It's sad. Americans don't appreciate an uncircumcised penis. I think Lacsar is right, we are very pro good hygiene and for some reason think that boys and men are too retarded to clean their own member properly. It's a shame.
And that American women are too afraid of the men they date and marry, to insist that they clean under the foreskin before hopping into the sack.
The American circ obsession patronises both genders; I don't know which gender is more insulted.
Interesting question,I never thought of the why, but know from my experience I prefer uncut ****. The men I have been involved with that were uncut appeared to be more sensitive and aroused quicker.This may not be the case for all but would love to hear from some other ladies on their comparison
Circumcision was long felt to be a health/hygiene measure. Studies in recent decades showing that women whose male sexual partners are circumcised have lower rates of things like HIV and cervical cancer might boost that old contention.
Where men take daily showers and can easily buy condoms, there is no evidence that circumcision makes HIV and cervical cancer less likely.
It's no biggy. You skin some, you lose some...
It was thought for the longest time that this promoted cleanliness. The circumcised male's nerve endings become dull, allowing them to more easily control their ***********. Some women prefer this; however, the dulling of the nerves at the head of the penis also removes some of the feeling of pleasure when having sex.
Something to do with the Dollar vs the Pound rate.
Im American and I have my foreskin but sometimes I get weird looks when I change and shower at school because my foreskin is really really long. Sometimes people look at it when we are at the nudist lake too so I think its not because I have a foreskin but because its really long. I asked one guy at school why the F he kept staring at me and he told me later on that he didn't mean to but that it was just because he wishes he had a foreskin too.
Alot of people will say easier to clean, some others say its because without it looks better etc.... I have foreskin, have never had a single complaint about my ****, and I keep it clean, what people fail to realise is that you can quite easily pull the skin back and clean yourself. I do this at least once a day. And in doing so have a clean ****. As for the appeal of how it looks, who cares, most women care about how it feels inside them not what it looks like before and after.
Gotta make wallets out of something.
I really hadn't thought it out that far, but, yes, I suppose so.
Dunno, I guess they need the extra flesh to make the Big Macs. Personally I would rather keep my sensitive bits, well... sensitive - instead of like an old boot.
Circumcision was common among the British middle and upper classes, for men born between 1870-1955. Robert Darby's 2006 University of Chicago Press monograph explores the medical history in detail. The unspoken British reasons were very likely similar to the unspoken American reasons: discourages ************, makes men less horny and hence more moral, enables men and boys to be clean without having to say anything to them, a prudish ignorance of what foreskin contributes to sexual pleasure and functionality, and a bizarre belief that a foreskin unretractable in infancy indicated a lifelong problem.
In 1949, a British professor of medicine named Douglas Gairdner published a scholarly article documenting two things:
1. About 10-15 baby boys died every year in the UK after being circumcised;
2. The foreskin nearly always becomes retractable by puberty.
In 1950 the NHS announced that it would not reimburse routine infant circumcision. The practice soon died out.
A 40 something British woman who works as a nurse in a suburban London nursing home has told me in another forum that many of the men in her charge are circumcised, as is her own father. But every man she has dated was not.
My general impression in this and other forums is that the British are more accepting of sexual pleasure and what Nature Intended than Americans are. And some Europeans say that the exposed glans is too blatantly sexual. They prefer it to remain covered until it pleases them to pull the skin back and uncover it. If a bloke's hygiene leaves something to be desired, they will take him by the hand to the nearest bath and clean him themselves. It is silly to suffer a dirty date, and then vow to circumcise one's own sons later in life.
Why do millions of Americans hate the foreskin? That and African FGM are maybe the biggest unsolved problems in the social psychology of human sexuality. I have thought about this ever since learning what circumcision was as a 13 year old boy. A lot of my EP blog consists of my guesses as to what's going on here. But my thoughts are still only guesses.
I would welcome a woman researcher interviewing at length a random sample of several thousand American women, to ascertain their opinions about cut versus uncut.
The British do not "prefer" intact. RIC is simply not an option in British maternity wards, and the NHS does not pay for it.
Americans do not "prefer" cut. Rather, the penis that is bald 24/7 is all they know, so that the natural penis looks very weird to them. The internet may have a major impact here. For example, the Wikipedia article "penis" is illustrated by an uncut member.
because Americans are sadists who love violence and fear sex.
They don't care if they harm their children so long as they get their sexual fixation on mutilated penises.
Circumcising boys for hygiene doesn't make sense..all dicks need to be washed!
100-120 years ago, boys and men took baths, not showers. The idea sprang up that a circumcised man did not need to touch his **** to clean while in the bath. Touching your **** was seen as very immoral because it encouraged ************.
I didn't have any choice in the matter :)
An overwhelming religious influence exists in America that maybe you are too close to recognise in all walks of life.
Many Americans conclude that if God commanded the Jews to circumcise their newborns, then routine circumcision at the start of life cannot be a bad thing. By definition, God does not order us to do bad things. The Bible never says that circumcision is cleaner or healthier or makes for better sex. The bald penis is simply a cattle brand signalling that the owner was born a Jew. Moslems do it because they, like Jews, claim descent from Abraham. There is absolutely no religious reason why anybody else should undergo circumcision.
but if god didnt want us to have it. why did he give it to us?
In the passage of the bible just after the commandment of circumcision was G-d's direction to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac - the angels intervened - it was a test of faith. Telling Abraham at age 99 to circumcise himself and to circumcise is son Ishmael at 13 and Isaac
at eight days was also a test of faith - it has nothing to do with cleanliness it is a symbol of membership in the covenant of Abraham - a mark in the flesh of being a Jew. Now Jesus was circumcised but for what ever reason this requirement was not carried forward by Christians. Queen Victoria believed that she was a descendent of King David and she started the practice of circumcision in the British Royal Family that is still followed to this day - a Mohel in London Rabbi Snowdon did Prince Charles' circumcision.
Just so happens I love my circumcised penis and my Wife is rather fond of it as well.
For the record I have no problem what so ever with routine infant circumcision - it is a trivial surgery with a life time of benefits - my opinion AND it is simply one of the decisions a parent makes for a son - also one of the rights of being a parent. I respect the decision that was made for me - completely AND I would do it for a son or a grandson as well.
foreskins dont look as appealing?
I know, feel sorry for all those poor babies. Still my brother had to have one later in life bet he wished he had had it done as a baby.
I am now elated that my mother defied American fashion and insisted that I remain au naturel. I felt very weird while growing up, but now am deeply proud of being a rare intact upper middle class American male.
Well done your mum. It is there for a reason.
Because of dominant religions having power in the government unconstitutionally holding sway in governmental policies which are criminal in nature for it is against the oath of the medical society to preform any medically unnecessary procedures unless it is life threatening or life debilitating.
Foreskins are a natural part of life but in America it is seen as a unnatural evil diseased think.
However in the Uk and other places in europe it is a normal part of life. Religion and government are firmly separated so that religion is personal as i think it should be and the government is about the moral laws of human interaction and not of religious moral codes which should be personal.