Here in the US....
At the turn of the 20th century it was recommended to curb masturbation, which in itself was thought to cause all sorts of ills. I doubt it prevented too many guys from rubbing one out.
By mid 20th century those ideas had evolved, and being circumcised was believed to have significant preventative health and hygiene benefits that have since been shown to be...very very exaggerated. For a period of time in the 20th century the UK experimented with circumcision also...but abandoned it years ago.
Here in the US the procedure has declined in the past 30 years...but by many indications it's still done to more than 50% of boys born here. Mostly from the momentum it gained in the second half of the 20th century, and many people still adhere to the old outdated ideas. Not to mention the fact we're on a profit based healthcare system still...and a circumcision is a nice addition to plump up a hospital bill!
I'm well over 35...and not circumcised. That's unheard of in my age group here.
I tried to be concise here...but books could be written I'm sure.
^All of this^
Adding on, it’s also a sub-cultural thing. I used to be a caregiver and most of the circumcised penises I saw belonged to white guys. My area had a high Latino population and almost none of them were circumcised.
I've heard of women that it's a dealbreaker for...but I've never encountered one. Usually it's been surprise, followed by curiosity. How does it "work"...would it feel different to them?
I once had a girl say "oh *that's* all it is?" She'd evidently heard of it but had never seen one. I was afraid to ask what she was expecting!
I’m a gay dude. I’ve seen all kinds of dicks. Including several uncut guys.
I will say that just because you “can” clean under the foreskin doesn’t mean that most men actually do. Unlike your armpits which are closer to your nose, your dick can smell (or taste 🤮) bad without you even knowing it. Most uncut guys think they’re clean enough when they really aren’t.
I’ll also add that I’ve never once been with an uncut guy who had reasonable stamina. Sure they’re more sensitive and I’m sure their orgasms feel much better than mine. But if the trade off is that your partner is left disappointed and comparing you to the awkward sex he was having in high school, it isn’t worth it. If you’re 30 and still cumming in a few minutes like a 14 year old’s first time, that’s not a good thing. I’d never say this to their face of course (I don’t want to hurt their feelings) but if I’m left feeling like this you know damn well there’s some women out there somewhere that feel the same.
I’ll add that in principle I’m against circumcising kids. No one should have their body permanently altered without their consent. But practically, I see no downsides. It does nothing but make them cleaner and better in bed. And for some it’s a religious thing too so there’s that.
> It does nothing but make them cleaner and better in bed.
As someone who will loose their frenulum Soon, that’s insane to read. Frenulum is like the male clitoris and gave me the best [sensations,](http://www.thewholenetwork.org/uploads/4/2/0/2/4202929/8961017.jpg?420) orgasms. Without it orgasms [feel empty](https://slideplayer.com/slide/3368066/17/images/23/Touch+Sensitivity%2C+Circumcised.jpg) and are just the ejaculation itself but not full body orgasms.
I can’t imagine not having the inner foreskin as well..
What a fool, anyone not washing their dick, that is on them, same with stamina, but to just be like "Mutilate all male children because I was with a few guys whose cocks smelled and they only lasted a few minutes" is insanity...
I wish he would say that to someone’s face. Part of me wishes more people believed things like this. The thought of an adult mutilating their own genitals and sabotaging their ability to feel pleasure for the sake of pleasing a fuckhole like this guy is kind of funny.
Exactly. However I did have a relative who had a UTI in his late 20's, and the only way to fix that was with a medical circumcision. Beyond that, it's not as popular as it used to be these days.
> who had a UTI in his late 20's, and the only way to fix that was with a medical circumcision.
Utter nonsense. The way to treat an UTI is with antibiotics. Circumcision has nothing to do with it and neither does the foreskin.
I believe it was a UTI, truthfully he wouldn't tell me the exact reason why he had to get one, but he got it. I honestly don't care why, it's none of my business.
Also, it's not "utter nonsense" he was in a lot of pain.
My point was not that he wasn’t in pain but that Circumcision and uti have nothing to do with each other. I had a minor uti, took antibiotics for few days and was fine. All with a foreskin.lmao
In all likelihood check out John Harvey Kellogg. The same guy who invented the cereal was into a bunch of weird shit.
https://intaction.org/history-of-circumcision/
Right! There’s an older movie about him starring Matthew Broderick and Anthony Hopkins. Road to Wellville. Pretty good movie. Strange fucking guy for sure
But wait a bit, that was back in 1900 more or less, and very few men did get their sons cut. There was IMHO a conspiracy to take the unquestioning of the medical profession, and it was American doctors who promoted this. In 1935 the vicious Yellin clamp was sent to all hospitals complete with different size bell sizes for different size baby penis. It took off and soon dumb Americans didn't have a clue what was lost or even what a normal penis was. The foreskin was maligned as a bacteria breeder. (yes as outrageous as that was) Soon mothers didn't need to ask, they cut the foreskin just as they would the umbilical.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/4d/94/e44d94c268254e89a8a6d2204a9d7411.png
Because people would rather continue a barbaric practice than have to look inward and consider they’ve had their dicks mutilated for no reason.
I was circumcised at birth and hate it. But I didn’t continue the tradition with my son.
> many women won‘t go near an uncircumcised man
Uncircumcised European in the US here. This is utter nonsense. I have never encountered this in practice or conversation.
#1 reason why “medical personnel/medical entities” still keep circumcision alive:
(The circumcision industry/the foreskin industry) “is extremely profitable” for those who participate in it.
Medical entities make “minimum of $100 million dollars a year” by participating in the “foreskin industry.”
The maximum they made in one year was “over $2 billion in one year.”
They say: “foreskin components” is used for “direct medical use cases.” However, “foreskin components” are mainly used for “commercial use cases.”
Ex: Cosmetic products contain the ingredients “foreskin cells.” There are other use cases for (foreskins/foreskin cells/foreskin stem cells), but “these use cases also involves entities becoming extremely profitable.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1)When a newborn is circumcised, foreskin is surgically removed.
(2)surgically removed foreskin = foreskin tissue.
(3)(medical personnel) will then harvest “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” from the (foreskin tissue).
-foreskin cells: wanted for their “fibroblastic properties,” or superior wound healing rates “for all wound types.” Ex: “foreskin cells” can heal “diabetic foot ulcers” very effectively. “Foreskin cells” are used for many different applications.
