Question about circumcision

[B_jack001]

I'm curious why it became such different view on circumcision(infant) between Europe and US? In the first people rarley do it, most of friends I know didn't even know that circumcision is performed on babies in America and it is not even considered. Well, on the other hand, in America is this raging debate whether to do it or not and how it has multiple benefits, yet Europe has less AIDS and STDs than US.

Once again I don't have anything against circumcision, I'm just interested how it became such gap between those two, while US is basically appendix of Europe(Historically).

 

[Titsdude21]

Well the US didnt really make it more common. back in the day it WAS very common in many places (most everywhere), and there WERE benifits before things like running water.

I guess the US is just behind the 8 ball on it.

Also i think its difficult to change peoples ideas in america, as they are very......strong willed? So it has sort of hung on. Now since america is one of the few western countries with high circumcision rates some people feel as tho its 'un american' not to circumcise.

Anyways thats my 10cents worth.



P.S this is all my thinking and i have no evidence to back it up. So im just sorta throwing some ideas out there. No offence was intended to circumcised or american people

 

[mandoman]

There is a huge medical propaganda machine in the US. They talk out of both sides of their mouths.
The circumcised guys typically have a huge investment emotionally, like "it must not be useless, otherwise why would my parents have done it", not understanding all the effort the medical community has put into the fake studies, and the rationalizations to keep doing it, so they can continue to make money at it. The AMA and AAP say that it is not necessary medically, and that people should be educated, so they can make a good choice. Then, they make no effort whatsoever to either educate the people on the benefits of having a foreskin, or show them studies that both circumcised and uncircumcised men get the exact same diseases, at the exact same rates...or discourage the doctors from violating their Hippocratic Oath, "first, do no harm". They justify it with, well, it will bring the cancer rate down, and lessen their chance of getting HIV, of which neither is actually true. It's a 250+ million dollar a year industry, at least that is what the AMA was willing to admit a few years ago.
It sounds cynical, but I swear, it is true.
Why else would the US be the only country where a majority of the guys have had non-religious circumcisions?
Fortunately, whenever Europeans share their views, as you just did, it causes somebody in America to question this cycle. The rate is dropping very quickly, mostly because of the internet. Another reason is that many people have now played with an uncut cock, and realized they are not the hygiene horror show they were made out to be, they are actually fun.

 

[tgirlsrgreat]

for the record, i am very happy with mine!

 

[B_JD560]

I believe circumcision is traced back to biblical times. All Jewish people have it done (a religious ceremony) on the male babies after 8 days. And since almost all of the world's religions are traced back through Judaism (Muslim's ancestry is traced though Ishmael, Abraham's son, Jacob's brother and Jesus was born a Jew), I always thought it was a religious thing. No?

 

[Sapien]

It is unknown when circumcision was first practiced. The first people that documented the practice of circumcision was the ancient Egyptians - 2400 BC. Circumcision was later adopted by Semitic people that lived in the areas around Egypt.

It has been around a long, long time.

 

[JTalbain]

I'm curious why it became such different view on circumcision(infant) between Europe and US? In the first people rarley do it, most of friends I know didn't even know that circumcision is performed on babies in America and it is not even considered. Well, on the other hand, in America is this raging debate whether to do it or not and how it has multiple benefits, yet Europe has less AIDS and STDs than US.

Once again I don't have anything against circumcision, I'm just interested how it became such gap between those two, while US is basically appendix of Europe(Historically).

Why has it become a different view? Two words: socialized medicine. America has a very capitalistic medical system, meaning we are very profit driven, like anything else capitalistic. Our hospitals try to provide the best quality at the highest profit margins possible. The problem is that this means there is no motivation to eliminate circumcision, because it decreases cash flow.

Meanwhile, in many countries in Europe, there is a socialized system for medicine. People get what medical care they need, and any care which is unnecessary is not administered because it costs the hospital and government money.

Basically, this means when research comes out discrediting circumcision, the two different systems will react different ways. A socialized system will reevaluate the procedure and, if it is deemed unnecessary, eliminate it to save costs. A capitalistic system will try to find a reason to keep it around so as not to lose their cash flow. This has been done predictably time and time again, about every 20 years, over which time new reasons to keep circumcising were put forth. Insanity, blindness, penile cancer, chlamydia, herpes, syphillis, etc. You can understand, seeing as how all of those were soundly disproven, that many people have a healthy skepticism of it's status preventing the current disease du jour, HIV/AIDS.

