Why is circumcision unpopular in the UK?!
Question: Why is circumcision unpopular in the UK.?
maybe I'm just oblivious, but i just recently found out that it is more common in the UK to be uncut than in the US! i'm a girl (american) and i dont personally know *any* uncut guys. not one. is there a certain reason circumcision isnt that common in the UK.? And what do uncut guys in the UK think of cut guys in the US.?Health Question & Answer
Answers:
In order to understand this you need to know why it was done in the first place. Make no mistake. Circumcision is a terrible thing to have done to you. A foreskin is there for a reason, and its about 10 times more sensitive than the glans.
In America is the land of very religious right wing fanatics. One look at George Bush should prove this right off the bat. Years ago it was seen as a way to preven boys from playing with themsevles. The big M word. I myself had British parents but I was raised here in the States and all my friends were cut.
This is aserious cut ! Over 50% percent of the penis is missing. Gone is the gliding action. The action that teaches a young boy that it feels great to have a set of lips glide past the glans. But this is too much pleasure for young boys to have anbd they should be in church reading about religious things and noyt playing with themselves.
As it turns out most american males are dysfunctional in later life. Their glans dry out and become all but useless. Viagra, and a huge industry of lubes and products to help the U.S. males now make up a growing billion dollar industry. Males are even attempting to restore their foreskins.
Today the practice is that at each hospital there is a full staff of people who's job it is to gain authority and concent to cut the skins as part of a hughe trade in the foreskins. The value of these skins is such that stem cells are able to be grown from them. The Bush administration prohibited stem cell research from unborn fetus tissues, and now the foreskin is the only source.
Labs across America participate in a billion dollar inductry to harvast them. Its all sold to Americans as a clean benefitial simple process. Instead it is Mutilation beyond belief. I was mastubating as a 4 year old. Almost all the time. My parents knew what I was doing. Boys will be boys they said.
Today each of my frienmds have problems in pleasing a girl and in performance as their skins have all dried up. I am the only one that has no problems and I mastubate many times a day and then some, and I still please my girl too.
Sex with a cut male has much more friction and lube must be used. By contrast sex with a foreskin male is soft and pleasing to a woman.
In Britain they learned this right away, and stoipped it. In America we never learn from something that brings that much revenue and supports a huge industry now to include restoration.
And that is the way it is...
In the 1980's 90 percent of newborn boys were mutilated.
This is down today at about 60 percent and dropping each year. So the Bush administration turned their efforts to Africa. They sell it as a HIV prevention effort. Most of the males inb the U.S. are cut. This has not reduced the spread of HIV, and some numbers suggest that it might have increased it as the friction and tearing of skin due to the lack of lube would indicate.
In short a boy need a foreskin to be a complete and happy boy. The damage done in the U.S. is the best kept economic secret in modern times, and the profits in the industry and practice are enormous.
Your best answer.Health Question & Answer
In America is the land of very religious right wing fanatics. One look at George Bush should prove this right off the bat. Years ago it was seen as a way to preven boys from playing with themsevles. The big M word. I myself had British parents but I was raised here in the States and all my friends were cut.
This is aserious cut ! Over 50% percent of the penis is missing. Gone is the gliding action. The action that teaches a young boy that it feels great to have a set of lips glide past the glans. But this is too much pleasure for young boys to have anbd they should be in church reading about religious things and noyt playing with themselves.
As it turns out most american males are dysfunctional in later life. Their glans dry out and become all but useless. Viagra, and a huge industry of lubes and products to help the U.S. males now make up a growing billion dollar industry. Males are even attempting to restore their foreskins.
Today the practice is that at each hospital there is a full staff of people who's job it is to gain authority and concent to cut the skins as part of a hughe trade in the foreskins. The value of these skins is such that stem cells are able to be grown from them. The Bush administration prohibited stem cell research from unborn fetus tissues, and now the foreskin is the only source.