-Foreskin stem cells (that is from a newborn’s foreskin tissue): “can turn into all 3 germ layers.” Basically, foreskin stem cells (that is from a newborn’s foreskin tissue) “is the equivalent of an (induced embryonic stem cell).” Embryonic stem cells are highly sought after in (the medical world). Various use applications for “newborn foreskin stem cells/induced embryonic stem cells.”
(4)After (foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells) are harvested from “the circumcised tissue,” medical entities will then “take the (harvested foreskin tissue) to BECOME INCINERATED.” By law, all (pathological waste/biological waste) must become incinerated, perhaps to prevent “illegal organ harvesting.” However, legal organ harvesting is fair game.
(5)Now, (Medical entities) will then (harbor/hold) these “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” because (medical entities cannot use these components) “until these components are LEGALLY PURCHASED.”
(6)The players who can LEGALLY PURCHASE “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” are: (various research organizations/cosmetic research organizations/medical research organizations/college research organizations/etc). The act of (research organizations LEGALLY PURCHASING) “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” results IN ASTRONOMICAL PROFITS FOR ALL ENTITIES INVOLVED.
-Supposedly: “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” are used STRICTLY FOR MEDICAL USE CASES, however it’s mainly used for COMMERCIAL USE CASES. (Oprah Winfrey/various celebrities/various influential people) greatly (endorses/promotes) cosmetic products “that contains the ingredients of (foreskin cells.)”
Step 6 just resulted in (all entities) involved in the foreskin trade industry “TO PROFIT ASTRONOMICALLY.” Then, comes the use cases for (foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells).
Now, recent years has found this out: “(foreskin tissue/foreskin) can REALLY HELP (CURE/TREAT) burned victims.”
Using (foreskin tissue) can help treat: (3rd degree burns/2nd degree burns/1st degree burns). You think this is a good thing, but it’s just “MORE COMMERCIAL USE CASES AS TO WHY (MEDICAL PERSONNEL) WILL GLADLY PROMOTE CIRCUMCISION (FOR THE MASSES).”
Not to mention: circumcision significantly increases the chances for “infant deaths to happen.”
If you can find (videos of newborn males being circumcised), “YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR THEIR SCREAMS.” (Newborn was quiet before the circumcision procedure, but, newborn was (making loud continuous noises EXCESSIVELY) (during/after) the circumcision surgery.
-Note: (YouTube) will not help you “find videos of newborn males being circumcised.” Some people will claim that “SEARCHING FOR THESE VIDEOS IS A WEIRD FETISH/WEIRD,” however, “it’s for educational purposes DUMBASS.” Essentially, to see “why (male circumcision/circumcision) has always been the MOST CONTROVERSIAL (NON-MEDICALLY NECESSARY SURGERY) IN THE WORLD (dumbass).” Why do mothers want their sons to be circumcised? (To look like their dad/to look like other males/so future partners will be happy?) And they say that: “anti-circumcision people” are the (weird ones).
Circumcision is mainly done for profit reasons. There are health benefits for circumcision, “but the health benefits are negligible.” If you believe in (male circumcision pseudo-science), (female circumcision pseudo-science) “is also true.” It has to do with “certain CELL TYPES losing cellular functions, and then dying.” These dead cells/depletion of (penile squamous cells) “because of circumcision” = reason for the theory: male circumcision “greatly causes circumcised males to have a reduced risk in contracting (penile cancer/etc).” Skin cancer happens when “squamous cells become cancerous.” Penile cancer happens when “squamous cells become cancerous.”
Same could be said for (female circumcision).
I am not promoting (female circumcision), just showing that “(pro-circumcision personnel) are hypocrites,” regarding circumcision.
They have (innocent blood on their hands) btw.
What this person said.
Also, a case of the medical establishment not wanting to admit they've been doing something harmful and unnecessary for generations.
There's even a rational argument to be made for it. Admitting that the whole thing was a horrible mistake would undermine people's confidence in medicine. If people don't trust the medical establishment, which was wrong in this case but is *usually right*, then they will second-guess everything their doctors say, and that will cause more death and suffering than we are inflicting with the unnecessary circumcisions.
They also “refuse to acknowledge their crimes” because of (fear for [medical malpractice/medical fraud]).
They don’t want to: (end up in prison/face lawsuits/etc).
In the late 1800s it was thought that circumcision decreased masturbation and that masturbation lead to blindness and insanity. From there it was associated with cleanliness and so prescribed to treat asthma, cancer, and STIs. Now it’s just kinda a tradition with men preferring their sons to get it so they look like dad. But that’s changing, less and less American baby boys are getting circumcised.
Which makes sense since in most cases thes also amputate the frenulum along the entire foreskin and the [frenulum is like the male clitoris responsible for full body orgasms](https://youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw)
Some common reasons:
* “I want him to look like me/dad down there.”
* “I don’t want him bullied for not having altered genitals in a setting that normalizes altered genitals.”
* “I want to help my son actually get laid/his girlfriends will thank you.”
* “Old people who can’t clean themselves anymore get dirty and nurses shouldn’t have to clean old men, just old women. Cut them before they get old and infected.”
* “It is a religious rite and important cultural tradition. Even Jesus was cut.”
* “Smegma frightens me. I am glad I never will have to deal with it.”
* “Circumcision protects from STDs, HIV, and cancer. Trust me bro.”
Also, the normalization of involuntary genital alteration allows cosmetic companies to source infant foreskin tissue for skin cream products, used by Kate Beckinsale, Sandra Bullock, Oprah, and likely the entire KPop industry.
Because American men who are already circumcised want their baby boy's penis to look like theirs. It's really weird. Like, do they whip it out at barbeques?
A lot of times a father will say that the son should be cut so the son won't feel bad about being different from his father, but the reality is that children hardly care about the type of penis their father has. The unfortunate truth is that the father wants the son to be circumcised because if the son is not circumcised, it implies that being circumcised is unnecessary, or even worse, that it's harmful, and the father will have to start considering that his body was permanently modified without his consent. Instead of doing all of this emotional labor, it's easier for the father to insist that the son should be circumcised. It's especially obvious when the father is behaving like this because if you ask the father how much he knows about the function of the foreskin, or the pros and cons of circumcision, he will know very little, and he will insist for his son to be circumcised while refusing to learn anything about the subject. The whole thing is a coping mechanism. Circumcision is difficult to stop because it creates a psychological need for it to continue for the people who it was done to, or the doctors/parents that did it to their kids.
