Why are American babies circumcised?

[ned]

Why ?


I'm really curious about this issue. Why do people other than Muslims and Jews do this? European, Canadian and Christian Asians do not circumcise. American scientists know that circumcision is harmful and why do they insist? I would be glad if you write your thoughts on this subject. I love you all.

[greg_b]

Because Doctors recommend it. Because the medical profession gives biased information to parents. Because people have become conditioned to think the foreskin has no value, that babies are better off without their foreskin, that the surgery is minor and causes little pain. Because parents are fear mongered into thinking they will traumatize their child if they don't. There are lots of reasons. You can find a lot on line. Google is useful, if you can evaluate sources. Here is a link to get you started:

Circumstitions - the full list

[BelgianChris]

Because there’s a lot of ignorance. Also, I wouldn’t state things as general as you do, as there’s more places outside of US where parents choose for circumcision not because of religious reasons but also for cultural reasons. None of them make sense in a scientific way, but ignorance is still widespread. I still can’t put my head around how anyone would would believe that unnecessary, harmful and painful surgery would in any way benefit any child, but yet habits seem to be super important to some people. It doesn’t make any sense and there’s no sensible way to understand I’d say…

[The Metal One]

Long story short: it all began when some people with some very obvious sexual issues convinced parents that circumcision was a way to prevent boys from "abusing themselves" (AKA masturbating). Some BS medical justifications were made up, it spread to the doctors, generation after generation of men were cut because their fathers were (and/or to avoid having the uncut kid think himself abnormal), and here we are.

[z726]

Someone still maintains an old website on the history of circumcision, created by the late Robert Darby, a historian from Australia. Here's a timeline he typed up showing the emergence of circumcision in the English-speaking world - mainly the USA, but England, Canada, and Australia have each had their problems with it:

https://www.historyofcircumcision.com/chronology.html

Most of his relevant information starts in the year 1716, if you want to skip ahead. Note that some of his information may be inaccurate - one such entry I noticed was his statement that the American Academy of Pediatrics supported circumcision in the late 1880s. I assume Darby has it mistaken for the American Pediatric Society, which was founded in 1888. The AAP was founded in 1930, and made no statement on circumcision until 1971.

His essay on the history of circumcision in the USA goes into more detail about how it became popularized in the 20th century:

https://www.historyofcircumcision.com/usa.html

Note that some external links on the site are no longer working, as it was originally published in 2010.

[admin]

generation after generation of men were cut because their fathers were

Sorry I don't have a citation, but at one of the Genital Autonomy symposia, I saw a presentation about a study correlating all sorts of into to the fate of the newborn's foreskin. The most reliable predictor about whether the baby would be cut was if the father had been cut.

[ForeskinReclaimer]

Because the people that run the medical industry and doctors are monsters, they get off on being evil and the cover of "doctor" gives them the opportunity. They know exactly what they are doing, their original intentions going in mean nothing, they know full well what they are doing to kids and what they are taking from them. Every single last one of them that has ever been apart of mgm in any way, doing that to a child, must be held a accountable for crimes against humanity.
The is no possibility of defense of ignorance for a doctor, especially a surgeon. And the real kicker is the ones that you might say are "just doing their jobs" "just going along with it" "doing it for the money" are actually worse then the monsters that get off on it. Because at least the monsters that enjoy it at least have the fact they are [email protected]#$ed in the head, if you just went along with for money to keep your job, your Luke warm ass made that decision with a clear level head to disregard the most fundamental rights of a child and their well being and future for money. That is actually worse.
If we ever have trials the excuses and and the bs that is going to come out of there mouths will be unbelievable, some of them even believe their own bs at the surface level, but right beneath that they are so guilty and they know exactly what they did. I have confronted them before, its amazing to watch them squirm and start cracking out when you call them on it. (you want that reaction you better be confident and they better know that you KNOW) Some dude comes up to them randomly with that they start thinking the day has finally come, they know the day is coming where they all get held accountable, I think most of them are just hopping that will be well after they have died, 100's of years from now.
What they did was worse than raping a child, it was also raping a child (including most legal definitions for sexual assault). Never forget this, never down play it.
Read "Circumcision is a fraud"

[FatalStrategies]

Because they are narcaccists who would feed their childrens health and well being into a meatgrinder for a pat on the back, or in the case of the doctor, for some spare change

[FatalStrategies]

Because Doctors recommend it. Because the medical profession gives biased information to parents. Because people have become conditioned to think the foreskin has no value, that babies are better off without their foreskin, that the surgery is minor and causes little pain. Because parents are fear mongered into thinking they will traumatize their child if they don't. There are lots of reasons. You can find a lot on line. Google is useful, if you can evaluate sources. Here is a link to get you started:

Circumstitions - the full list

Yeah but think about the mental gymnastics they have to go though to avoid the obvious- they want to pretend as if it isnt even a part of their body, of course it is or they wouldnt have to hand their baby over to a pedophile with a knife to mutilate them, but such cognitive distortions are the typical function of society.

