Options

US men are mostly circumcised

calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
Forum Member
✭✭
According to one of the twins.. US men in her own experience are circumcised.. so I went for a wee read about it and found that 60% of men , not all Jewish are circumcised..in the U.S. and that it causes less illnesses in men and cervical cancers in women..
«13456716

Comments

  • Options
    onfencewithrachonfencewithrach Posts: 6,479
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    According to one of the twins.. US men in her own experience are circumcised.. so I went for a wee read about it and found that 60% of men , not all Jewish are circumcised..in the U.S. and that it causes less illnesses in men and cervical cancers in women..

    gotta be more than 60%,, almost every person i've known is circumcised here, or heard talked about, or anyone mentioned.

    i was shocked to hear that people in the uk weren't for the most part, i thought it was common. :eek:
  • Options
    SnowStorm86SnowStorm86 Posts: 17,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is apparently more hygienic to have it removed.
  • Options
    2la2la Posts: 4,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It may be more hygenic, but it isn't natural is it? Boys were made with foreskins. It must have it's purpose. Although I understand it for medical reasons.:confused:
  • Options
    SurferfishSurferfish Posts: 7,668
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    According to one of the twins.. US men in her own experience are circumcised.. so I went for a wee read about it and found that 60% of men , not all Jewish are circumcised..in the U.S. and that it causes less illnesses in men and cervical cancers in women..

    I'm surprised that the twins would have sufficient experience to make such a judgement. They're such "reserved" young ladies after all...:D
  • Options
    Southern SofteeSouthern Softee Posts: 102
    Forum Member
    It is apparently more hygienic to have it removed.

    Only if you don't wash, surely?
  • Options
    calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    2la wrote: »
    It may be more hygenic, but it isn't natural is it? Boys were made with foreskins. It must have it's purpose. Although I understand it for medical reasons.:confused:
    This is my thoughts too,, I can see the hygenic issue and understand that but why give them in the first place... but then were given tonsils and gall bladders that we re told we dont need... makes you wonder..
  • Options
    SnowStorm86SnowStorm86 Posts: 17,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Only if you don't wash, surely?

    *shrugs*

    I'd have thought if you don't wash then you're going to be unhygienic either way lol.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    2la wrote: »
    It may be more hygenic, but it isn't natural is it? Boys were made with foreskins. It must have it's purpose.

    Neither's earpiercing but it is no big deal.

    Of course it has a purpose - to protect a man's sensitive penis - however having a too sensitive one might not be beneficial in some ways...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,824
    Forum Member
    People in Europe by and large don't mutilate their babies' genitals.

    Aside from there being absolutely no reason to do so, it's increasingly seen as a human rights issue. Female genital mutilation is banned. Why should a male be branded for life with an incomplete penis without his consent? What is the rush? Is it not a decision he could make for himself after sexual maturity, say 16-18?

    How many 16-18 year olds, if given the opportunity, and, in all likelihood, having experienced what it's like to have sexual contact of some kind or other with the full package - so to speak - do you think would choose to have a bit of their cock cut off?
  • Options
    onfencewithrachonfencewithrach Posts: 6,479
    Forum Member
    qwertyell wrote: »
    People in Europe by and large don't mutilate their babies' genitals.

    Aside from there being absolutely no reason to do so, it's increasingly seen as a human rights issue. Female genital mutilation is banned. Why should a male be branded for life with an incomplete penis without his consent? What is the rush? Is it not a decision he could make for himself at after sexual maturity, say 16-18?

    How many 16-18 year olds, if given the opportunity, and, in all likelihood, having experienced what it's like to have sexual contact of some kind or other with the full package - so to speak - do you think would choose to have a bit of their cock cut off?

    dunno, it's just accepted as common practice here and considered normal.

    it's really weird if someone wasn't.
  • Options
    Hungry Hippo!Hungry Hippo! Posts: 589
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm circumised and very pleased about it. Having looked at images of the uncut penis I really couldn't imagine mine being like that. I do think it looks unhealthy.

    I'm not jewish either. Infact I don't know why I was circumised and I actually didn't realise I was until an ex Girlfriend pointed it out to me!!!

    I've never had the guts to ask my parents why they had it done to me either! :eek:
  • Options
    B L ZeebubB L Zeebub Posts: 9,134
    Forum Member
    http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

    Apparently, it started off as an anti-masturbation measure and, later, issues such as cleanliness and STD prevention, became the excuse.