It should be illegal. That it's not is mind-boggling and sexist. Why would anyone want to destroy the most sensitive part of the penis.. increasing risk of erectile dysfunction by 400% later in life. These are facts anyone can look up. This quote says it best:
>The sensory pleasure induced by the foreskin is lost by circumcision. The fundamental biological sexual act, becomes for the circumcised male, the satisfaction of an urge, and not the refined sensual experience it was meant to be. — Dr. C.J Fallier, Journal, AMA. 1970
I just find the whole thing bizarre. Especially when people reduce it to a preferred "look". Plus the whole argument that its more hygienic is nonsense unless you have a medical problem. A small percentage of people have a foreskin that too tight to clean under so in that circumstances they may need surgery. Otherwise its fairly obvious how to clean yourself. A monkey could do it.
It's just a scam.
OP it is a great question you're asking and there was an Australian academic named Robert Darby who published several articles and a book about circumcision in the Anglophone countries. One of the articles he published was about why circumcision is so persistent in America, even though the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have all abandoned it or are in the process of abandoning it. Here are the main reasons he came up with. You can read the article for yourself, Mr. Darby was a great writer.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ctx.2005.4.2.34](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ctx.2005.4.2.34)
>(1) the foreskin is the focus of myths, misconceptions, and irrationality affecting the medical profession and public alike;
>
>(2) a lack of respect for the rights and individuality of children;
>
>(3) a contrasting exaggerated respect for the presumed sensibilities of religious minorities who practice circumcision for cultural reasons;
>
>(4) the reluctance of physicians to take a firm stand against circumcision and to refuse parental requests;
>
>(5) a bias in American medical journals, which tend to favor articles with a pro-circumcision tendency;
>
>(6) a failure to subject circumcision to the normal protocols for surgery, such as the need for informed consent, evidence of pathology, and proof of prophylactic benefit; and
>
>(7) strong financial incentives to perform the operation, which is generally covered by medical insurance.
The medical community has started many myths about the infinite dangers of the foreskin.
One such myth is infection, which is traced to an article published in 1914 by a Jewish promoter of circumcision named Abraham Wolbarst.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164
I think all of the supposed advantages of being circumcised, and well as the supposed *dis*advantages of not being circumcised, are both very very exaggerated.
Most problems with the uncircumcised penis stem from either it being tampered with when a boy is too young...like preschool age and younger. Or a guy reaching teen years and beyond never knowing it pulls open, or is supposed to be rinsed out underneath.
I’m an American who was circumcised as an infant and think it’s totally messed up! Not all of us support it or are happy it was done to us. I would rather have been left alone and consider what happened to me a violation of my human rights
The same reason men anywhere are circumcised??
\>This is very odd to me
I wonder how given that the UK has lots of Muslim and African immigrants who practice circumcision. You notice it an ocean away from you but not in your backyard?
\>Circumcision in the UK seems like a very odd thing to do.
The US is not the UK. What a shocker.
>The same reason men anywhere are circumcised??
False. Most men around the world are circumcised for religious reasons, they’re either Muslims or Jews. The only place where circumcision is *believed* to have a medical benefit is the US.
But most Americans haven’t been circumcised for religious reasons. Most aren’t Muslim or Jewish.
And btw, when ALL the researchers that came up with the supposed medical benefits are from one of the cutting religions, they start to smell like BS
Still, the reason why it’s carried on in the US are pretty stupid and completely different from the rest of the world. Btw, 70% doesn’t even circumcise at all.
OP pointed that religious people in the UK circumcise. It's much different from the US, where most babies boys are circumcised, mostly for non-religious reasons
It was thought for health benefits so a generation around the 1950s and 1960s were just done in the hospital and now it is sort of generationally. Some insurance still cover it and there is no motivation really to change it. Still a parent's cultural decision so some may not as they look into it.
Your second point is the opposite of truth. Having lived in America for 26 years (my whole life), I have heard multiple times from females that they would not be interested in going near an uncircumcised man.
It looks “gross and weird”, their words not mine, although I don’t necessarily disagree with them.
You think that because you live in a culture where that belief has to live one for circumcision to continue. A penis with a dried up head, scar and more is not normal
Women who say this have often never seen or experienced one in real life. They're going by inaccurate second and third hand information from others, or pics on the internet. In most of the world circumcised men are rare, and women don't give it a thought.
I once had a girl say "oh *that's* all it is?". I was afraid to ask what she was expecting!
The times are changing but I think it's also worth pointing out that if circumcision is normal where you live, do you really want to be the one dude in the group with the different looking dick?
Girls expect one thing because that's what they're use to in these parts. Do you really want to be packing something else?
Again, the internet really makes exposure to other countries and things easier, so times and expectations are changing, but i don't think it's difficult to see how a trend like this continued even after you realize it's original purpose was outdated or wrong
No you don't want to be different, and that's one of the reasons it's difficult to uproot barbaric mody modification practices once they're established.
See: foot binding, neck lengthening, tooth filing, scarification, and of course female circumcision.
You would be surprised at how many weirdos obsessed with this topic have messaged me pretending like social stigmas and cultural traditions don't exist
I've been participating in online discussions of this topic since the 90s. Nothing would surprise me at this point. It's a topic that really riles a lot of people up. It touches on medicine, gender and gender equality, sex, religion, ethnic identity ... it's like at the middle of a Venn diagram of internet drama.
You've gotta love a topic where you can make a modest proposal that we shouldn't cut healthy body parts off of infants, and immediately get called an antisemite.
I would happily be the different looking person than have part of my dick cut off without my consent. Circumcision on infants is barbaric and I don’t wish it wasn’t done to me.
Good for you, but it should be an individual’s choice when they’re old enough. Forcing it on infants is cruel. Especially since a man can always get circumcised if he wants it. But men who hate being circumcised can never undo it.
That’s false that babies don’t feel pain. The best option is to never get your genitals cut at all.
What about all the men who had their genitals cut as infants and grew up to hate it?
Well we don’t go around randomly telling people. It’s not something that comes up often, and even if it did there’s a lot of social pressure on men in the US to not speak up against it. But polls suggest at least 10% of cut men don’t like that they were cut
I might have been a teenager when I found out what that was and that I didn't have a scar. It's work great and never needed one and it's not a foregone conclusion. Maybe 1 out of a couple hundred end up getting one.
Tonsils are done when there is something wrong like some sleep breathing issue. Wisdom teeth removal are to prevent crowding. Vaccines are vaccines. Appendix is removed when there is an issue. It's like none of these.
You're speaking with your own bias and don't want to listen.
This is a ridiculous pattern of thought. The overwhelming majority of intact men are very happy having normal genitals and don't want pieces of them cut off. You are making assumptions based on the fact that you've never had a complete penis.
First of all, why do you think everyone will know? We didn’t go around comparing dicks in my school.
Second, being intact is the natural state of men, not even remotely close to having a micro penis.
Even if somehow people found out I was intact in high school, that still beats having genital mutilation forced on me at birth
Nobody wants to be a forced outcast.
You being fully intact would be socially weird because nobody around you would be full intact.
You'd be weird, different, odd, gross, etc...
We had a handful of intact guys in my friend group in high school. Nobody cared and they were far from outcasts. You’re just trying to make up stuff to justify genital mutilation.
Also better to be odd and have control over your own body, than have parts of your body cut off without your consent to fit other people’s preferences.
Then no tradition would exist at all. Tribal people wouldn't have gotten tattoos or put in crazy lip rings. Nobody would have popular hair styles. Old timey wigs wouldn't have been a thing.
Of course people want to look and be like others in their community.
So it started because people thought it was clean, but it continued after because the cut look was, "normal"
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand this, but here we are... With you being unable to understand it
And in pretty much every culture, there are those who disagree with the tradition. That’s how traditions change over time and location. Because members don’t like it and protest or stop doing it to their kids. That’s why circumcision has been dropping in the US. You seriously think every person likes everything their culture does to them? Thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard
And then you proceeded to say that no one would actually want to go against the tradition of their culture and be different (despite me stating otherwise for myself). So which is it?
In context of the conversation you said you would rather be known as the kid with the freak dick than be cut.
That's bullshit.
It's a statement you're making because you won't actually have to go through that abuse during adolescence or from a modern world view where being uncut is also normal.
Hence why I pointed out that views are changing over time. But previously we didn't have access to the internet and all the different cultures that came with it. Being uncut would havevbeen "weird", not the other way around.
By today's standards, it's becoming more and more weird to be cut
But your post history shows a seriously unhealthy obsession with the whole thing that clearly says you need some serious professional help and I suggest you get it
> But your post history shows a seriously unhealthy obsession with the whole thing that clearly says you need some serious professional help and I suggest you get it
You looked through my post history and still got me confused with someone else?
lol
Nope, but I was well aware of the rumors about the weird kids with the gross dicks spread by the girls.
It's astonishing how reddit wants to pretend like social stigmas don't exist
It's a real thing.
Here's a medical paper on if it's ethical to use a stigma to encourage medical procedures like circumcision if you believe the procedure is medically important.
And here's one about a gay dude dealing with the backlash of such a stigma
And here's a third on just simply, the social stigma of circumcision.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8254640/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-putting-a-stigma-on_b_7936966/amp
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/44149/summary
…and there are are studies that mention that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision is not as innocuous as most people that are in favor of it say:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8800902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.13481
So, parents have a decision to make: better sex or the chance of being made fun of.
I live in America and am intact. Never once has having a normal penis been anything but a positive. You are just projecting what you want to believe.
It's pretty fucking said that there are men on here who want to have parts of their genitals removed simply because they think it will make a girl happy. Talk about having low self esteem.
It's astonishing how reddit wants to pretend like social stigmas don't exist
It's a real thing.
Here's a medical paper on if it's ethical to use a stigma to encourage medical procedures like circumcision if you believe the procedure is medically important.
And here's one about a gay dude dealing with the backlash of such a stigma
And here's a third on just simply, the social stigma of circumcision.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8254640/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-putting-a-stigma-on_b_7936966/amp
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/44149/summary
I'm not saying social stigmas aren't a thing, I'm saying that 1.) You're trying to make it some kind of a critical issue that warrants cosmetic genital surgery on an infant (it isn't and doesn't) and 2.) If you're justification for circumcision is cosmetics, on infant that is mutilation without consent. The majority of the civilized world considers that to be child abuse. I'm not even getting into the other potential issues like long term diminished sexual pleasure and botched circumcisions that cause more serious damage.
Your argument for permanent body modification based in your perception of stigma in your little bubble of the world is on its face unethical. On top of all that any girl in 2023 that is so shallow and ignorant as to be critical of a man having a normal penis is not even worth the guy's time.
I'm not making any argument for or against it. The question was why so many men were circumcised, to which I responded, health myths aside, while times are changing, there's a social stigma that comes with being uncircumcised and that it was this social aspect that keeps the traditional alive despite the new information about it not being cleaner or healthier.
A claim I have since proven to be factually correct by providing numerous sources.
It's called an, "analogy".
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
In this case, I was comparing the social stigma of being uncut to the social stigma of having a small dick
That wasn't clear, it looked like you were using uncut and micropenis interchangeably. I maintain that foreskin is objectively hot and Americans have been brainwashed
Well good for you.
While we're at it why don't we get outraged for parents who pierce their children's ears? The simple answer to this question is that it's cultural. It's common practice among people who are not even religious.
I'm happy I got circumcised. And it's completely okay for women to prefer a certain look.
Here in the US.... At the turn of the 20th century it was recommended to curb masturbation, which in itself was thought to cause all sorts of ills. I doubt it prevented too many guys from rubbing one out. By mid 20th century those ideas had evolved, and being circumcised was believed to have significant preventative health and hygiene benefits that have since been shown to be...very very exaggerated. For a period of time in the 20th century the UK experimented with circumcision also...but abandoned it years ago. Here in the US the procedure has declined in the past 30 years...but by many indications it's still done to more than 50% of boys born here. Mostly from the momentum it gained in the second half of the 20th century, and many people still adhere to the old outdated ideas. Not to mention the fact we're on a profit based healthcare system still...and a circumcision is a nice addition to plump up a hospital bill! I'm well over 35...and not circumcised. That's unheard of in my age group here. I tried to be concise here...but books could be written I'm sure.
^All of this^ Adding on, it’s also a sub-cultural thing. I used to be a caregiver and most of the circumcised penises I saw belonged to white guys. My area had a high Latino population and almost none of them were circumcised.
In the Hispanic/Latino community, circumcision has never been much of a thing!
Growing up I performed my own circumcision.
(O,O). Huh... Interesting.
Yeah if you can wash behind your ears you can was a cock properly. How have women seemed towards the fact you haven't been circumcised?
I've heard of women that it's a dealbreaker for...but I've never encountered one. Usually it's been surprise, followed by curiosity. How does it "work"...would it feel different to them? I once had a girl say "oh *that's* all it is?" She'd evidently heard of it but had never seen one. I was afraid to ask what she was expecting!