I'll point out as a related note, pretty much every study that has discredited circumcision in some way hasn't been published in the States, but rather in the British Journal of Urology. Just something to think about.

 

[Snozzle]

Well the US didnt really make it more common. back in the day it WAS very common in many places (most everywhere),

Until late in the nineteenth century, the only people to do it were Muslims, Jews and tribal people. Then, it became less uncommon in England and the US, but it only ever rose to about one in 3 in England (more in the upper class and the aspiring middle class, much less in the rest of the UK) but it sank down again after 1950, while it kept on going up in the US. It went up in Australia and NZ, and came down later, now it's rare.

and there WERE benifits before things like running water.

That's debabatable. There's always running piss, and before running water, asepsis and antibiotics, the risks of circumcision were much greater, and very few men lived long enough to get penile cancer.

I guess the US is just behind the 8 ball on it.

That's about right.

Also i think its difficult to change peoples ideas in america, as they are very......strong willed? So it has sort of hung on. Now since america is one of the few western countries with high circumcision rates some people feel as tho its 'un american' not to circumcise.

Which is really odd in a country that so prizes individual freedom. Circumcision seems to break all rules.

 

[darkbond007]

Could there be a bigger troll of a post?

 

[mandoman]

Cut it out. The guy was curious. There is a huge gulf between the rates in the US, and the rates in Europe. He's just wondering why.

 

[JTalbain]

Cut it out. The guy was curious. There is a huge gulf between the rates in the US, and the rates in Europe. He's just wondering why.

I think that the numbers I saw recently for the UK is that the circumcision rate has been under 1% for decades. I could definitely understand where people would be confused over how two first world countries could come to completely different conclusions on it. It's not like we have massive differences in quality of education or anything.

 

[mandoman]

They actually haven't come to different conclusions about it.
Both the US and UK say it is medically unnecessary, and advise against it, because the (potential)
benefits aren't worth the risk.
That being said, it is tacitly pushed in the US, so that people feel that their kids will be disease free if they have it done. The cultural bias alone is huge, without the medical propaganda. Christians assume it is part of their religion. It truly is a circus over here. People cling to these irrational beliefs. If you talk to them about anything else, they make sense, but circumcision is literally the exception to every rule in the US. Anesthesia is optional for babies, and though highly advised, fairly rarely used.
People who wouldn't dream of unnecessary cosmetic procedures do it without so much as a thought.
It isn't even considered surgery, doesn't have to be done in a hospital, is paid for by the majority of states even in these economic hard times, etc. Never a thought to it being against everything ethical the doctor is sworn to uphold. Nobody even considers it a healthy body part being removed, unless they have always had theirs.

 

[JTalbain]

They actually haven't come to different conclusions about it.
Both the US and UK say it is medically unnecessary, and advise against it, because the (potential)
benefits aren't worth the risk.

I believe one of the big differences between the medical communities in both locations is that the public state funded hospitals will actually refuse to perform a non-medical circumcision. Hospitals in the US are more instructed to keep mum on the matter and leave the choice entirely to the parents.

The big difference however is in the cultures. If you ask the average Brit to describe a foreskin, they can do so because they have one or have been with people that have one. They can tell you what parts of them are sensitive and how having one can enhance a sexual/masturbatory experience. The average American simply cannot do it. Despite the studies which have come out and the changing of medical stances, people still see the foreskin as a harbinger of disease and physiologically worthless. I imagine it'll stay that way for a long time until our medically community forces them to wake up by actually advising against circumcision or refusing to perform them.

 

[darkbond007]

The big difference however is in the cultures. If you ask the average Brit to describe a foreskin, they can do so because they have one or have been with people that have one. They can tell you what parts of them are sensitive and how having one can enhance a sexual/masturbatory experience. The average American simply cannot do it.

I disagree here.

The average man regardless of circ status can say what parts of them are sensitive. Using your analogy one would assume that the other knows how it feels to be both and thats not a correct assumption. You make the foreskin out to be the be all and end all to sexual response; unfortunately it is not.

Additionally, America is HARDLY a country where the rate of circumcision is categorically high, Muslim and Jewish areas/countries are all over, I wonder why the question was not posed in this manner.

Despite the studies which have come out and the changing of medical stances, people still see the foreskin as a harbinger of disease and physiologically worthless.

I would just like to say that I don't think it's worthless. However at the same time I dont feel it is the golden fleece that connects sexual response to sexual pleasure/satisfaction.