These circumstitions are an issue and do play a role, but I think we should focus more on the mental gymnastics required to literally hand your baby over to a pedophile with a knife to cut on their genitals just because he spewed the right combination of noises at you. Why is it so easy for parents to stop caring about their childrens health or wellbeing, yet so hard for them to admit it. "Yes go ahead and mutilate my sons genitals but for gods sake dont make me feel bad about it." Some of these so-called "parents" are soo deluded they will even post other posts right afterwardsabout how much they love their kids and would never let any harm befall them- its very obvious that something more is going on here and my professional opinion is that the bulk of American Parents are narcissists.

[KragDragon]

The reason I was given as a kid was "because it makes it nicer". Didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

[FatalStrategies]

The reason I was given as a kid was "because it makes it nicer". Didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

thats disturbing.

[Trey47]

Before World War II most babies were born at home, delivered by a midwife or another woman, no one was circumsiced at home. After World War II most babies were born in a hospital delivered by a doctor. Some where along the line they decided circumsicion was some prevention from penis cancer and a lot cleaner thereafter. Whomever made that decision I don't know but doctors think they are playing God all the time. Nature put a foreskin on man and other mammals because it is needed to protect the shaft and head of the penis. Nature is not wrong it has been providing man and the animals with whatever they need since the beginning of evolution. If it is needed nature provides it, if not it will eventually disappear. I would rather have something nature said I needed rather something a man decided I didn't need. That is an individual decision a man should be able to make on his own.

[FatalStrategies]

Before World War II most babies were born at home, delivered by a midwife or another woman, no one was circumsiced at home. After World War II most babies were born in a hospital delivered by a doctor. Some where along the line they decided circumsicion was some prevention from penis cancer and a lot cleaner thereafter. Whomever made that decision I don't know but doctors think they are playing God all the time. Nature put a foreskin on man and other mammals because it is needed to protect the shaft and head of the penis. Nature is not wrong it has been providing man and the animals with whatever they need since the beginning of evolution. If it is needed nature provides it, if not it will eventually disappear. I would rather have something nature said I needed rather something a man decided I didn't need. That is an individual decision a man should be able to make on his own.

That is not at all what happened.

Both female and male genital mutilations became somewhat normalized in the Victorian era, Female Genital Mutilation became somewhat routine from the 1920's to 1940's whereas male genital mutilation steadily rose until it became routine around the 1940's. FGM remained somewhat popular from the 1960's to 1970's before going out of style, being repressed from the public consciousness throughout the 1980's and 1990's, the period of time during which MGM was at peak popularity- likely they supressed all evidence that it was a thing within the few years after blue cross blue sheild stopped covering them.
In any case, up until the 1960s it was considered enough of an explaination or justification to do this simply because it would make it more difficult for them to masturbate- expicitly to cause sexual harm. Because of the way people thought then this was in and of itself seen as a medical reason. It was only with the counterculture normalizing masturbation that they had to resort to other justifications- throughout the 1970s they simply pretended it was medically necessary, and by the time they were forced to admit that it wasn't, around the 19990's, thats when they made up all of this shit about HIV/AIDS and "penile cancer."

[FatalStrategies]

Before World War II most babies were born at home, delivered by a midwife or another woman, no one was circumsiced at home. After World War II most babies were born in a hospital delivered by a doctor. Some where along the line they decided circumsicion was some prevention from penis cancer and a lot cleaner thereafter. Whomever made that decision I don't know but doctors think they are playing God all the time. Nature put a foreskin on man and other mammals because it is needed to protect the shaft and head of the penis. Nature is not wrong it has been providing man and the animals with whatever they need since the beginning of evolution. If it is needed nature provides it, if not it will eventually disappear. I would rather have something nature said I needed rather something a man decided I didn't need. That is an individual decision a man should be able to make on his own.

All you have to do is think about these excuses- how is this cleaner? do you have any idea how dirty open wounds are? How is cutting off a art of a childs body" cleaner?" The amount of arbitrary conceptualizing errors you have to deliberately commit to pretend as if this made sense are so immense I can't believe we cant all see right through it.

[RTM]

probably that $500-$800 a cutting that takes less than 10 minutes.