No, I got bored and turned it off. As much as I enjoy their humor, I don't find them to accurate representatives of science. Sort of like Mythbusters, they're running a TV show, it''s not peer reviewed SCIENCE. The last I saw was that studies showed benefits, so pardon me if other studies show no benefit - apparently there is not yet a real scientific consensus.




[/quote]

I'm not an expert on dicks, I just remember reading an article in some magazine (no not that kind!) about how 90% of American baby boys get cut and how immigrants are always weirded out by this when they first have a kid here. Maybe it is 60% of currently living men? or Adult men, or whatever. Regardless, it's really common and I don't think anyone would disagree that the majority of men in the US have been cut.

I've always heard that circumcision started in the US for health reasons relating to the belief that it made you less prone to get syphalis and all that shit. It doesn't make logical sense why they would think it would prevent masturbation. To me that sounds like propaganda made up by the anti-circumcision people - there is this organized group in the US of men who are pissed they were circumcised and want to be able to sue doctors over it so they go around spreading anti-circumcision propaganda. it's extremely bizzare, I've run into a few on the web over the years and they are fucking bizarre!

re: divorce rates - I don't think many women divorce their husbands over their dicks. I'm extremely skeptical that there is any noticeable difference from a womans perspective, besides the whole "it tastes gross" thing I've heard, which is probably really just a "he's a dirty fuck who needs to shower" issue than anything else.

nope it's not propaganda. it's pretty much the general consensus that its non religious practice originated from very negative attitudes toward masturbation and sexuality. you only have to look back to Victorian times to see the extremes they went to to prevent masturbation
<<<--- this was a device dating back to 1903 or something. google it youlll come up with more and more wierd shit.
You only have to look back at the sexual history of the western world to realise the extremes people went to prevent masturbation. it was among the foul sins a person could commit or something next to murder and stealing or something, so its only logical that they would circumcise all babies to desensitise the penis and prevent frivolous activities. And if it wasn't to prevent more open sexuality what caused it? This was a Jewish tradition at the time, and a lot of people wouldn't have been open to accepting a Jewish tradition without good reason back then this was the 1800s remember... at least in Europe anyway the popularity of the Jews was never hihg ( in fact some in London feared that Jewish emancipation would actually result in global circumcision and tried to prevent it accordingly) And i doubt they would have gone to the extremes of circumcising every baby for hygiene reasons. if that were the case, i'd say it would have been largley confined to upper classes (which its not suggested anywhere that it was). there does seem to have been some element of "preventing aliments" to its growth in practice, the main driving force was the sex push... most circumcisions carried out for medical reasons were not neo natal back then anyway i think i remember reading somewhere... or maybe i didn't..... i can't remember...



the whole divorce rates thing was a joke notlob...

Edit: it's actually really hard to find info on circumcision that you can be absolutely guaranteed of nuetrality. it's such a personal thing with men that everyone who discusses seems to have a predetermined slant on it anyway... so maybe it is all propaganda... although the wealth of information and quotes of medical journals from the era that list among the benefits of circumcision and curbing the sex drive would still suggest otherwise...

I guess I am unaware about this consensus re: circumcision as anti-masturbation technique. Clearly that shit does not work!

Re: The Victorians, I don't think the insanity of a small few really proves things one way or the other. 100 years from now they could show each other pictures of bondage gear available on the internet and say "those early 21st century types were all into S&M!". I'm not saying the point you are making is incorrect, just that I am generally skeptical and don't find it wholly convincing. There are always groups of people with deviant sexuality one way or the other,I don't think you can conclude anything from that.

I also think that regardless of why it may have become popularized, if it does provide some medical benefit then there is no reason to stop. Clearly there is no significant drawback - there may or may not be some decrease in sensitivity, but that doesn't impede normal "function" so it can be set aside. Are there any other negative consequences then? Maybe it will turn out that science will find there is absolutely no medical benefit and 100 years from now people will look back at us and think we were nuts for wasting so much time and effort snipping babies foreskins off. That would be some funny shit.

I can back it up that most people here in the states are circumcised. Its almost always done as a very young child if its done at all. If not, its extremely painful.

You may think its very odd for people to have it done, but here its the opposite. If your uncircumcised, your probably gonna get a joke or two cracked at you for it. It may sound weird, but when the subject has come up, I know of one person in my school that is uncircumcised, and that guy was born in Germany.

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!

http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.php