Warning: This article includes images of the circumcised and intact penis taken from puberty books

But this debate extends well beyond the medical. For instance, much has been made of the “ugliness” of the foreskin, especially in the American context, recalling that “the United States is the only nation that has routinely circumcised its male infants for nonreligious reasons”

For instance, For Boys Only by Frank Howard Richardson ([1952] 2007: 60) presents a question and an answer, and the question begins: “We used to josh one boy in our gym class who had such a long foreskin he was ashamed to take a shower where the other fellows could see him. Why was he so different from the rest of us?” to which the author responds:
Answer. The small difference meant nothing at all. But fellows are pretty cruel, or at least mighty thoughtless the way they make fun of anyone who's the least bit different from the average. If such a foreskin is tight, as well as long, it might be wise for him to be circumcised so that he could keep himself clean more easily. But that is something for his doctor to advise him about

The New Speaking of Sex: What Your Children Need to Know and When they Need to Know It, writes, “parents from the Jewish religion and the Muslim religion believe in circumcision for religious reasons, and so their sons are always circumcised” (2009: 40–41). This recognition of cultural difference is important, and in nearly every example, circumcision is framed as a normal part of this religious experience. There is little to no critique of the practice. For instance, there is no mention of rights of the neonate, but rather circumcision is treated matter-of-factly and as a normal part of those religious practices. This is important because the circumcision debate is merely about whether or not it is done, and not about deeper ethical, religious, or moral issues. Thus, the books do not address, for instance, the conflicted nature of religious parents

In this example, medical reasons are provided for circumcision, with a suggestion that one may be better than the other. The medialization of circumcision is often tied to notions of hygiene and cleanliness. Readers are often told, especially in American publications, that circumcision is cleaner or that the circumcised penis is easier to keep clean.

Circumcision helps prevent germs from collecting under the foreskin.

Likewise, when medical reasons for circumcision are discussed, they are generic and often rely on old ideas. For example, the introduction of smegma presents a host of medical ideas. Lurking behind the prose is an allusion to “the myth that smegma was carcinogenic and responsible for penile, cervical, and prostate cancer” that was advanced by the “speculations of Abraham Wolbarst and Abraham Ravich in the early to mid-1900s

While many of the books claim that “a circumcised penis looks different from a penis that hasn't been circumcised but it doesn't in any way affect how the penis functions” (Middleman and Pfeifer 2006: 58), they still, at least discursively, favor or privilege the circumcised penis. In The Body Book for Boys: Everything You Need to Know about Growing Up, the image that accompanies the section on the male sex organ is clearly circumcised and makes no mention of the foreskin; the same can be said for the images of pubic hair growth. The image here includes various arrows pointing to parts of the penis, noting where the testicles are, what the glans is, and what the urethra does, for instance, but the foreskin is notably absent