There has to be some guys out there with sex feeling before-and-after cut experience. I'm cut so there's no going back for me, but would be interesting food for thought.
Why are Americans circumcised?
- Thread starter cardguy
- Start date
Bad Hussar
Pelican
The people who think that the current practice of circumcision is a Jewish conspiracy really need to get out more. As Moma mentioned above many tribes in Africa have adopted the practice. While there are "Black Jews" as far South as the North of South Africa, and Jews from the Middle East have been travelers in Africa for 1000+ years, it's really a stretch to say that Jews made Africans adopt this practice. It's ridiculous. Jewish influence in Africa just hasn't been that great. Neither has Islam away from the Eastern coastal regions (Talking sub-Saharan Africa).
And if you have a problem with circumcision as practiced in the West just be thankful you are not a member of an African tribe, like the Xhosa, who have adopted the practice. In this tribe it isn't carried out on infants, but on adolescents (around 16 yo typically), as part of a much bigger boy >> man ritual. And they don't use a scalpel. They use an axe (no, not joking). And if you think you, if you were a Xhosa boy, would be a rebel and not have it carried out, think again. Since it is part of a bigger manhood ritual an uncircumcised man is regarded as an inkwenwe (literally "boy". Very deep insult), rather than an indoda (man). And it goes without saying: Chance of getting laid as an "inkenkwe" = zero.
I see in the discussion above everyone is discussing recent history when explaining why it is practiced today. But the practice is 1000's of years old. A more interesting question is why Jews originally started the practice, why Muslims subsequently also incorporated it, and why others (like African tribes) have practiced it for 100's of years. In my opinion the two reasons are the ones most often mentioned.
1) It is "cleaner"
2) May limit masturbation
Look, I have no strong opinion here, but to say that being uncircumcised is as clean IF a, b, c and d are carried out just goes to prove the opposite: That circumcision does offer some cleanliness/anti-infection benefits. The reason is obvious. By virtue of the vagaries of life many (most?) people are not going to carry out a, b, c and d diligently without fail. It would be like a Catholic charity saying birth control is unnecessary because if the rhythm method is practiced properly it has as high a success rate as X Birth Control. But in real life it is NEVER going to be practiced correctly, and without fail.
Won't comment much on whether being circumcised limits masturbation, but if so the Ancients would see this as a plus since it would force adherents to have actual sex and therefore produce more...adherents.
And if you have a problem with circumcision as practiced in the West just be thankful you are not a member of an African tribe, like the Xhosa, who have adopted the practice. In this tribe it isn't carried out on infants, but on adolescents (around 16 yo typically), as part of a much bigger boy >> man ritual. And they don't use a scalpel. They use an axe (no, not joking). And if you think you, if you were a Xhosa boy, would be a rebel and not have it carried out, think again. Since it is part of a bigger manhood ritual an uncircumcised man is regarded as an inkwenwe (literally "boy". Very deep insult), rather than an indoda (man). And it goes without saying: Chance of getting laid as an "inkenkwe" = zero.
I see in the discussion above everyone is discussing recent history when explaining why it is practiced today. But the practice is 1000's of years old. A more interesting question is why Jews originally started the practice, why Muslims subsequently also incorporated it, and why others (like African tribes) have practiced it for 100's of years. In my opinion the two reasons are the ones most often mentioned.
1) It is "cleaner"
2) May limit masturbation
Look, I have no strong opinion here, but to say that being uncircumcised is as clean IF a, b, c and d are carried out just goes to prove the opposite: That circumcision does offer some cleanliness/anti-infection benefits. The reason is obvious. By virtue of the vagaries of life many (most?) people are not going to carry out a, b, c and d diligently without fail. It would be like a Catholic charity saying birth control is unnecessary because if the rhythm method is practiced properly it has as high a success rate as X Birth Control. But in real life it is NEVER going to be practiced correctly, and without fail.
Won't comment much on whether being circumcised limits masturbation, but if so the Ancients would see this as a plus since it would force adherents to have actual sex and therefore produce more...adherents.
Bad Hussar
Pelican
The Texas Prophet said:
Yes, there are may hospitalisations and deaths every circumcision season. It doesn't help that in the modern world it is typically carried out in Winter (School holidays) and the larger ritual includes a couple of weeks sleeping rough in the countryside. Your ability to fight infection is probably compromised in these circumstances. I'm not really recommending it, or not. Just pointing out that it is considered an important practice more widely than among Jews and Muslims. For the Xhosa important enough to accept pretty severe risks.
Can't speak for all African tribes, but the Xhosa do not practice female circumcision. I don't think female circumcision is practiced widely in sub-Saharan Africa. Probably only by small groups of hard core Islamists. Christians and Animists are unlikely to practice it.
There's actually a lot of evidence that's recently come out showing circumcision significantly reduces the chance for AIDS as well as other STDs.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microscopic/circum-aids.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259200.php
Full scientific paper here:
http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/2/e00076-13.abstract?sid=dfa2b607-8000-4524-ab52-2b70e03a4ed6
According to the study, an uncut foreskin is more likely to tear during sex. These tears serve as an entry point for the HIV virus, which binds to white blood cells, and the tip of the foreskin contains a high number of white blood cells.
Seems like a compelling reason to get a son cut.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microscopic/circum-aids.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259200.php
Full scientific paper here:
http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/2/e00076-13.abstract?sid=dfa2b607-8000-4524-ab52-2b70e03a4ed6
According to the study, an uncut foreskin is more likely to tear during sex. These tears serve as an entry point for the HIV virus, which binds to white blood cells, and the tip of the foreskin contains a high number of white blood cells.
