telling people that their limbs are "unamputated", that they are "unlobotomised", "unmastectomised", "untonsilectomised", "unappendectomised" in all seriousness if they have all their body parts? No, they're NORMAL.

It's the people who have had the parts removed that are no longer in possession of their full compliment, and there are words to describe this state - the pro-circ lobby have just made up a word to make it seem as though the amputated state is normal and the intact state is not.

[Leiahs]

Right, to use the words from your examples, uneducated implies that educated is the normal, preferred way to be. *Un*educated is the lesser, looked-down upon state of being. And interested in something is *good*, everyone likes to be interested. But being *un*interested is again going with option less preferred. It's the same with circ/uncirc. If we say *un*circumcised, it implies that circumcision in the preferable of the two options. But saying intact shows that it, instead, is the best option; the standard.

[TigerTail]

Context affects meaning. When people refer to 'uncircumcised' (or usually, 'uncircumsized' ) men, they do not specify 'circumcised'- that is considered standard.

In the media- there are people, & black or Asian people. There are babies, & there are breastfed babies. What does this imply? Are you an 'uncircumcised' woman, or just a woman?

It changes the way people think, if you say babies, & ff babies. Penises, & circumcised penises.

The prefix 'un' in the case of 'educated', is pretty much considered 'lesser; not fixed'; wrong'- people who tend to refer to normal penises as 'uncircumcized' (sic) use it in that sense.

If you control the language you control people's minds and hearts.

[Anastasiya]

Thanks all!

It makes complete sense now and thanks for everyone taking the time to explain it. Silly me.....I'm embarrassed it took me this long to "get it".

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by fishface

From what I understand, "uncircumcised" is a disliked term because it refers to circumcision as being the norm or natural state, thus if you are not circumcised you are uncirced as opposed to being INTACT (which truly is the natural state). Does that make sense or am I talking in circles?

In a truly ideal society, there would be no special term needed to describe the natural state. All little boys would simply have a penis.

~Nay

[anubis]

I'm completely and wholeheartedly against circing babies, of course, but the pedantic etymologist in me just has to point out that the word 'intact' itself means "uninjured" or "untouched", and in that sense isn't all that different from 'uncircumcised'. I dunno, maybe we should just talk about penises vs. circumcised penises.

[TigerTail]

that would be the next step.

[trmpetplaya]

I cannot wait until the natural, intact penis is the norm both in language and in reality... that'll be a lovely day!

love and peace.

[QueenOfThePride]

It's not the 'un-' that I object to, it's the '-circumcised'. Why should I define my son(s) with a word for something I hate? Why would I define them by a surgery they didn't have?

[A&A]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

Would you normally go around telling people that their limbs are "unamputated", that they are "unlobotomised", "unmastectomised", "untonsilectomised", "unappendectomised" in all seriousness if they have all their body parts? No, they're NORMAL.

.

:

[Aura_Kitten]

Originally Posted by fishface

From what I understand, "uncircumcised" is a disliked term because it refers to circumcision as being the norm or natural state, thus if you are not circumcised you are uncirced as opposed to being INTACT (which truly is the natural state). Does that make sense or am I talking in circles?

:

I prefer to use the term "Intact" for just that reason ~ it clearly states that "this state of being is normal and there is a fully whole, functioning organ here."