Why the american people are so obsessed with foreskin?

justcurious2

1st Like
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Posts
15
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
88
Location
michigan
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
the foreskin is removed at birth, to prevent infection of the foreskin. :confused:

Sorry, but your wrong ! try educating yourself

A More respectful way of answering back would have including a conclusion to exactly WHY you feel I am wrong. I did not say this was thee ONLY reason a boy is cut at birth, I said it is one reason.

before you blatantly accuse someone of wrong information, it would be helpful to lead them to the right direction. As I am sure myself, and others are alway interested in new information.

Respectfully ,Justcurious2
 

piercedknob

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
7
Media
5
Likes
9
Points
88
Location
Terre Haute, Indiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I live in a small town in Indiana and am uncut, but when I was growing up I really didn't know any different than being so. That was until I reached about Junior High/High School age and it came up between some of my friends. I was somewhat in a way surprised that my dick was different than basically most if not all the guys I knew. Apparently, in this area it is very common practice. I asked my dad why I was uncut and he said that mom and him opted for me not to be cut because they saw it us a not needed process that just makes the doctors that much more money. I personally am glad that I am uncut, plus for some reason people seem to be fascinated by it aside from the piercing I have... lol And it has never caused me any problems, all I need to do is make sure I keep things clean, as most people should be doing anyway. I just think that it is something that "we" over here have grown accustomed to doing and haven't decided to stop yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenum_uk

herkimer snow

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
141
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Gender
Male
"We" over here keep circumcising for a couple reasons. One, doctors may not promote it to parents, but they don't emphasize that the practice is unnecessary. They have some easy money to make each time a little guy gets snipped. Two, mothers think they can't care for a baby boy with a foreskin because they have been brainwashed to think that way. Somehow they believe that bunch of propaganda in the face of thousands of years of baby boys who weren't cut and got along fine with foreskins for their whole lives.
It's not about UTIs. Its not about cancer. Its all about sex. I've had a foreskin for more than sixty years, and when my partner nibbles on it, I'm ready to levitate. My sensitivity is mostly in my foreskin, not my glans. Someday Americans will learn to give their baby boys a wonderful gift--the retention of their foreskins.
 

justcurious2

1st Like
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Posts
15
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
88
Location
michigan
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
"We" over here keep circumcising for a couple reasons. One, doctors may not promote it to parents, but they don't emphasize that the practice is unnecessary. They have some easy money to make each time a little guy gets snipped. Two, mothers think they can't care for a baby boy with a foreskin because they have been brainwashed to think that way. Somehow they believe that bunch of propaganda in the face of thousands of years of baby boys who weren't cut and got along fine with foreskins for their whole lives.
It's not about UTIs. Its not about cancer. Its all about sex. I've had a foreskin for more than sixty years, and when my partner nibbles on it, I'm ready to levitate. My sensitivity is mostly in my foreskin, not my glans. Someday Americans will learn to give their baby boys a wonderful gift--the retention of their foreskins.


How eloquently spoken. I don't think I could have said it any better. Thank You HERKIMER. Some Americans HAVE lost sight of the situation. It's NOT really a big deal. It's more of a personal preference. I myself, Prefer a cut man. It is just more appealing to me. Thank you again for your insight HERKIMER.

justcurious2
 

D_mbnbjgityu

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
11
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Sexuality
No Response
There really is nothing to prove in what is a subjective area. There never has been a need to remove the foreskin; go back as many years as you want to do in times when hygene was at its worst; foreskins remained and that's why they still do.

We come into this life complete. We can choose to have a vasectomy, we can choose to have penis piercings and we can choose to shave, trim or simply leave it as it is.

Removing the foreskin, however, is often not a matter of choice for some That choice is taken away and off it goes.

Given that we come into this worlds as we should then there really should be no need to either like or dislike; acceptance is easy when one is open to doing simply that ... accepting

And as a by-the-by; there are many things you can experience with a foreskin that you cannot without; I'd leave anyone reading this to think about that.:smile:
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Kind of a long post, bear with me. I've actually been very interested in this topic for years.