Seems like a compelling reason to get a son cut.
Samseau said:
There could be a cure for aids soon:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10022664/Scientists-hope-for-HIV-cure.html
Plus, the risk of aids/hiv for heterosexual people who are not IV drug users is greatly overblown in the media.
Circumcision outside of the Jewish and Muslim world is really an Anglo-Saxon thing. AFAIK this custom was revived in the Victorian times for multiple reasons, to curb masturbation but also to "heal" all kinds of diseases, ranging from bedwetting, epilepsy to insomnia etc.
After WWII, almost all countries in the Anglosphere except the US left the practice since there was no valid medical reason for it.
Of course some scientists try hard to find arguments pro circumcision but they often have an agenda, it seems. Some Jews are afraid that the more liberal members of the community might abandon this central part Judaism so they try very hard to find scientific reasons to justify the custom.
The argument of cleanliness is no argument to me. The rest of the world get's along just fine by taking showers. In comparison, just because you could have dirt behind your ears, you're not going to cut off your ears either, right ? So why remove a delicate and sensitive part of the penis when water and soap do the job.
Also, many of the often mentioned medical benefits seem very questionable. Even though the circumcision rate is very high in the US relative to all other western countries, the US still has the highest percentage of citizens with HIV in the western world...even if circumcision really did decrease the chance of transmission, it can't be that good of a protection against AIDS.
I think this custom is going to disappear in the long term among Christians and seculars in the US.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.long
After WWII, almost all countries in the Anglosphere except the US left the practice since there was no valid medical reason for it.
Of course some scientists try hard to find arguments pro circumcision but they often have an agenda, it seems. Some Jews are afraid that the more liberal members of the community might abandon this central part Judaism so they try very hard to find scientific reasons to justify the custom.
The argument of cleanliness is no argument to me. The rest of the world get's along just fine by taking showers. In comparison, just because you could have dirt behind your ears, you're not going to cut off your ears either, right ? So why remove a delicate and sensitive part of the penis when water and soap do the job.
Also, many of the often mentioned medical benefits seem very questionable. Even though the circumcision rate is very high in the US relative to all other western countries, the US still has the highest percentage of citizens with HIV in the western world...even if circumcision really did decrease the chance of transmission, it can't be that good of a protection against AIDS.
I think this custom is going to disappear in the long term among Christians and seculars in the US.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.long
metalhaze said:
There are people born with third nipples, clefts, man boobs, etc... Why get them removed or fixed?
JayMillz
Hummingbird
cardguy said:
There is a lot about this on the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision
For instance:
"Sayre's prominence within the medical profession allowed him to reach a wide audience. He lectured widely in the United States and the United Kingdom, and his ideas influenced physicians throughout the English-speaking world. As more practitioners tried circumcision as a treatment for otherwise intractable medical conditions, sometimes achieving positive results, the list of ailments reputed to be treatable through circumcision grew. By the 1890s, hernia, bladder infections, kidney stones, insomnia, chronic indigestion, rheumatism, epilepsy, asthma, bedwetting, Bright's disease, erectile dysfunction, syphilis, insanity, and skin cancer had all been linked to the foreskin, and many physicians advocated universal circumcision as a preventive health measure. In 1855, the Quaker surgeon, Jonathan Hutchinson, observed that circumcision appeared to protect against syphilis.[43] Although this observation was challenged (the protection that Jews appear to have are more likely due to cultural factors[44]), a 2006 systematic review concluded that the evidence "strongly indicates that circumcised men are at lower risk ... syphilis"
My brother and I were probably the only uncut boys in our middle class suburb. Parents had to make a fuss when we were born(1970s) to keep us from getting cut. As a kid I learned about circumcision from an old MASH tv episode then asked mom what the deal was. I think it is unnecessary, some of the science has been questioned as being political, if I had a boy I wouldn't have it done. Though I don't care about other peoples dicks to go advocating against it, I will say once we learned the deal we told our friends and kids learning that part of their dicks were cut off as babies were freaked out. As adults we rationalize it, kids are honest 'they cut something off my dick when I was born nfw'
I like when guys get worked up over this. The cut guys argue that being cut is better because they know they'll never know what it's like to have a foreskin and want to believe it's better to not have one and uncut guys feel insecure and claim sex is better and circumcision is mutilation and become 'intactivists.' What a fucking joke.
I underwent a circumcision last year. I don't notice any real differences in feeling during sex, there might be a very slight difference in sensitivity but it still feels great. The differences are negligible. I can still masturbate without lotion, but it helps. Wearing a condom without foreskin is easier. Almost every European girl I've had sex with has told me they prefer my cut penis over the uncut European cocks they've sat on.
I underwent a circumcision last year. I don't notice any real differences in feeling during sex, there might be a very slight difference in sensitivity but it still feels great. The differences are negligible. I can still masturbate without lotion, but it helps. Wearing a condom without foreskin is easier. Almost every European girl I've had sex with has told me they prefer my cut penis over the uncut European cocks they've sat on.
The Texas Prophet said:
No more silly than blaming it all on jewish doctors.
Sailor
Kingfisher
InternationPlayboy said:
It is very unusual,so unusual many girls don't even know what a circumcised penis looks like.
That reminds me of a girl i knew in Paraguay : she was once pumped and dumped by a circumcised Italian guy ;last time i saw her she was still looking for italians online and always asked if they were circumcised , chick had heard only "no,i'm not,but why you ask?" from the 4 guys she claims to have asked about it :dodgy: