Are most americans born today left uncut?

The great thing that we all have here is that this is being discussed and that it is making people think. Some will re-affirm their opinion whatever it may be and others may take the time to actually investigate the procedure.

The procedure is definitely regional. It is also cultural with some cultures prefering to perform the circumcision and others prefering to leave male offspring intact.

When I was in High School at the time there were also lines drawn based on race or ethnic heritage.

In my case my resentment is not towards my parents in any manner. My parents were never asked. The attending MD simply went ahead and did this submitting an extra charge on his bill for my parents to pay. He used the damn circumcision as a way to pad is bill and get more money. He did this because in 1953 he was able to get away with it and because many of his associates were doing the same thing.

Like another member, I also attended a "weenie whack party" for one of my friends of the Jewish faith. I remember the whole thing and though I don't really have an opinion against what was done, my thoughts again went to the parents of the child in quesiton. The Father and Mother had both been through absolute hell because of a very difficult delivery. The Paternal Grandmother had taken care of all the arrangements and wanted the best for her Grandson. I distinctly remember and in fact served in a very minor role as the Father's best friend within the Ceremony even though I am not of the same faith.

The poor kid is given some wine and then the "chop". Based on that kid's particular reaction the pain was not all that bad for the act itself.

I think that the worst pain I saw that day was when the Mohl congratulated damn near everybody in the whole place and on the way out shook the proud Father's hand submitting a bill for $3,500.00 for his fifteen minute act. The Father's remark to me was: "Thanks to my Mom it just cost me more to get the kid's weenie whacked than it did to have the kid!" He was the one in the most pain there.............

There was a time that medical insurance even paid for this particular procedure. Those days are gone because there are no statistics which it seems back up the old thoughts of or unproven advantages of this procedure. It is now considered a cosmetic procedure and as such is not covered unless there is a specific medical cause for it.

If we treat this as a cosmetic procedure being performed on an infant we are in fact now telling the truth.

A penis is capable of functioning in either an uncircumcised or circumcised state.

I hope that people think before the scalpel more than they did. I also hope that when circumcisions are performed that they are done a great deal more for a medical reason instead of a cosmetic one. Over time this is changing.

All we need to do is to define the reasons these days as they are. It is a cosmetic preference instead of a medical necessity.

moez.... are you nuts, something that has such an effect on your whole life should not be left to your parents. Intact is how God made it, that is how it should be. If you want to change it later in life, so be it. At least you decided. Do you know how many nerve endings are located in the foreskin, why would you take that away from your son.

hold on, someone made a sweeping generalization about an entire group of people, then you agree with it, and that makes me wrong?

I can't see how you piece together your logic. No one has said anything in this thread that was beyond their own opinion, how is anyone wrong or right?

but i guess insulting an entire group of people simply for being born in a specific region is justified, right?

i think you're completely missing the tongue in cheek nature of the post.
he was taking the piss. pulling your leg. yanking your chain.

americans never get sarcasm.
please note, sarcasm was used in the making of this post.

uncut much better

Yes, it's a measure of the resilience of the human body that it will still function. But the ability to ejaculate is not necessarily the measure of sexual function and pleasure.

We cannot say that genital cutting makes a more functional penis, because the movable parts are mostly amputated. Genital cutting produces lots of men who are not very well functioning - worse off than the average - and many cut men lose sexual function as they grow older earlier than intact men.

What are you basing this off of?

I posted a link showing a study that proved otherwise, that was conducted less than a month ago. You are just saying this out of, what, personal experience? I assume you haven't recently experienced both cut and uncut.

Corrected text.

The study didn't prove anything.He has experienced both cut and restored. While that isn't the same as intact v. cut, it's arguably close.

Moez, I think the authors of your study are mostly trying to promote circumcision as a preventative for HIV infection. We don't really need studies to show that this is stupid and detrimental. When does partial amputation ever improve sensation or function? But here's a researcher who pretty much says the opposite:

Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle According to New Future HIV Therapy Report

If you want to think circumcision is harmless, you're going to think that no matter what anyone says to you. But use your head and challenge what you already believe. You may be surprised how your thinking changes over time.

Self-hatred, self-loathing, also sometimes autophobia refers to an extreme dislike of oneself, or being angry at oneself. The term is also used to designate a dislike or hatred of a group to which one belongs

Isn't autophobia a fear of one's self because that's considerably different to hating oneself