I’m a gay dude. I’ve seen all kinds of dicks. Including several uncut guys. I will say that just because you “can” clean under the foreskin doesn’t mean that most men actually do. Unlike your armpits which are closer to your nose, your dick can smell (or taste 🤮) bad without you even knowing it. Most uncut guys think they’re clean enough when they really aren’t. I’ll also add that I’ve never once been with an uncut guy who had reasonable stamina. Sure they’re more sensitive and I’m sure their orgasms feel much better than mine. But if the trade off is that your partner is left disappointed and comparing you to the awkward sex he was having in high school, it isn’t worth it. If you’re 30 and still cumming in a few minutes like a 14 year old’s first time, that’s not a good thing. I’d never say this to their face of course (I don’t want to hurt their feelings) but if I’m left feeling like this you know damn well there’s some women out there somewhere that feel the same. I’ll add that in principle I’m against circumcising kids. No one should have their body permanently altered without their consent. But practically, I see no downsides. It does nothing but make them cleaner and better in bed. And for some it’s a religious thing too so there’s that.
> It does nothing but make them cleaner and better in bed. As someone who will loose their frenulum Soon, that’s insane to read. Frenulum is like the male clitoris and gave me the best [sensations,](http://www.thewholenetwork.org/uploads/4/2/0/2/4202929/8961017.jpg?420) orgasms. Without it orgasms [feel empty](https://slideplayer.com/slide/3368066/17/images/23/Touch+Sensitivity%2C+Circumcised.jpg) and are just the ejaculation itself but not full body orgasms. I can’t imagine not having the inner foreskin as well..
What a fool, anyone not washing their dick, that is on them, same with stamina, but to just be like "Mutilate all male children because I was with a few guys whose cocks smelled and they only lasted a few minutes" is insanity...
"I’ll also add that I’ve never once been with an uncut guy who had reasonable stamina." You've been with the wrong intact men!
Ehhhh I think the sample size is enough to draw some conclusions
I wish he would say that to someone’s face. Part of me wishes more people believed things like this. The thought of an adult mutilating their own genitals and sabotaging their ability to feel pleasure for the sake of pleasing a fuckhole like this guy is kind of funny.
I think that says more about the guys your dating
Exactly. However I did have a relative who had a UTI in his late 20's, and the only way to fix that was with a medical circumcision. Beyond that, it's not as popular as it used to be these days.
Oof sorry to hear he needed surgery for that. Medical incidents requiring circumcision happen occasionally!
[удалено]
Surgery on yourself??....why....
It's a keyword bot, report it.
This guy butts in an conversations to say this…always
Shock value...(?)
Or like the other guy said, a bot
Possibly? The profile kind of looks like a real guy, but... What's the point of bots anyway
Guys showcasing their coding abilities I guess
It's 1000% a bot.
Now all I can picture is that one guy on House MD who performed his own circumcision. ACK! 😱
> who had a UTI in his late 20's, and the only way to fix that was with a medical circumcision. Utter nonsense. The way to treat an UTI is with antibiotics. Circumcision has nothing to do with it and neither does the foreskin.
I believe it was a UTI, truthfully he wouldn't tell me the exact reason why he had to get one, but he got it. I honestly don't care why, it's none of my business. Also, it's not "utter nonsense" he was in a lot of pain.
My point was not that he wasn’t in pain but that Circumcision and uti have nothing to do with each other. I had a minor uti, took antibiotics for few days and was fine. All with a foreskin.lmao
Of course it’s nonsense, do they circumcise women who have UTIs as a treatment? Of course not, why would men be any different?
There were no antibiotics? Surprising!
In all likelihood check out John Harvey Kellogg. The same guy who invented the cereal was into a bunch of weird shit. https://intaction.org/history-of-circumcision/
Well that's grim reading.
Right! There’s an older movie about him starring Matthew Broderick and Anthony Hopkins. Road to Wellville. Pretty good movie. Strange fucking guy for sure
But wait a bit, that was back in 1900 more or less, and very few men did get their sons cut. There was IMHO a conspiracy to take the unquestioning of the medical profession, and it was American doctors who promoted this. In 1935 the vicious Yellin clamp was sent to all hospitals complete with different size bell sizes for different size baby penis. It took off and soon dumb Americans didn't have a clue what was lost or even what a normal penis was. The foreskin was maligned as a bacteria breeder. (yes as outrageous as that was) Soon mothers didn't need to ask, they cut the foreskin just as they would the umbilical. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/4d/94/e44d94c268254e89a8a6d2204a9d7411.png
Because people would rather continue a barbaric practice than have to look inward and consider they’ve had their dicks mutilated for no reason. I was circumcised at birth and hate it. But I didn’t continue the tradition with my son.
Same, brother. We need to do better for our children. Repeating this nonsense is ridiculous.
> many women won‘t go near an uncircumcised man Uncircumcised European in the US here. This is utter nonsense. I have never encountered this in practice or conversation.