 

[JTalbain]

I disagree here.

The average man regardless of circ status can say what parts of them are sensitive. Using your analogy one would assume that the other knows how it feels to be both and thats not a correct assumption. You make the foreskin out to be the be all and end all to sexual response; unfortunately it is not.

I'm saying to ask the average American about foreskins, not about their own anatomy. Watch the beginning of the Penn & Teller Circumcision episode. The reactions they get when wandering the streets asking random people what they know about the foreskin kinda sum it up. From "Well, I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis." to a confused guy making a scissors motion, they kinda sum up what the average American knows about foreskin. If you tried to ask the average American how the foreskin reacted during sex, how much skin the penis loses due to circumcision, or questions about caring for an intact penis, the ignorance is blatantly obvious.

Be all end all of sexual response? No. Functional and worthwhile to allow the individual to do with as he pleases? Yes.

And I'm very thankful that the answer to the first one was no. Otherwise all circumcised guys would be completely fucked.

Additionally, America is HARDLY a country where the rate of circumcision is categorically high, Muslim and Jewish areas/countries are all over, I wonder why the question was not posed in this manner.

Because the OP was asking about the difference in perceptions between America and Europe, it was a straight comparison. Additionally, if the category is "countries that circumcise for non-religious reasons", you'll find America is quite near the top. At one point, we were the top, not sure if that is still the case.

I would just like to say that I don't think it's worthless. However at the same time I dont feel it is the golden fleece that connects sexual response to sexual pleasure/satisfaction.

It's not a black and white situation. Just because your foreskin is removed doesn't mean that you can't have an orgasm anymore. (There are some people where that is the case, but they are honestly the exception rather than the rule.) However, just because sexual function can still continue doesn't mean it isn't damaged in some way. Given what we now know, we can unequivocally say that sexual activity is, at the very least, altered. Your body has been changed, and the mechanics are different. Some people may not perceive the removal of the foreskin as damage but others do. It is precisely this difference of opinion which is the REASON why we need to leave the decision to the individual, rather than making it for them.

 

[erratic]

I think it has to do with two things: First, in America health care is driven by the profit motive, and circumcising infants has a very high profit margin (vs. Canada where circumcision rates have dropped quite steadily since we adopted not-for-profit healthcare). Second, Much of North America was populated by Puritans. It's so obvious here that it's kind of a joke, but Puritan sexual values (sex is sinful and so is everything that's to do with sex) are still very much alive, especially in the US. You can show someone getting shot in the head on TV, but accidentally expose a woman's breast and it's a national outrage south of the border.

Having said that, there are lots of Americans who think that's as ridiculous as I do, but this thread is kind of about sweeping generalisations.

 

[mandoman]

The breast shot and bullet to the head images are exactly correct, for TV in the US.
Think of Janet Jackson, and the FCC fine. Yet, you see blood spilled every hour of every day.

 

[darkbond007]

I'm saying to ask the average American about foreskins, not about their own anatomy.

Come on dude. Youve seen this infomercials. Some Americans dont even know where Australia is.

Watch the beginning of the Penn & Teller Circumcision episode. The reactions they get when wandering the streets asking random people what they know about the foreskin kinda sum it up. From "Well, I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis." to a confused guy making a scissors motion, they kinda sum up what the average American knows about foreskin. If you tried to ask the average American how the foreskin reacted during sex, how much skin the penis loses due to circumcision, or questions about caring for an intact penis, the ignorance is blatantly obvious.

I've watched that Penn and Teller episode. I watched it before my circumcision and used to source it a multitude of times when I was against circumcision. It is categorically BS. That episode does not sum up the voice of 200+ million men. Sorry.

And I'm very thankful that the answer to the first one was no. Otherwise all circumcised guys would be completely fucked.

But we're not. Far from it. In fact I would put my pleasure up against anyone else's and remember I've experienced both. No change.

Because the OP was asking about the difference in perceptions between America and Europe, it was a straight comparison. Additionally, if the category is "countries that circumcise for non-religious reasons", you'll find America is quite near the top. At one point, we were the top, not sure if that is still the case.

It is no longer the case in terms of rate. I still say it was a troll post but to each his own.

It's not a black and white situation. Just because your foreskin is removed doesn't mean that you can't have an orgasm anymore. (There are some people where that is the case, but they are honestly the exception rather than the rule.) However, just because sexual function can still continue doesn't mean it isn't damaged in some way.

