Why are so many american cocks cut?

[hung]

I was left natural at my birth because I was delivered by a mid-wife (a female) and my parents did not have the extra cash to have a cutting party on my penis.

Today we see where more and more medical professionals are not cutting new born boys.

Of course, it is a minor procedure for the adults involved and it is certainly a profit maker for the organizations who perform these operations.

 

[SteveHd]

is it to do with high number of jews ...?

Not the "high number" of Jews but it would be fair to pin some blame on certain Jewish advocates of infant circumcision, for instance Abraham Wolbarst [many years ago] and Edgar Schoen [not yet dead].

Title question: Why are so many American cocks cut?

Mostly due to widespread infant circumcision; which itself is a result of deliberate misinformation and parental ignorance.

 

[D_Furr_Muncher]

Its a hospital thing. end of story. Doctors make lots of decisions without asking parents.

Personally, I think being cut is better.

 

[Garth33]

"To look like their fathers...."
"So my child won't be teased..."
"So he won't look 'different'..."

The US just had a phase where cut was "cleaner!" I grew up in rural America and those arguements were used with my parents. I was raised Catholic and we didn't have a Jewish guy within 500 miles of out town but every guy I grew up with was cut for most or all of those same reasons listed above.

I didn't see an uncircumcised cock until I was a Jr. in HS when a guy from the east coast moved to our town - it was like the circus rolled in!
I remember asking him about it and he said he thought HE landed in the middle of a freakshow!:smile: Despite our differences...we all managed to shower together in the lockerroom with no problems so I guess there IS hope for the world.

 

[D_Merringtonne Meathead]

I'm not American but have slept with American women for whom my uncut cock was a rarity, unique in one case. When the question came up, the women just thought it normal for their previous lovers to be cut on grounds of hygiene, but it didn't affect the sex as anyway I was covered on most occasions.

 

[4skinned]

Sorry to debunk those claiming circumcision does not reduce sensitivity and sensation, but the scientifically credible evidence shows that cut men are only 1/4 as sensitive as normal men:

Study Confirms Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation
Study Confirms Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation
A new study in the British Journal of Urology International shows that men with normal, intact penises enjoy more sexual sensitivity — as much as four times more — than those who have been circumcised. Circumcising slices off more of a male's sensitivity than is normally present in all ten fingertips.
(PRWEB) March 22, 2007 -- In every site tested, intact men have as much or more fine-touch skin sensitivity on their penis and foreskin than a man who has been circumcised. Circumcision removes the most sensitive portions of the penis.
This new study demonstrates what we have suspected for decades, that circumcision’s result — if not its intent — is reduced sexual pleasure for men. As such, it is a violation of a male’s right to bodily integrity. In large part, female circumcision does the same; even the mildest forms remove the most sensitive portions of the female genitalia. Females in the USA and many other countries are protected by law from all forms of genital cutting.
The mistaken belief behind circumcision is that it is cleaner, healthier, protects against disease, and will make males more tractable in a society.
Because circumcision has such a drastic effect on sexuality later in life, no infant or child should ever experience a non-therapeutic circumcision.
Parents should not be allowed to control their son’s level of sexual sensitivity because of personal bias or prejudice, just as no parent should be allowed to request for their son or daughter any other sensitivity-reducing surgery; for example, eye surgery that would limit vision from color to black-and-white.
In addition, circumcised men, with one-fourth the sensitivity of intact men, might decline to wear further-desensitizing condoms. Some may consider themselves “safe” because of circumcision, adding to their determination to have sex without a condom.
Adult men who want circumcision for themselves should be advised per proper informed consent that penile sensitivity will be reduced on average by a factor of four. Men should also be advised that circumcision will not prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.


the study:

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

All of the denial and attempts at trying to justify circumcision are not credible.

 

[B_Morning_Glory]

4 SKINNED i just showed this to my hubby and he said what a load of crap he had is foreskin for 33 yrs, before he got cut he had no medical problems with it what so ever. so from a mans point of view[ my hubby's ] i also ask 3 of my close male friends as well about this and i will QUOTE HERE what they told me about your info. that it is not true at all they like my hubby are just as sensitive if not more now than before after getting cut. they said that they feel much more now during sex than before an also that some of there sexual partners liked there cut cock way better as well. after having sex with them before hand with foreskin. and my hubby said the same thing about this as well. that they dont feel so much like in there words here, they are fucking there self during sex they can feel the women much more while going in and out during sex.and also there advise as to getting some kind of std, or HIV was if you dont take care of your self and use protection when your having sex then thats the price you will pay for fun if you dont know the person well enough not to use protection and skin or not your gonna catch an std not using good since. this is what they say not me. now as for me i can say it is better for a guy to be cut and i do enjoy it more i like the feel more of there cock in side and it is not the same as a cut cock when it hard as as been said many times there IS a difference to me on that one. no one has to agree with me but there is a difference to me. and it is also more pleasurable to me. i have had uncut cocks and they were ok other than an odor but i got past that, but a cut cock is much better to me. some women like uncut and thats fine with me thats there preference. an as for your opinion on a parent not being able to have a say so in circumcising there Son or not. if that be the case as you say here. i suppose you would just let your child die instead of having them have surgery for other things as well. there is no diffrent in one surgery and the parental control over the child than there is for another type surgery, you can say or put it any way you want and it means the same. also there is just as much research on both sides of the subject to prove both arguments about this subject be it for or against it. so i wouldn't believe everything you read about it. if you like em uncut fine i and whole lot of other people men and women like em cut, end of story. and yes i know there was more than just 3 guys in your survey im sure but every one i know who has been cut say its much better, a few say its the same. and i have some friends that want to be cut, and some who dont care if they are or not and provably never will, so its up to the guy who knows how it feels.

 

[deleted15807]

Sorry to debunk those claiming circumcision does not reduce sensitivity and sensation, but the scientifically credible evidence shows that cut men are only 1/4 as sensitive as normal men:

yada
yada
yada

• First one study proves nothing. Unless it can be repeated in another study it's meaningless.
• Second no one in medicine referes to circumcision as 'genital multilation'.
• Third you use a source that is not objective in any sense of the word.

Source of funding: National
Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers. The director of National
Organization of Circumcision Information
Resources Centers (MFM) was involved in the
design and conduct of the study; collection
and interpretation of the data; and review, or​

approval of the manuscript.
​

• Fourth funding for the study was done by an organization who has a goal of elimination circumcision.
• Fifth why not just ask men who have been circumcised if they feel a difference. The truth is most don't notice any difference. So of course the anti-circ brigade has to try another tactic.

Just more complete

:bsflag:


Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men

 

[Snozzle]

The answer to the original question is covered in detail in two good books, Marked in your Flesh by Leonard Glick and A Surgical Temptation by Robert Darby. The first goes into the Jewish side in great detail, the second into the medical side, especially in the UK where it began.

Basically, it became commonplace in the late 19th century to circumcise boys, not babies, to punish/prevent masturbation, which was seriously believed to cause all kinds of illness. It didn't prevent it, of course, but it may have delayed its onset (if they hadn't yet started) and as punishment, it must have dealt a salutory lesson - "If that's what happened the first time they caught me, what comes next?"

It was much easier to circumcise babies (they couldn't resist or complain), and after about a generation, the circumcised boys were now circumcised fathers, so they could roll up the "to look like his father" excuse.

The nonsense about masturbation was dying about the time of the first world war, when they began to claim circumcision prevented STDs. When antibiotics took care of those, they rolled out "to prevent cancer" - and cancer was very scary a few decades ago with little to prevent or cure it. When better understanding made that less of a worry, Wiswell (great name) cooked up some statistics to claim circumcision prevented urinary tract infections, and that was the big reason for a few years. So along comes HIV/AIDS and guess what? Circumcision is a "cure" looking for a disease.


g32js:

i suppose you would just let your child die instead of having them have surgery for other things as well. there is no diffrent in one surgery and the parental control over the child than there is for another type surgery, you can say or put it any way you want and it means the same.

No baby has ever died from not being circumcised. A significant but unknown number of babies die every year from being circumcised.

You know four guys who chose to be circumcised? That's extraordinary! In any case, they all chose it, so it's hardly surprising they say its better afterwards. No baby chooses it.

 

[Snozzle]

First one study proves nothing. Unless it can be repeated in another study it's meaningless.

There's nothing to stop this one from being repeated. It's not these scientists' fault that this one hasn't been repeated yet. Here's one that backs it up.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2004 Jan;10(1):18-9. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1]Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision[/SIZE] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1][Article in Chinese] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]Shen Z, Chen S, Zhu C, Wan Q, Chen Z.
Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, China. shenzhj@mail.hz.zj.cn [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the erectile function of adults after circumcision.
METHODS: Ninty-five patients were investigated on erectile function by questionnaire before and after circumcision, respectively.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients suffered from mild erectile dysfunction before circumcision, and 28 suffered from mild or moderate erectile dysfunction after circumcision(P = 0.001). Adult circumcision appeared to have resulted in weakened erectile confidence in 33 cases (P = 0.04), difficult insertion in 41 cases (P =0.03), prolonged intercourse in 31 cases (P = 0.04) and improved satisfaction in 34 cases (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]PMID: 14979200 [PubMed - in process] [/SIZE][/FONT]

Second no one in medicine referes to circumcision as 'genital multilation'.

Those words are in the press release, not the study.

Third you use a source that is not objective in any sense of the word.

The men being tested couldn't see what parts of their penis were being touched, and of course where they were insensitive, they couldn't detect the touch. I'ts a damned sight more objective than all the "tests" that didn't measure the foreskin at all.

Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men

And that one is objective? ROTFL. It's a study of 4,500 men who volunteered to be circumcised, sooner or later, in the belief that it would prevent HIV. They were paid for their trouble and they knew what the experimenters wanted to find. The test was so crude that virtually all the men reported near-perfect sex, circumcised or not (they asked the questions on a five-point scale but boiled the results down to a three-point scale. It would be interesting to see the raw results). So it simply couldn't find any other answer.

 

[B_Morning_Glory]

SNOZZLE SAYS TO ME You know four guys who chose to be circumcised? That's extraordinary! In any case, they all chose it, so it's hardly surprising they say its better afterwards. No baby chooses it.[/quote]


NO i know many guys that i could pull into this but i only used 4 just to make a point, if you have the time i could send you all there names and you could ask them your self but im sure you would get the same answer i gave you here about this its up to you. i just stated my opinion is all you dont have to take it as gospel so to speak. but its what i know to be true not some survey i or anyone else has read. and it is up to the parent no matter if you want to believe it or not to chose what they thinks best for there child NOT YOU or anyone else has the right to tell them what to do. when you start talking parental rights thats a whole diffrent ball game there about this subject.

 

[deleted15807]

yada
yada
yada

Go to a therapist NOW!!!!


all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot get your foreskin back again

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

and it is up to the parent no matter if you want to believe it or not to chose what they thinks best for there child NOT YOU or anyone else has the right to tell them what to do. when you start talking parental rights thats a whole diffrent ball game there about this subject.

Is it the prerogative of a parent to circumcise his or her daughter as well?

 

[D_CountdeGrandePinja]

A lot of it is also an ethnic consideration: my dad was born in Italy - therefore the old world customs were carried over. Glad he was intact!

 

[Snozzle]

I propose a new rule, I'll call it Seinfeld's Law:
When someone reduces the whole of a person's argument to "yadda yadda yadda", they have lost the argument.

Go to a therapist NOW!!!!

Interesting that Sargon thinks circumcision causes psychological damage. Sounds logical, and I'd be inclined to agree except that I know a lot of cut guys who are pretty sound.

all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot get your foreskin back again

I also know a lot of restoring guys who are even sounder. I recommend not trying horses.

(And what has any of that to do with me? That's just argument ad hominem [attacking the person].)

 

[Snozzle]

it is up to the parent no matter if you want to believe it or not to chose what they thinks best for there child NOT YOU or anyone else has the right to tell them what to do. when you start talking parental rights thats a whole diffrent ball game there about this subject.

9inchnail4u2c's question is a good one, though it will cause a fluttering in the henhouses, as people drag in the horrors of African Female Genital Cutting. So let's specify that it has to be surgical and sterile, with anaesthetic and take only the clitoral hood - as was common in the US until the 1970s. Now is it a matter of parental rights?

Parent's rights over their children are not unlimited. There are restrictions on how much they can hit them. There are certainly many restrictions about what parts of their bodies it is legal to cut off. In fact, the male baby's foreskin the only healthy non-renewable part of the human body that can be cut off at someone else's whim. It's a very strange anomaly.

Now, let's talk about the child's rights, especially given that he is going (Inshallah, DV&WP [God willing and weather permitting, etc.) to grow up to be a man with his own ideas about how much of his penis he'd like to keep. By what logic are they trumped by the (often uninformed) wishes of the parents?

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Thread search.

QFT!

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Go to a therapist NOW!!!!


all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot get your foreskin back again

Why not? There are plenty of threads on here about restoration...

 

[deleted15807]

I propose a new rule, I'll call it Seinfeld's Law:
When someone reduces the whole of a person's argument to "yadda yadda yadda", they have lost the argument.
yada
yada
yada

There is no arguing with you. You are hostile to science. At least the science that doesn't support your argument so there can be no arguing. Call it the Assault on Reason. :biggrin1: Anyone who's spent 5 seconds 'arguing' with you know it's a waste of bandwidth.

Why not? There are plenty of threads on here about restoration...

Because the practitioners of the process say it's never as good as the real thing. Why else do they fight the battle so tirelessly? Soldiering on through fire and hail if it was easily reversed?

 

[B_Morning_Glory]

my cousin is a nurse and had her baby two days ago and had it cut. if the parents want to have it done leave them alone. it is none of our business. i didn't have my boys done at birth. but they needed done later on. i had gotten three opinions from doctors. why does it matter to you they are not hurting you. with the all the new ways of doing this it does not hurt the baby. my cousin said he didn't cry during or afterwords and he is doing just fine. im not going to fight with you on this everyone is entitled to their own opinions. freedom of speech.