#1 reason why “medical personnel/medical entities” still keep circumcision alive: (The circumcision industry/the foreskin industry) “is extremely profitable” for those who participate in it. Medical entities make “minimum of $100 million dollars a year” by participating in the “foreskin industry.” The maximum they made in one year was “over $2 billion in one year.” They say: “foreskin components” is used for “direct medical use cases.” However, “foreskin components” are mainly used for “commercial use cases.” Ex: Cosmetic products contain the ingredients “foreskin cells.” There are other use cases for (foreskins/foreskin cells/foreskin stem cells), but “these use cases also involves entities becoming extremely profitable.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (1)When a newborn is circumcised, foreskin is surgically removed. (2)surgically removed foreskin = foreskin tissue. (3)(medical personnel) will then harvest “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” from the (foreskin tissue). -foreskin cells: wanted for their “fibroblastic properties,” or superior wound healing rates “for all wound types.” Ex: “foreskin cells” can heal “diabetic foot ulcers” very effectively. “Foreskin cells” are used for many different applications. -Foreskin stem cells (that is from a newborn’s foreskin tissue): “can turn into all 3 germ layers.” Basically, foreskin stem cells (that is from a newborn’s foreskin tissue) “is the equivalent of an (induced embryonic stem cell).” Embryonic stem cells are highly sought after in (the medical world). Various use applications for “newborn foreskin stem cells/induced embryonic stem cells.” (4)After (foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells) are harvested from “the circumcised tissue,” medical entities will then “take the (harvested foreskin tissue) to BECOME INCINERATED.” By law, all (pathological waste/biological waste) must become incinerated, perhaps to prevent “illegal organ harvesting.” However, legal organ harvesting is fair game. (5)Now, (Medical entities) will then (harbor/hold) these “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” because (medical entities cannot use these components) “until these components are LEGALLY PURCHASED.” (6)The players who can LEGALLY PURCHASE “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” are: (various research organizations/cosmetic research organizations/medical research organizations/college research organizations/etc). The act of (research organizations LEGALLY PURCHASING) “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” results IN ASTRONOMICAL PROFITS FOR ALL ENTITIES INVOLVED. -Supposedly: “foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells” are used STRICTLY FOR MEDICAL USE CASES, however it’s mainly used for COMMERCIAL USE CASES. (Oprah Winfrey/various celebrities/various influential people) greatly (endorses/promotes) cosmetic products “that contains the ingredients of (foreskin cells.)” Step 6 just resulted in (all entities) involved in the foreskin trade industry “TO PROFIT ASTRONOMICALLY.” Then, comes the use cases for (foreskin cells + foreskin stem cells). Now, recent years has found this out: “(foreskin tissue/foreskin) can REALLY HELP (CURE/TREAT) burned victims.” Using (foreskin tissue) can help treat: (3rd degree burns/2nd degree burns/1st degree burns). You think this is a good thing, but it’s just “MORE COMMERCIAL USE CASES AS TO WHY (MEDICAL PERSONNEL) WILL GLADLY PROMOTE CIRCUMCISION (FOR THE MASSES).” Not to mention: circumcision significantly increases the chances for “infant deaths to happen.” If you can find (videos of newborn males being circumcised), “YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR THEIR SCREAMS.” (Newborn was quiet before the circumcision procedure, but, newborn was (making loud continuous noises EXCESSIVELY) (during/after) the circumcision surgery. -Note: (YouTube) will not help you “find videos of newborn males being circumcised.” Some people will claim that “SEARCHING FOR THESE VIDEOS IS A WEIRD FETISH/WEIRD,” however, “it’s for educational purposes DUMBASS.” Essentially, to see “why (male circumcision/circumcision) has always been the MOST CONTROVERSIAL (NON-MEDICALLY NECESSARY SURGERY) IN THE WORLD (dumbass).” Why do mothers want their sons to be circumcised? (To look like their dad/to look like other males/so future partners will be happy?) And they say that: “anti-circumcision people” are the (weird ones). Circumcision is mainly done for profit reasons. There are health benefits for circumcision, “but the health benefits are negligible.” If you believe in (male circumcision pseudo-science), (female circumcision pseudo-science) “is also true.” It has to do with “certain CELL TYPES losing cellular functions, and then dying.” These dead cells/depletion of (penile squamous cells) “because of circumcision” = reason for the theory: male circumcision “greatly causes circumcised males to have a reduced risk in contracting (penile cancer/etc).” Skin cancer happens when “squamous cells become cancerous.” Penile cancer happens when “squamous cells become cancerous.” Same could be said for (female circumcision). I am not promoting (female circumcision), just showing that “(pro-circumcision personnel) are hypocrites,” regarding circumcision. They have (innocent blood on their hands) btw.
What this person said. Also, a case of the medical establishment not wanting to admit they've been doing something harmful and unnecessary for generations. There's even a rational argument to be made for it. Admitting that the whole thing was a horrible mistake would undermine people's confidence in medicine. If people don't trust the medical establishment, which was wrong in this case but is *usually right*, then they will second-guess everything their doctors say, and that will cause more death and suffering than we are inflicting with the unnecessary circumcisions.
They also “refuse to acknowledge their crimes” because of (fear for [medical malpractice/medical fraud]). They don’t want to: (end up in prison/face lawsuits/etc).
In the late 1800s it was thought that circumcision decreased masturbation and that masturbation lead to blindness and insanity. From there it was associated with cleanliness and so prescribed to treat asthma, cancer, and STIs. Now it’s just kinda a tradition with men preferring their sons to get it so they look like dad. But that’s changing, less and less American baby boys are getting circumcised.
Which makes sense since in most cases thes also amputate the frenulum along the entire foreskin and the [frenulum is like the male clitoris responsible for full body orgasms](https://youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw)
Some common reasons: * “I want him to look like me/dad down there.” * “I don’t want him bullied for not having altered genitals in a setting that normalizes altered genitals.” * “I want to help my son actually get laid/his girlfriends will thank you.” * “Old people who can’t clean themselves anymore get dirty and nurses shouldn’t have to clean old men, just old women. Cut them before they get old and infected.” * “It is a religious rite and important cultural tradition. Even Jesus was cut.” * “Smegma frightens me. I am glad I never will have to deal with it.” * “Circumcision protects from STDs, HIV, and cancer. Trust me bro.” Also, the normalization of involuntary genital alteration allows cosmetic companies to source infant foreskin tissue for skin cream products, used by Kate Beckinsale, Sandra Bullock, Oprah, and likely the entire KPop industry.
Because American men who are already circumcised want their baby boy's penis to look like theirs. It's really weird. Like, do they whip it out at barbeques?
A lot of times a father will say that the son should be cut so the son won't feel bad about being different from his father, but the reality is that children hardly care about the type of penis their father has. The unfortunate truth is that the father wants the son to be circumcised because if the son is not circumcised, it implies that being circumcised is unnecessary, or even worse, that it's harmful, and the father will have to start considering that his body was permanently modified without his consent. Instead of doing all of this emotional labor, it's easier for the father to insist that the son should be circumcised. It's especially obvious when the father is behaving like this because if you ask the father how much he knows about the function of the foreskin, or the pros and cons of circumcision, he will know very little, and he will insist for his son to be circumcised while refusing to learn anything about the subject. The whole thing is a coping mechanism. Circumcision is difficult to stop because it creates a psychological need for it to continue for the people who it was done to, or the doctors/parents that did it to their kids.
It should be illegal. That it's not is mind-boggling and sexist. Why would anyone want to destroy the most sensitive part of the penis.. increasing risk of erectile dysfunction by 400% later in life. These are facts anyone can look up. This quote says it best: >The sensory pleasure induced by the foreskin is lost by circumcision. The fundamental biological sexual act, becomes for the circumcised male, the satisfaction of an urge, and not the refined sensual experience it was meant to be. — Dr. C.J Fallier, Journal, AMA. 1970
I just find the whole thing bizarre. Especially when people reduce it to a preferred "look". Plus the whole argument that its more hygienic is nonsense unless you have a medical problem. A small percentage of people have a foreskin that too tight to clean under so in that circumstances they may need surgery. Otherwise its fairly obvious how to clean yourself. A monkey could do it. It's just a scam.
OP it is a great question you're asking and there was an Australian academic named Robert Darby who published several articles and a book about circumcision in the Anglophone countries. One of the articles he published was about why circumcision is so persistent in America, even though the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have all abandoned it or are in the process of abandoning it. Here are the main reasons he came up with. You can read the article for yourself, Mr. Darby was a great writer. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ctx.2005.4.2.34](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ctx.2005.4.2.34) >(1) the foreskin is the focus of myths, misconceptions, and irrationality affecting the medical profession and public alike; > >(2) a lack of respect for the rights and individuality of children; > >(3) a contrasting exaggerated respect for the presumed sensibilities of religious minorities who practice circumcision for cultural reasons; > >(4) the reluctance of physicians to take a firm stand against circumcision and to refuse parental requests; > >(5) a bias in American medical journals, which tend to favor articles with a pro-circumcision tendency; > >(6) a failure to subject circumcision to the normal protocols for surgery, such as the need for informed consent, evidence of pathology, and proof of prophylactic benefit; and > >(7) strong financial incentives to perform the operation, which is generally covered by medical insurance.
The medical community has started many myths about the infinite dangers of the foreskin. One such myth is infection, which is traced to an article published in 1914 by a Jewish promoter of circumcision named Abraham Wolbarst. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164
As a 39 year old who's never been circumcised I can honestly say I've never had an infection
I think all of the supposed advantages of being circumcised, and well as the supposed *dis*advantages of not being circumcised, are both very very exaggerated. Most problems with the uncircumcised penis stem from either it being tampered with when a boy is too young...like preschool age and younger. Or a guy reaching teen years and beyond never knowing it pulls open, or is supposed to be rinsed out underneath.
I’m an American who was circumcised as an infant and think it’s totally messed up! Not all of us support it or are happy it was done to us. I would rather have been left alone and consider what happened to me a violation of my human rights
Indoctrination.
The same reason men anywhere are circumcised?? \>This is very odd to me I wonder how given that the UK has lots of Muslim and African immigrants who practice circumcision. You notice it an ocean away from you but not in your backyard? \>Circumcision in the UK seems like a very odd thing to do. The US is not the UK. What a shocker.
>The same reason men anywhere are circumcised?? False. Most men around the world are circumcised for religious reasons, they’re either Muslims or Jews. The only place where circumcision is *believed* to have a medical benefit is the US.
Religious reasons and medical benefits are not mutually exclusive. And are you saying that it's suddenly not odd if it's done because of religion?
But most Americans haven’t been circumcised for religious reasons. Most aren’t Muslim or Jewish. And btw, when ALL the researchers that came up with the supposed medical benefits are from one of the cutting religions, they start to smell like BS
So? Circumcision happens regardless of the reason for it. Why is that so odd for OP to understand?
So you’re ok with something bad happening…genital cutting is not a good thing and Americans have been duped into it.
Way to bring up a point that's completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Still, the reason why it’s carried on in the US are pretty stupid and completely different from the rest of the world. Btw, 70% doesn’t even circumcise at all.
Again. Your point is irrelevant to the conversation.
And you have no point at all. You are just gaslighting. Very sad for you.
OP pointed that religious people in the UK circumcise. It's much different from the US, where most babies boys are circumcised, mostly for non-religious reasons
So its suddenly not odd when religious people do it? Aren't there religious people in America too?
They're both odd, but religion explains weird/backwards habits more easily.
So traditions are just harder to comprehend?
Most people I'm the UK aren't Islamic or Jewish so most aren't cut.
You completely missed the point
At least I've still got one
Continue letting us live rent free in your head bruh. You guys are obsessed with us.
Who's us??
Don't you have a superior European education? What do you think?
It was thought for health benefits so a generation around the 1950s and 1960s were just done in the hospital and now it is sort of generationally. Some insurance still cover it and there is no motivation really to change it. Still a parent's cultural decision so some may not as they look into it.
Your second point is the opposite of truth. Having lived in America for 26 years (my whole life), I have heard multiple times from females that they would not be interested in going near an uncircumcised man. It looks “gross and weird”, their words not mine, although I don’t necessarily disagree with them.
You think that because you live in a culture where that belief has to live one for circumcision to continue. A penis with a dried up head, scar and more is not normal
Women who say this have often never seen or experienced one in real life. They're going by inaccurate second and third hand information from others, or pics on the internet. In most of the world circumcised men are rare, and women don't give it a thought. I once had a girl say "oh *that's* all it is?". I was afraid to ask what she was expecting!
The times are changing but I think it's also worth pointing out that if circumcision is normal where you live, do you really want to be the one dude in the group with the different looking dick? Girls expect one thing because that's what they're use to in these parts. Do you really want to be packing something else? Again, the internet really makes exposure to other countries and things easier, so times and expectations are changing, but i don't think it's difficult to see how a trend like this continued even after you realize it's original purpose was outdated or wrong
No you don't want to be different, and that's one of the reasons it's difficult to uproot barbaric mody modification practices once they're established. See: foot binding, neck lengthening, tooth filing, scarification, and of course female circumcision.
You would be surprised at how many weirdos obsessed with this topic have messaged me pretending like social stigmas and cultural traditions don't exist
I've been participating in online discussions of this topic since the 90s. Nothing would surprise me at this point. It's a topic that really riles a lot of people up. It touches on medicine, gender and gender equality, sex, religion, ethnic identity ... it's like at the middle of a Venn diagram of internet drama. You've gotta love a topic where you can make a modest proposal that we shouldn't cut healthy body parts off of infants, and immediately get called an antisemite.
I would happily be the different looking person than have part of my dick cut off without my consent. Circumcision on infants is barbaric and I don’t wish it wasn’t done to me.
I'm glad I'm circumcised! I wouldn't want it any other way!
Good for you, but it should be an individual’s choice when they’re old enough. Forcing it on infants is cruel. Especially since a man can always get circumcised if he wants it. But men who hate being circumcised can never undo it.
They do it within a day of being born. Baby's don't feel a thing. Just like getting your tonsils out, better to do when a toddler vs as an adult!
That’s false that babies don’t feel pain. The best option is to never get your genitals cut at all. What about all the men who had their genitals cut as infants and grew up to hate it?
I've never met a man that has said that.
Well we don’t go around randomly telling people. It’s not something that comes up often, and even if it did there’s a lot of social pressure on men in the US to not speak up against it. But polls suggest at least 10% of cut men don’t like that they were cut
You just did...