You can't make that claim without proof. You have uncut guys who dont get satisfaction as well as cut guys. Its an individual mechanism if you ask me. Myself after being cut I didnt lose any sexual sensitivity.

Given what we now know, we can unequivocally say that sexual activity is, at the very least, altered. Your body has been changed, and the mechanics are different. Some people may not perceive the removal of the foreskin as damage but others do. It is precisely this difference of opinion which is the REASON why we need to leave the decision to the individual, rather than making it for them.

The ONLY thing that changes is the mechanics. Rolling skin versus no rolling skin. Does that automatically equate to better feeling. Not necessarily. I see your point and I would tend to agree but I feel that it is polarizing to basically say a cut penis is inadequate, or heck even tell yourself it is inadequate having never experienced it for yourself (I'm not saying go out and get circumcised, all Im saying is that there are many men happy with their circumcision. Heck some of us myself included wished that it was done as a child).


But to answer the OPs question there is really only ONE dominating reason why Circumcision is prevalent in America: When covered by health care/insurance, circumcision rates are high, look at the demographics on the states that cover it, Not a single one below 70%.

 

[JTalbain]

You can't make that claim without proof. You have uncut guys who dont get satisfaction as well as cut guys. Its an individual mechanism if you ask me. Myself after being cut I didnt lose any sexual sensitivity.

This is actually part of the reason why I'm against circumcision of people who can't consent to it. An individual should be permitted to make the decision for themselves, as they are the absolute best people to decide whether or not their foreskin contributes meaningfully to their sexual pleasure. There are many intact men that say they love their foreskins, it is their favorite part, and they can't imagine sex/masturbation without it. If they are wired so they're foreskin is more necessary for sexual pleasure, how would they have been affected by its removal?

BTW, did you see the last study I posted about circumcision, the one in China? It actually provided a great explanation for why some men might experience the effects of circumcision much differently, even though that wasn't the purpose of the study.

The ONLY thing that changes is the mechanics. Rolling skin versus no rolling skin. Does that automatically equate to better feeling. Not necessarily. I see your point and I would tend to agree but I feel that it is polarizing to basically say a cut penis is inadequate, or heck even tell yourself it is inadequate having never experienced it for yourself (I'm not saying go out and get circumcised, all Im saying is that there are many men happy with their circumcision. Heck some of us myself included wished that it was done as a child).

Well, let me set the record straight by saying I don't think that every circumcised penis is automatically inadequete. In fact, I have agreed that in many cases, it may be a matter of preference. If people are happy with their own circumcised penis, I encourage them to be happy with their own circumcised penis. However, most of the reasons given boil down to "I think it is more appealing that way", a valid stance, but not a reason to pursue the operation for anyone else. With that in mind, I don't think the choice should be stripped from an individual before they are old enough to make it for themselves. The effects of circumcision, given that there are people on both extremes, can be said to be uncertain at best in regards to sexual sensitivity. In return, for the risk that they could lose a great deal, what is the child being subjected to the procedure receiving? What is our justification for denying them so personal a choice? If we are left without any reasons for the child's well-being, what reasons are left besides our own vanity?

But to answer the OPs question there is really only ONE dominating reason why Circumcision is prevalent in America: When covered by health care/insurance, circumcision rates are high, look at the demographics on the states that cover it, Not a single one below 70%.

We may not see eye to eye on most to do with circumcision, but I agree with you 100% here. If people look at the details they might see circumcision is unnecessary, but if the doctor recommends it and the procedure is free to them...

I think that honestly this would be a valid fix, not perfect but reasonable. Just declare that non-medical circumcision can't be covered by insurance as a medical procedure. See how tightly people cling to their "parental rights" when they have to shell out the 300-400 dollars cost for a procedure the doctor tells them their baby doesn't need.

 

[SirConcis]

I think it has to do with book publishing. Yes, book publishing. A few medical books for doctors to convince them of the advantages of circumcision, and a few boosk such as Dor Spock's to convince mothers to have their sons circumcised. Before you know it, you have a social phenomenon where vast majoprity of a country get their sons done at birth.

Other countries where doctors and parents read american books would also adopt the trend (Canada, Australia, NZ for instance). But countries in europe who have their own books would not the influence from the american books.

Also, in europe, after WWII, circumcision was associated with jews and hittler. (the Nazis would require men to drop trouser to show if cut or uncut, and if cut, they would be sent to death camps). So it would be socially very difficult to create a social trend to adopt elective circumcision, whereas in the USA, there was no such problem.