Labs across America participate in a billion dollar inductry to harvast them. Its all sold to Americans as a clean benefitial simple process. Instead it is Mutilation beyond belief. I was mastubating as a 4 year old. Almost all the time. My parents knew what I was doing. Boys will be boys they said.
Today each of my frienmds have problems in pleasing a girl and in performance as their skins have all dried up. I am the only one that has no problems and I mastubate many times a day and then some, and I still please my girl too.
Sex with a cut male has much more friction and lube must be used. By contrast sex with a foreskin male is soft and pleasing to a woman.
In Britain they learned this right away, and stoipped it. In America we never learn from something that brings that much revenue and supports a huge industry now to include restoration.
And that is the way it is...
In the 1980's 90 percent of newborn boys were mutilated.
This is down today at about 60 percent and dropping each year. So the Bush administration turned their efforts to Africa. They sell it as a HIV prevention effort. Most of the males inb the U.S. are cut. This has not reduced the spread of HIV, and some numbers suggest that it might have increased it as the friction and tearing of skin due to the lack of lube would indicate.
In short a boy need a foreskin to be a complete and happy boy. The damage done in the U.S. is the best kept economic secret in modern times, and the profits in the industry and practice are enormous.
Your best answer.Health Question & Answer
There's uncut guys everywhere, and it's the choice of the parents or the doctor to perform a circumcision . Circumcision was one thought of as a necessary procedure for personal hygiene. It also may have been responsible for infant trauma and possible subconscious mental scars. Usually an uncut penis is much more sensitive, and is usually thicker than a cut penis (more pleasure for both the man and woman), although a bit more personal care is necessary for an uncut penis.Health Question & Answer
You just happen to come from a rare spot on the planet where circumcism IS common, the US. But even there the rate is declining rapidly as people realize there is no point or purpose for the vast majority of males. About 80% of all males on the planet are natural. There is rarely a true medical reason for circumcism, usually it is touted as a hygeine issue (totally without merit) or is religious based. Frankly it started up in the US after a huge influx of jewish immigrants fleeing the Nazis, and included many medical professionals. In the Nazi occupied areas, men were often forced to drop their pants on the street if believed to be jewish, and since only jewish guys were cut, they were easy to identify. Can't do that in the US, since the belief was spread that circumcism is a necessary hygiene issue-- but the real reason back in the 1930s-1950s was to lessen the likelyhood of the jewish purges--you can't tell who is jewish or not in the US due to almost every guy being cut.Health Question & Answer
Prior to WW2 around 50% of British boys were circumcised. At this time there was no socialised medicine and all medical treatment had to be paid for. Circumcision was almost universal amongst the 'upper class' and the 'middle class' who both appreciated its benefits and could afford it for their sons. The 'working class' could not afford it and generally didn't have enough access to suitable education to know its benefits. Those few who did know aspired to have their boys circumcised but often didn't have the money for it.
During the war many of Britain's doctors and hospitals were involved in the war effort and those who were left caring for the civilian population needed to cut down on non-essential work and some started turning away from doing circumcisions. This mainly affected the 'middle class' as they were more numerous in towns and cities than the 'upper class'.
After the war the government introduced the National Health Service (NHS) which was funded from a form of taxation. Doctors were then paid by the NHS according to the number of patients on their books and not according to what they actually did for them. There was no extra money to be made from circumcisions, but they caused extra work and costs, so again doctors often discouraged them, once again disadvantaging the 'working class' and 'middle class' who could not afford to go elsewhere and pay the private practice fees. The 'upper class' continued to pay for their sons to be circumcised.
Over the years the NHS has been regularly under-funded and thus unable to meet all the demands on it, so has developed a deliberate policy of ignoring the long-term prophylactic benefits and discouraging circumcision.
Britain now has a very large Muslim population which demands circumcision for its boys. There is once again a growing awareness of the medical benefits of circumcision as more folk are able to get the true facts from the Internet. Whilst the NHS generally hasn't caught up with this modern research evidence there are a growing number of doctors in private practice who are offering circumcision, not only to the Muslim population but to all who wish it for themselves and their sons.
