circumcision in USA - historical fundi cultural infiltration

[fundifugee]

I just read an article that said that male circumcision in infancy is done in the vast majority of boys in the USA.

It went on to say that this has been true ever since a campaign from the early 1900s, funded by breakfast cereal tycoon J.H. Kellogg, to prevent masturbation!

Great scots, can it be true? Most Canadian males are not circumcised, is it that different south of the border? And is this the reason?

They cite this book - http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KelPlai.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public∂=11&division=div1 , which is certainly a bizarre and nutty specimen of historical fundy propaganda.

[formergothardite]

This can turn into a crazy thread, but it is pretty common here.

[Beeks]

I think rates have been dropping in the us....now it's like 50% if I remember correctly. I don't know how it got so popular but I sort of doubt this story.

[handcuff]

I don't think the vast majority of people do it to prevent their children from masturbation (I'd never heard this reasoning before now), but rather to make it easier to clean and prevent various health problems that can result from a lack of cleanliness. Others do it because it's more common here, so being circumcised draws less negative attention than not being circumcised.

My understanding is that about 80% of the men in the US are circumcised, compared to ~30% worldwide.

-handcuff

[failsafe]

Some cities and towns in the US have made circumcision illegal. It is most prevalent in northern Africa and the Middle East, according to the WHO, but still quite prevalent in the US (I have seen figures that put it anywhere from 50-80% of all U.S. men). Wherever in the world it is done, it's primarily done at infancy. I really (really really really really) doubt that fundamentalism is the cause for a substantive increase in popularity.

[camdendayton]

I don't think the vast majority of people do it to prevent their children from masturbation (I'd never heard this reasoning before now), but rather to make it easier to clean and prevent various health problems that can result from a lack of cleanliness. Others do it because it's more common here, so being circumcised draws less negative attention than not being circumcised.

My understanding is that about 80% of the men in the US are circumcised, compared to ~30% worldwide.

-handcuff

This is always what I've heard as well (cleanliness, to be like their fathers, etc). If it was to stop masturbation it certainly didn't work. I would venture to say there are few countries where men masterbate as much as they do in the good ol US of A.

Apparently there's some looney group of men out there trying to ban circumcisions on boys under 18. These guys grieve over their lost foreskin and some who are apparently even having "Foreskin restoration" (seriously, I googled "lost foreskin" and this came up 3rd, right after a snarky student newspaper :) ) I had heard of this before and I was watching my local news last night and apparently a group is trying to get a ban on the ballot here in SF, and they had coverage of Jewish and Muslium women speaking out against the possible ballot measure. :?

[handcuff]

Apparently there's some looney group of men out there trying to ban circumcisions on boys under 18. These guys grieve over their lost foreskin and some who are apparently even having "Foreskin restoration" (seriously, I googled "lost foreskin" and this came up 3rd, right after a snarky student newspaper :) ) I had heard of this before and I was watching my local news last night and apparently a group is trying to get a ban on the ballot here in SF, and they had coverage of Jewish and Muslium women speaking out against the possible ballot measure. :?

I heard about the foreskin restoration thing a couple years ago, and then found out about the ballot for making it illegal in SF about a week ago or so.

The level of silliness is just amazing. If it were to go through, I'd say that our next laws would be focused on making sure that people don't get piercings or tattoos before the age of 18. Or any type of appearance-based, non-medically-necessary surgery. Including braces.

-handcuff

[failsafe]

I heard about the foreskin restoration thing a couple years ago, and then found out about the ballot for making it illegal in SF about a week ago or so.

The level of silliness is just amazing. If it were to go through, I'd say that our next laws would be focused on making sure that people don't get piercings or tattoos before the age of 18. Or any type of appearance-based, non-medically-necessary surgery. Including braces.

-handcuff

Can you get a tattoo before the age of 18 anywhere anyway? I love my tattoo, which I got when I was 19, but I remember when I turned 18 the "cool" thing to do was to get a tattoo. 5 of my friends with birthdays in the same month went on the same day to get tattoos.

[camdendayton]

I heard about the foreskin restoration thing a couple years ago, and then found out about the ballot for making it illegal in SF about a week ago or so.

The level of silliness is just amazing. If it were to go through, I'd say that our next laws would be focused on making sure that people don't get piercings or tattoos before the age of 18. Or any type of appearance-based, non-medically-necessary surgery. Including braces.

-handcuff

I don't think there's any way it will pass, though anything's possible w/ CA's goofy ballot measures. :sigh:

[Beeks]

You technically aren't supposed to get tattoos before 18, but that works about as well as the "no drinking before 21" rule. I know plenty of people who've managed to break it!

[SinInTheCamp]

I don't think children's bodies should be modified at all, including circumcision and ear piercing, for non-medically necessary reasons. I think their bodies should be left intact for them to do with as they will once they're of age.

[Marchpane]

Oh, new can of worms alert! I remember the Great Circumcision Debate back in "the old days" : on Yuku. So I'll just go and get my tin hat and grab a spade to dig a defensive trench. This could get nasty..... :violence-duel:

[ladypuglover]

Oh, new can of worms alert! I remember the Great Circumcision Debate back in "the old days" : on Yuku. So I'll just go and get my tin hat and grab a spade to dig a defensive trench. This could get nasty..... :violence-duel:

It might get ugly :violence-stickwhack:

[valsa]

I don't think children's bodies should be modified at all, including circumcision and ear piercing, for non-medically necessary reasons. I think their bodies should be left intact for them to do with as they will once they're of age.

