It’s an astroturfed topic, sold as desirable for esthetic reasons or as a BS health issue.
Only a hyper-consumerist society would promote unnecessary medical procedures.
And only gullible consumers would buy that.
Sexual prudishness is definitely there in your backward country but that can exist with or whitout foreskins.
Not the reason.
That’s obviously you working backwards from your opinions on America. Nobody advertises it here nor have they in a generation or two. It’s an assumed default to the point that anti circumcision activists often have to argue with partners and sometimes circumcision is done without parental consent.
But fundamentally, this comes from the late 19th and early 20th century where it was seen as an attempt to reduce masturbation and disease. There’s no reason to believe that the doctors recommending it at the time didn’t sincerely believe it to be for the best, it was just a time in which medical science was a bit bonkers.
So you believe that they are more influenced by some 18th century bonkers doctors than present day perceived beauty standards, peer pressure and commercialised medicine?
And Wikipedia is not a reference BTW
Where do you think the peer pressure and beauty standards came from? It was those wacko doctors. To the point where it became “what you do”. Modern commercialization of medicine is unrelated. It became what Americans do when their infant has a dick. Most Americans just did it. Speaking as an American who had a foreskin and who has dated multiple anti circumcision activists, I seriously can’t emphasize enough how much it’s just autopilot for everyone. There’s no marketing cabal of the medical establishment to push circumcision to make money, its just that very few of the doctors that have dicks have foreskins, very few of the patients’ fathers have them either, and if given a flat question, very few of the patients are going to leave with one. And that culture of circumcision came from an era where the main goal was to stop masturbation because it was seen as leading to mental illness.
And Wikipedia isn’t an academic source, it’s one of the absolute best “here’s what seems to be known” sources for casual understanding because it’s curated and shows it’s sources. No encyclopedia is an acceptable source in academics. And I’m also aware that my personal experiences don’t count as a rigorous source.
very few of the doctors that have dicks have foreskins, very few of the patients’ fathers have them either,
35.5% to 41.7% from 1979 through 2010 can in no reasonable way be called ‘very few’.
That is from the CDC (a real source)
And the concept of Wikipedia sounded good at the time but reality is different.
It is highly manipulable, as often happened and even their own ‘curation’ is on the highest level not transparent.
And what is stated in articles is not necessarily true since they indeed show sources but they can also be shit depending on who edits the article.
But most people won’t even look at them, “wiki says it’s so” and that’s that.
You can use it if you need to look something up about a flower but any controversial topic and certainly political stuff most certainly not.
We’re weird about foreskins for one
deleted by creator
That’s bcs you’re all very gullible to marketing/disease mongering in your hyper-consumerist ‘society’.
I really don’t see how hyper-consumerism has anything to do with our cultural bias against foreskin that comes from our history of sexual prudishness.
It’s an astroturfed topic, sold as desirable for esthetic reasons or as a BS health issue.
Only a hyper-consumerist society would promote unnecessary medical procedures.
And only gullible consumers would buy that.
Sexual prudishness is definitely there in your backward country but that can exist with or whitout foreskins.
Not the reason.
That’s obviously you working backwards from your opinions on America. Nobody advertises it here nor have they in a generation or two. It’s an assumed default to the point that anti circumcision activists often have to argue with partners and sometimes circumcision is done without parental consent.
Here’s Wikipedia on the history of the practice
But fundamentally, this comes from the late 19th and early 20th century where it was seen as an attempt to reduce masturbation and disease. There’s no reason to believe that the doctors recommending it at the time didn’t sincerely believe it to be for the best, it was just a time in which medical science was a bit bonkers.
So you believe that they are more influenced by some 18th century bonkers doctors than present day perceived beauty standards, peer pressure and commercialised medicine?
And Wikipedia is not a reference BTW
Where do you think the peer pressure and beauty standards came from? It was those wacko doctors. To the point where it became “what you do”. Modern commercialization of medicine is unrelated. It became what Americans do when their infant has a dick. Most Americans just did it. Speaking as an American who had a foreskin and who has dated multiple anti circumcision activists, I seriously can’t emphasize enough how much it’s just autopilot for everyone. There’s no marketing cabal of the medical establishment to push circumcision to make money, its just that very few of the doctors that have dicks have foreskins, very few of the patients’ fathers have them either, and if given a flat question, very few of the patients are going to leave with one. And that culture of circumcision came from an era where the main goal was to stop masturbation because it was seen as leading to mental illness.
And Wikipedia isn’t an academic source, it’s one of the absolute best “here’s what seems to be known” sources for casual understanding because it’s curated and shows it’s sources. No encyclopedia is an acceptable source in academics. And I’m also aware that my personal experiences don’t count as a rigorous source.
35.5% to 41.7% from 1979 through 2010 can in no reasonable way be called ‘very few’.
That is from the CDC (a real source)
And the concept of Wikipedia sounded good at the time but reality is different.
It is highly manipulable, as often happened and even their own ‘curation’ is on the highest level not transparent. And what is stated in articles is not necessarily true since they indeed show sources but they can also be shit depending on who edits the article.
But most people won’t even look at them, “wiki says it’s so” and that’s that. You can use it if you need to look something up about a flower but any controversial topic and certainly political stuff most certainly not.
Anyway, enough about this.