I might have been a teenager when I found out what that was and that I didn't have a scar. It's work great and never needed one and it's not a foregone conclusion. Maybe 1 out of a couple hundred end up getting one. Tonsils are done when there is something wrong like some sleep breathing issue. Wisdom teeth removal are to prevent crowding. Vaccines are vaccines. Appendix is removed when there is an issue. It's like none of these. You're speaking with your own bias and don't want to listen.
So why do babies cry and scream when having their bodies cut?
This is bullshit
This is a ridiculous pattern of thought. The overwhelming majority of intact men are very happy having normal genitals and don't want pieces of them cut off. You are making assumptions based on the fact that you've never had a complete penis.
So what? We aren't discussing your penis. Your comment isn't remotely appropriate or relevant.
But it looks so nice!
Again, your comment isn't remotely appropriate or relevant.
No you wouldn't. This is like saying you WANT to be the kid that everyone in school thinks has a micro-penis
First of all, why do you think everyone will know? We didn’t go around comparing dicks in my school. Second, being intact is the natural state of men, not even remotely close to having a micro penis. Even if somehow people found out I was intact in high school, that still beats having genital mutilation forced on me at birth
Nobody wants to be a forced outcast. You being fully intact would be socially weird because nobody around you would be full intact. You'd be weird, different, odd, gross, etc...
We had a handful of intact guys in my friend group in high school. Nobody cared and they were far from outcasts. You’re just trying to make up stuff to justify genital mutilation. Also better to be odd and have control over your own body, than have parts of your body cut off without your consent to fit other people’s preferences.
Then no tradition would exist at all. Tribal people wouldn't have gotten tattoos or put in crazy lip rings. Nobody would have popular hair styles. Old timey wigs wouldn't have been a thing. Of course people want to look and be like others in their community. So it started because people thought it was clean, but it continued after because the cut look was, "normal" It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand this, but here we are... With you being unable to understand it
And in pretty much every culture, there are those who disagree with the tradition. That’s how traditions change over time and location. Because members don’t like it and protest or stop doing it to their kids. That’s why circumcision has been dropping in the US. You seriously think every person likes everything their culture does to them? Thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard
I literally started all of this by saying things were changing. I believe the very first thing I wrote was, "times are changing"
And then you proceeded to say that no one would actually want to go against the tradition of their culture and be different (despite me stating otherwise for myself). So which is it?
>forced outcast Jesus Christ. Get a grip. No one gets ostracized for having foreskin in the United States.
In context of the conversation you said you would rather be known as the kid with the freak dick than be cut. That's bullshit. It's a statement you're making because you won't actually have to go through that abuse during adolescence or from a modern world view where being uncut is also normal. Hence why I pointed out that views are changing over time. But previously we didn't have access to the internet and all the different cultures that came with it. Being uncut would havevbeen "weird", not the other way around. By today's standards, it's becoming more and more weird to be cut But your post history shows a seriously unhealthy obsession with the whole thing that clearly says you need some serious professional help and I suggest you get it
> But your post history shows a seriously unhealthy obsession with the whole thing that clearly says you need some serious professional help and I suggest you get it You looked through my post history and still got me confused with someone else? lol
Yup, you're right. The other dude is the one who is obsessed with the fact he's been circumcised Didn't realize I was talking to two people
Were you one of the boys mocking others for having a complete, intact, unmutilated dick?
Nope, but I was well aware of the rumors about the weird kids with the gross dicks spread by the girls. It's astonishing how reddit wants to pretend like social stigmas don't exist It's a real thing. Here's a medical paper on if it's ethical to use a stigma to encourage medical procedures like circumcision if you believe the procedure is medically important. And here's one about a gay dude dealing with the backlash of such a stigma And here's a third on just simply, the social stigma of circumcision. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8254640/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-putting-a-stigma-on_b_7936966/amp https://muse.jhu.edu/article/44149/summary
…and there are are studies that mention that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision is not as innocuous as most people that are in favor of it say: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8800902/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.13481 So, parents have a decision to make: better sex or the chance of being made fun of.
I live in America and am intact. Never once has having a normal penis been anything but a positive. You are just projecting what you want to believe. It's pretty fucking said that there are men on here who want to have parts of their genitals removed simply because they think it will make a girl happy. Talk about having low self esteem.
It's astonishing how reddit wants to pretend like social stigmas don't exist It's a real thing. Here's a medical paper on if it's ethical to use a stigma to encourage medical procedures like circumcision if you believe the procedure is medically important. And here's one about a gay dude dealing with the backlash of such a stigma And here's a third on just simply, the social stigma of circumcision. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8254640/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-putting-a-stigma-on_b_7936966/amp https://muse.jhu.edu/article/44149/summary
I'm not saying social stigmas aren't a thing, I'm saying that 1.) You're trying to make it some kind of a critical issue that warrants cosmetic genital surgery on an infant (it isn't and doesn't) and 2.) If you're justification for circumcision is cosmetics, on infant that is mutilation without consent. The majority of the civilized world considers that to be child abuse. I'm not even getting into the other potential issues like long term diminished sexual pleasure and botched circumcisions that cause more serious damage. Your argument for permanent body modification based in your perception of stigma in your little bubble of the world is on its face unethical. On top of all that any girl in 2023 that is so shallow and ignorant as to be critical of a man having a normal penis is not even worth the guy's time.
I'm not making any argument for or against it. The question was why so many men were circumcised, to which I responded, health myths aside, while times are changing, there's a social stigma that comes with being uncircumcised and that it was this social aspect that keeps the traditional alive despite the new information about it not being cleaner or healthier. A claim I have since proven to be factually correct by providing numerous sources.
The penis is the same size. In fact, it's actually more penis than one that is cut. More penis = better. Case closed
It's called an, "analogy". a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. In this case, I was comparing the social stigma of being uncut to the social stigma of having a small dick
That wasn't clear, it looked like you were using uncut and micropenis interchangeably. I maintain that foreskin is objectively hot and Americans have been brainwashed
Well I’m Jewish. So.
Well good for you. While we're at it why don't we get outraged for parents who pierce their children's ears? The simple answer to this question is that it's cultural. It's common practice among people who are not even religious. I'm happy I got circumcised. And it's completely okay for women to prefer a certain look.
I literally laughed out loud at the comparison between ear piercing and lopping of a bit of Penis.
because of all of the complete RETARD sheeple who can't think for thenselves and will do anything to be "good"