I don't know if it's actually been said yet, but the original reason that circumcision was introduced to the United States was not hygiene. Due to Victorian Era values and spotty medical science, masturbation was believed to be the root of many ailments. Most of the old wives' tales about the consequences of masturbation (such as hairy palms, blindness and acne) are remnants of an era when such things were accepted as medical fact. Thus, doctors perceived it as helpful to the general health of the populace to try to take measures to restrict masturbation, and the easiest way they thought to do so was through reducing the amount of pleasure received from the process by limiting skin mobility. (for those that have taken a psychology course, this is an example of positive punishment) It is also noteworthy that religious reasons motivated much of Victorian Era science, as evidenced by the two main spokesmen who convinced the American Medical Association to standardize and push the procedure were a priest and a rabbi (I wish I were kidding). Some products came about from the belief that masturbation was harmful as well. Graham crackers, so named because they were invented by a man named Graham, were created because science believed a mild diet would reduce sex drive, and hence the desire to masturbate.

Now that the origin's been discussed, the better question is: Why has the practice of circumcision persisted in the US as long as it has? The answer to that is, unfortunately, a business one. While not a hefty amount, circumcision procedures do cost money, and hence are a source of income to hospitals and doctors. While any good business is open to the possibility of new procedures or activities that can increase income, they will tend to resist change that will decrease it, and they may try to find reasons to keep the existing procedures in place. After all, a circumcision is fast, easy, and contributes money to the hospital. While the doctor may prefer to be taking a nap, the hospital schedules the procedures unless he has a private practice. They want to keep any revenue that is available to them.

This of course meant that when it was proven that masturbation was not linked to any of the diseases it was believed to cause, doctors needed a new reason to justify the procedure. Many speculated that because UTIs could be caused by foreskin complications, such as phimosis, it was better to remove it at birth in order to prevent such occurrences. This was not based off medical research, it was merely assumed that any uncircumcised child with a UTI received it because of his foreskin. This gave them a continued reason to perform their procedure.

Of course, the biggest cause of contracting a UTI is lack of hygiene. Doctors often speculated that, because the infant's foreskin had to be forcibly retracted in order to clean the glans of the penis, it made proper bathing more difficult, and cause the UTIs. This point of view was mainly caused by the lack of pediatric medical science, so in many ways children were thought of as small adults physically. The child's foreskin is actually attached to the glans because it protects the penis from exposure to filth (read: diaper crap) which may cause an infection, in some ways serving as the equivalent of a hymen for males. It naturally separates later in life to allow for sexual skin mobility and to prepare the child for sexually maturity. Forcing the skin back prematurely is painful, but can happen, much like breaking a hymen. However, the mucocutaneous tissue of the inside of the foreskin is self regulating, and actually keeps the penis fairly clean on its own. Ironically, by removing the protective functions of the foreskin and simulataneously creating incisions in the penis, doctors were often causing the very UTIs they sought to prevent.

Now the American Medical Association has reversed it's stance on RIC (sometime around 2004 or 2005 I believe) and encourage parents to not circumcise their infants, stating that it is an ineffective procedure in the prevention of UTIs and other complications. They avoid the obvious arguments of the morality or ethical arguments, but it is what it is. Although they have changed their position, many parents will still continue to circumcise their infants because of tradition. If it's good enough for Daddy, it's good enough for Junior. Changing of tradition requires recognition that one way is better than the status quo, and in this situation, it requires the fathers to admit to themselves that a very personal part of their anatomy was needlessly removed from them without their consent. Many men are unwilling to do this, either because our culture discourages men from decrying themselves as victims or because, having never had a foreskin they can remember, they are not aware of the difference. Eventually attitudes will change, but they just need to be "grandfathered" in so to speak. All in good time.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Now the American Medical Association has reversed it's stance on RIC (sometime around 2004 or 2005 I believe) and encourage parents to not circumcise their infants, stating that it is an ineffective procedure in the prevention of UTIs and other complications.

Did you forget the rest of the policy:

In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.

AMA Policy Finder - American Medical Association
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
199
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Now that the origin's been discussed, the better question is: Why has the practice of circumcision persisted in the US as long as it has? The answer to that is, unfortunately, a business one. While not a hefty amount, circumcision procedures do cost money, and hence are a source of income to hospitals and doctors.
A lot of devices involved too, creating sales for a lot of suppliers of circumcision equipment. All in all it's a fairly robust industry, considering that there are millions of births annually, half are male, and circ is tied with episiotomy, (another genital cutting procedure) as the most commonly performed surgery. Consider those numbers. It's a market.

Now the American Medical Association has reversed it's stance on RIC (sometime around 2004 or 2005 I believe) and encourage parents to not circumcise their infants, stating that it is an ineffective procedure in the prevention of UTIs and other complications.
They've withdrawn support very very delicately, so as not to expose their members to lawsuits is my thinking. They merely state that circ has "risks and benefits," but "benefits don't justify the risks."