    Why not let older boys make their own decision about it? Many men are not happy that their choice was taken away at an early age, for spurious reasons.
  • Options
    Bockingford_KidBockingford_Kid Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    The health reasons are bull, and the practice often goes wrong. It used to be about 90% of US men were circumcised and it's dropped to about 55% in the last couple of decades as more people are seeing it as unnecessary.

    The reason it was originally promoted in the states was to stop the evils of masturbation, not health reasons.
  • Options
    DermodragonDermodragon Posts: 915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    gotta be more than 60%,, almost every person i've known is circumcised here, or heard talked about, or anyone mentioned.

    i was shocked to hear that people in the uk weren't for the most part, i thought it was common. :eek:

    Nah, we prefer to not cut things off our babies against their will here. :)
  • Options
    DermodragonDermodragon Posts: 915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is apparently more hygienic to have it removed.

    Indeed, although I don't notice people with a foreskin dying or becoming ill more frequently that those without one. I smell a rat.
  • Options
    calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The health reasons are bull, and the practice often goes wrong. It used to be about 90% of US men were circumcised and it's dropped to about 55% in the last couple of decades as more people are seeing it as unnecessary.

    The reason it was originally promoted in the states was to stop the evils of masturbation, not health reasons.
    I had read this happened with girls too .. how sad and backward they were..
  • Options
    onfencewithrachonfencewithrach Posts: 6,479
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    I had read this happened with girls too .. how sad and backward they were..

    lol what, i'm pretty sure female circumcisions happens in like somalia, africa... i never heard of that as a practice in america. :confused:
  • Options
    BathshebaBathsheba Posts: 6,654
    Forum Member
    I don't think I've ever seen a cut one, what's the difference?

    Does it really stop masturbation?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,775
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I looked into this a while back, and the statistics have been changing. Circumcision became very popular in the US during the Victorian era - following from a trend in the UK, which, if I remember correctly, was based on a medical view that it was more hygienic. While it died out in the UK, it continued to grow to the point of being almost automatic in the US (and other Anglophone countries). In the past couple of decades, the rate declined, due to resistance to the idea of unnecessary medical interventions. The decline has been arrested somewhat in very recent years, in response to several research findings that circumcision is a factor in resistance to STDs, and particularly HIV (there have been studies that deny this, too).

    It is not a religious issue in the US (although of course it is for American Muslims and Jews); it is largely a cultural one, which has tended to follow medical advice (the Victorian doctors, the anti-interventionists, the HIV research).
  • Options
    Hungry Hippo!Hungry Hippo! Posts: 589
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bathsheba wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen a cut one, what's the difference?

    Does it really stop masturbation?

    No! :D There is still enough skin there.
  • Options
    DermodragonDermodragon Posts: 915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dunno, it's just accepted as common practice here and considered normal.

    it's really weird if someone wasn't.

    Lots of things are considered 'normal' and 'common practice' for certain periods of time. E.g. the slave trade. Not so common anymore. 'It's conventional' is a fool's argument, imo.
  • Options
    onfencewithrachonfencewithrach Posts: 6,479
    Forum Member
    Bathsheba wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen a cut one, what's the difference?

    Does it really stop masturbation?

    clearly not lol.

    it looks better according to most girls i've heard talk about it.
    it looks like kind of worm from the movie dune when it's not is what i also heard.

    if an american girl saw that monster she would probably be in shock... cuz americans expect it to look like it is circumcised.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,824
    Forum Member
    dunno, it's just accepted as common practice here and considered normal.

    it's really weird if someone wasn't.

    It's an interesting interpretation of normal - to hack at the genitals of a perfect new-born child to enforce a practice born of the middle ages to dull sensitively and discourage masturbation and sexual thought.

    In 2012, this is considered normal. The human race really hasn't come a long way...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 856
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm circumsiced, I had no choice. I don't know if i'm missing out on anything or not?:confused:

    Either way it's got to be more hygienic.
  • Options
    tq21tq21 Posts: 1,693
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    calamity wrote: »
    This is my thoughts too,, I can see the hygenic issue and understand that but why give them in the first place... but then were given tonsils and gall bladders that we re told we dont need... makes you wonder..

    whoever told you you don't need tonsils or a gallbladder is crazy, yes you can live without both but tonsils are vital for your immune system, people who have had their tonsils removed tend to get more colds and chest infections. Your gallbladder is essential for the proper digestion of fats and carbohydrates as it does secrete some insulin. The foreskin is a defense organ, if early man had been circumcised while out hunting and practically naked, imagine the infections he would have picked up.
Sign In or Register to comment.