I agree. I don't think parents should be able to get their kids tattooed without their consent so I don't believe other perm. body modification should be allowed either.

Not to mention the whole "it's for cleanliness" thing is mostly a bunch of outdated crap.

[luckylibrarian]

Pulling up my chair...

:angry-soapbox: :angry-cussingargument: :angry-cussingblack: :angry-banghead:

[oolong]

*puts some popcorn in the microwave*

I don't think males are circumcised in the U.S. to prevent masturbation these days, but historically it is something doctors recommended to stop masturbation in both males and females, back when everyone seriously believed it would make you sickly and insane. There is a whole confluence of reasons it became so popular here. Where I live, about half the population is Hispanic and they do not circumcise, so the majority of infants here are no longer circumcised.

[lalapendragon]

Regardless of outdated cleanliness ideas it is still an cultural/religious issue for Jews and Muslims so the idea of it being legislated against in SF strikes me as outrageous. It is not the same as getting a tattoo. I don't like the way it looks when I see baby girls with pierced ears but friends tell me this is a cultural tradition in some Hispanic cultures so it is none of my business. I cannot imagine having or not having a foreskin has anything to do with the frequency of spanking the monkey.

[failsafe]

My culture does pierced ears during babyhood. While I know tradition is not always the BEST reason to do something, I think it can still be an important reason. Also, let's be honest - if men weren't circumcised as babies very, very, very few would elect to have "cut your penis" surgeries. That doesn't mean they don't and wouldn't prefer look, feel or form of their circumcised penis, it just means the surgery is more complex with a longer recovery time as an adult, and frankly, there are some things I think they're happy enough not to remember.

But most men I know, circumcised or not, manage to masturbate frequently.

[Rosa]

Historically, it really was about masturbation. There were ALL SORTS of crazy anti-masturbation things going around in the 19th and early 20th century, including a link to eugenics theory in that it was popularly (and in some cases "scientifically") believed that men could use up the vital essence of their sperm through masturbation or having too much sex, and have children that were mentally and/or physically deficient, and this was used as an argument for forced sterilization.

Here's a list of reasons given by doctors for mental illness of asylum patients, 1882, that has masturbation on it - they really did think it was a serious issue.

http://www.mccarter.org/education/mrs-p ... tml/6.html

[Beeks]

I don't think children's bodies should be modified at all, including circumcision and ear piercing, for non-medically necessary reasons. I think their bodies should be left intact for them to do with as they will once they're of age.

Are you against it if it's done for religious reasons as well?

[Beeks]

Historically, it really was about masturbation. There were ALL SORTS of crazy anti-masturbation things going around in the 19th and early 20th century, including a link to eugenics theory in that it was popularly (and in some cases "scientifically") believed that men could use up the vital essence of their sperm through masturbation or having too much sex, and have children that were mentally and/or physically deficient, and this was used as an argument for forced sterilization.

Here's a list of reasons given by doctors for mental illness of asylum patients, 1882, that has masturbation on it - they really did think it was a serious issue.

http://www.mccarter.org/education/mrs-p ... tml/6.html

No, historically it was about the Bible.

[failsafe]

Here's a list of reasons given by doctors for mental illness of asylum patients, 1882, that has masturbation on it - they really did think it was a serious issue.

And yet around this time, hysteria as a code word for sexual dissatisfaction in women was becoming more an more a subject of review by the medical community, leading to the physical massage (by doctors), machinery and water sprays used to achieve orgasm in women. It's so interesting to see the difference in the way the treatment of masturbation played out between the sexes - either medicalized or demonized.

[valsa]

Are you against it if it's done for religious reasons as well?

Since we all know it's going to come up eventually in this thread- female circumcision. IIRC, not a religious practice but an important cultural practice to those who perform it. Does that make it okay?

[Beeks]

Since we all know it's going to come up eventually in this thread- female circumcision. IIRC, not a religious practice but an important cultural practice to those who perform it. Does that make it okay?

No, but female circ is HUGELY different from male. Comparing the two is along the lines of comparing the Pearl's brand of discipline to 1-2-3 Magic or something.

[higgledypiggledy]

Our first son was circ'd at the insistence of my husband. I was the one in the peds office when they did it. It didn't heal well and I was the one in the peds office when they had to fix it. He wasn't lopped off but had a weird skin tag thingy (Is this TMI?) Anyway that was ten years ago. So with our son we had last fall, before he was born our practitioner required parents to watch a dvd about circumcision. I wish I had burned a copy for people we know having boys. It was fascinating and my husband almost passed out. He had never thought about male circumcision in the same way he did famale circ. He also found out it is the most frequently performed cosmetic surgery in the US and one of very few insurance regularly covers. Anyway, our second son isn't circ'd. When my first son asked about it, we told him we didn't know better and would have made a different choice if we were better informed instead of not questioning cultural norms. To the question above--both Judaism and Islam place significance on male circumcision. It is culturally important to circ the boys, if female circs are mutilation, then aren't boys' circs as well? A lovely tidbit traditionalists downplay in the US is that after the numb up shot the baby can't feel the pain. Turns out that isn't actually true. And male circs lessen sexual pleasure just like female ones fdo.