In the USA the was far less of a shortage of local doctors in the war and people have always been used to paying for their medical services, thus circumcision rates have hardly changed overall in the last century.Health Question & Answer
During the war many of Britain's doctors and hospitals were involved in the war effort and those who were left caring for the civilian population needed to cut down on non-essential work and some started turning away from doing circumcisions. This mainly affected the 'middle class' as they were more numerous in towns and cities than the 'upper class'.
After the war the government introduced the National Health Service (NHS) which was funded from a form of taxation. Doctors were then paid by the NHS according to the number of patients on their books and not according to what they actually did for them. There was no extra money to be made from circumcisions, but they caused extra work and costs, so again doctors often discouraged them, once again disadvantaging the 'working class' and 'middle class' who could not afford to go elsewhere and pay the private practice fees. The 'upper class' continued to pay for their sons to be circumcised.
Over the years the NHS has been regularly under-funded and thus unable to meet all the demands on it, so has developed a deliberate policy of ignoring the long-term prophylactic benefits and discouraging circumcision.
Britain now has a very large Muslim population which demands circumcision for its boys. There is once again a growing awareness of the medical benefits of circumcision as more folk are able to get the true facts from the Internet. Whilst the NHS generally hasn't caught up with this modern research evidence there are a growing number of doctors in private practice who are offering circumcision, not only to the Muslim population but to all who wish it for themselves and their sons.
In the USA the was far less of a shortage of local doctors in the war and people have always been used to paying for their medical services, thus circumcision rates have hardly changed overall in the last century.Health Question & Answer
Circumcision is ONLY common in the US.
And the reason why it's not common anywhere else is because there is absolutly no reason to circumcise a boy.
All those things that say it's healthier or it's cleaner or it prevents infections of STD's or any of that BS are MYTHS and nothing more.
I'm sure they feel sorry for all the circumcised guys here.
Uncircumcised guys enjoy sex more.
-ConnorHealth Question & Answer
And the reason why it's not common anywhere else is because there is absolutly no reason to circumcise a boy.
All those things that say it's healthier or it's cleaner or it prevents infections of STD's or any of that BS are MYTHS and nothing more.
I'm sure they feel sorry for all the circumcised guys here.
Uncircumcised guys enjoy sex more.
-ConnorHealth Question & Answer
people in the UK are smart enough to not mutilate their babies
in the U.S. it's 50/50, jewish and muslim people cut the skin off for religious reasons
cut or uncut shouldn't make that much of a difference anyway, it's a penis either way. i just don't think circumcision is necessary, i actually think it's kinda cruel since they're slicing off an important body part.Health Question & Answer
in the U.S. it's 50/50, jewish and muslim people cut the skin off for religious reasons
cut or uncut shouldn't make that much of a difference anyway, it's a penis either way. i just don't think circumcision is necessary, i actually think it's kinda cruel since they're slicing off an important body part.Health Question & Answer
It's unpopular everywhere dear, even in the USA, the American Pediatric Association declared more than thirty years ago that there are no medical benefits whatsoever to systematic circumcision.
Even in the USA there are less circumcised guys than "natural" today...Health Question & Answer
Even in the USA there are less circumcised guys than "natural" today...Health Question & Answer
It used to be doen more regularly, 50 years ago. Now it's only done when medically necessary. British people are not used to paying for medical procedures, and I guess circumcision has to be paid for.Health Question & Answer
Because people now know that the foreskin protects nerves on the penis which helps increase sexual pleasure. There are also a lot of Americans who are not circumcised. It doesn't really matter at the end of the dayHealth Question & Answer
Actually, in the US your wrong. More people are uncut than cut.
It's cause people are finally realizing there's a point in a foreskin.Health Question & Answer
It's cause people are finally realizing there's a point in a foreskin.Health Question & Answer
There are more uncut guys in the US then you realize. In fact the % of uncut guys in the US is climing very fast.Health Question & Answer
its only unpopular to men who are awakeHealth Question & Answer