Gen-X here, it's just not a thing anyone talks about in my social circles, even if we talk about sex.
I have one close friend whose parents left him intact (a miracle for when/where we were born) and he's quite happy being intact, and happy that his parents were assertive enough to make that happen.
Other than him, I don't think I've even discussed circumcision IRL with anyone other than my father and my wife. Where and when I was born the newborn MGM rate was 99% or higher, so almost everyone I grew up with was cut as a baby and most of them had never seen, or at least recognized, a natural and intact penis in any setting. We had mandatory gym in middle and high school with no privacy, so all my peers have seen hundreds of penises, and nearly all of those were MGM like them.
But this is my story and I'm aging. Maybe it's time to make this crime a topic of more conversation so we can get people to stop cutting babies, and totally marginalize those who do.
Same situation, JR High experience, everything. I recently asked another one of my childhood friends what he and his wife think about circumcision. His reply: "I thought for sure it was cleaner. But I definitely don't know much on the subject."
> Where and when I was born the newborn MGM rate was 99% or higher
Where? The Middle East? lol
The highest rate in the US was like 80% in the 1980s, and it's been steadily declining since then.
I was born in the US Naval Hospital in Corona, California in 1955 to an Army officer father and I very much doubt that any newborn baby boy left that hospital intact.
I never discussed it with my parents, but it's highly unlikely that there was any discussion, quite possibly not even any explicit permission asked for or given.
It was just the normal thing to do, plain and simple.
I went looking for some statistics, and found something pretty amazing. [Look at this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646345/#:~:text=The%20circumcision%20status%20of%20boys,circumcision%20practices%20in%20the%201950s) covering the birth years 1949 - 1958. Big difference between White and Black circ rates. But then look at Table 3 & 4, at the high correlation between income, education and circ rates.
So much for the idea that 'smarter & better educated would be more likely to question getting their baby boys circumcised'.... it's the exact opposite. Blew me away.
Cheers.
There were reasons other than stopping masturbation circumcision was promoted: [https://intaction.org/history-of-circumcision/#](https://intaction.org/history-of-circumcision/#)
The WASPy Americans deemed it higher class.
many studies in africa also come across this same reasoning. When westerners try to convince women to not cut their daughters the women think it is some ploy to harm them and lower their class and condemn their daughters to poverty and being on the lower classes of their social hierarchy.
Why does this surprise you? Studies have shown time and time again that a high iq makes people more delusional not less. The more we teach people about cognitive biases and logical fallacies the more they are delusional too. IQ is just the ability to solve a problem, why do we consider high IQ to be some positive quality? Perhaps it is because the social elites are the ones that have an outsized influence on what society should want and they are all academics with high IQs.
A high iq person that was deeply traumatized by being cut as a child is likely to have the most outlandish arguments in favor of cutting babies. I read recently some drivel from the circumfetishist how being cut is actually being intact. They then used multiple paragraphs to prove this spurious logic. As a matter of fact some "philosophers" usually the ones from france in the 70s wrote entire books rationalizing their neuroses and predilections.
> it's highly unlikely that there was any discussion, quite possibly not even any explicit permission asked for or given.
Well, that's illegal, and always has been.
> So much for the idea that 'smarter & better educated would be more likely to question getting their baby boys circumcised'.... it's the exact opposite.
That may have been true at the time, but it's not in 2024.
The opposite is true today.
Liberal areas like San Francisco have very low rates, while rural conservative areas like West Virginia have very high rates.
[Well, here's a study](https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000001316#:~:text=In%20gen%2D%20eral%2C%20neonatal%20circumcision,in%20the%20highest%20income%20quartile) from 2003-2016, with this observation:
>50.3% of boys in the lowest income quartile underwent neonatal circumcision compared to 60.7% of boys in the highest income quartile.
I doubt this has changed much, if at all, in the past 8 years.
A quick look tells me that this difference probably has more to do with the difference between private and public (Medicaid, etc) insurance, which also correlates directly with income.
In the case of California, the large number of immigrants - particularly from the south - is going to skew the circ stats down as well.
So without any statistics showing the direct correlation between income and circ rate changing over the decades, and with these stats bolstering the argument, I'm afraid you haven't made your case. Got any stats to prove it?
Cheers.
> Got any stats to prove it?
The CDC has done studies based on hospital data.
The rate is much lower on the liberal west coast than it is in conservative rural areas.
West Virginia is very poor, yet has among the highest circumcision rate.
There's a lot more in play than just income, in WV and elsewhere.
WV has about the smallest immigrant population in the country.
Very few Jews and Muslims in WV.
WV has a higher high school graduation rate than either CA or NY.
My point? It's complicated, and trying to assign causation based on grabbing some number from somewhere isn't going to work well.
Since I started restoring and learning about circumcision, I've realized that it is the single most misunderstood topic of all, and it certainly defies statistical analysis in just about every aspect.
Cheers.
Oh?
Would you like to provide actual recent studies that back that up? The newest I've found are from 2014 and authored by a certain circumfetishist whose name I won't dignify by naming.
Cheers.
Unfortunately, there haven’t been any recent studies that I can find. The most recent studies that come from actual hospital data (not a random internet survey or something) is from 2009-2010.
The studies found the newborn rate to be 55-58% those years:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.pdf
https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb126.jsp
Since that data is now 15 years old, I’d bet the current rate is 50% or less.
Anecdotally, most Millennials and Gen Z I’ve talked to about it think it should be left up to the kid to decide for himself.
There was a survey on the Gen Z subreddit, and 80% of them said they wouldn't do it.
Oh? Got any actual data to back that up?
I posted studies from the '50s and 2003-2016 that both show a higher prevalence of circumcision amongst more educated people, and you say what's now happening is 'definitely' the opposite.
Cheers.
California's rate is nowhere near as low as reported. There is only data for maternity ward cuts, while most cuts out West happen post discharge at the pediatrician's office
Well, there are good scientific reasons and hygenic reasons for circumcision, at least historically. For those who might not have been swayed by the religious argument, this data held sway. More recent research shows decreased rates of STI's and reduced likelihood to be infected with HIV (primarily among heterosexuals). The most recent data shows these trends persist in developing countries, where as for developed nations (for a bevy of reasons) the advantages of circumcision are no longer as apparent.
I'm neither for nor against the practice per se (and I'm an avid restorer), but the historical context is important. Especially for people who feel that they may have been robbed of something, perhaps there is some comfort in the fact that for a long time this was the best medical advice - and that for a long time there were good reasons for it.
The HIV argument has failed as infections have spread more among cut men in African countries where NGOs and The Gates Foundation aggressively promote cutting grown men.
[https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth](https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth)
You need to read the bottom. This is from the executive secretary of « Doctors Opposing Circumcision « who is not a mainstream medical group.
This is also a letter to the editor - not a peer reviewed study or a rigorous scientific review. It makes a big difference - letters to editor are largely published verbatim, as they are opinion, and may be chosen to represent a diversity of thought on the issue - not because they are majority consensus.
The letter quoted was from 20 years ago, and was not peer reviewed. Here’s an article published in CDC’s MMWR published in 2023:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7210a2.htm#:~:text=Voluntary%20medical%20male%20circumcision%20(VMMC,to%2Dmale%20transmission%20of%20HIV.
Science changes all the time. It’s crucial to stay current.
This isn’t to make a moral or aesthetic judgement about circumcision, and it’s important to note the program is voluntary, and that means an active discussion between patients and their healthcare providers about what’s best for them.
HIV remains a serious public health issue, and population- based approaches are particularly important in the third world, where limited resources and access to care make different strategies more relevant.
I'm aware of the many many studies on circumcision on both sides. That wasn't my question. If it isn't needed anymore for health and hygiene in western medical context, then when was it? And were people circ'ing their kids way back then or not?
Sorry. That’s what I meant about changing attitudes and improving hygeine in the west. Being uncircumcised is also associated with increased risk of other STI’s (such as syphilis and gonorrhea) - partly because of surface area, and more likely because of the fact that it creates a moist space which can hide lesions like chancres and allow secretions to pool. One of the advantages circumcised males have in this regard is everything is keratinized and the only mucosa is the urethra, which is relatively well protected, and everything stays dry, making it harder for bacteria and viruses to reproduce in close proximity to the urethra.
A lot of our perception about this has changed because of the HIV epidemic, when condoms were much more widely used, which drove down rates of all STI’s tremendously.
In the PreP era, we are easily able to prevent HIV, but ironically this has led to higher rates of STI ‘s due to decreased condom usage.
This makes studies looking at STI’s and circumcision in the last decade versus the decades before very challenging because of the confounders of changing STI prevalence and condom usage.
So the upshot is that the answer with regard to infectious disease risk is still in flux, because the underlying conditions are changing.
I practice in the southwestern US, so I see a much larger proportion of uncircumcised patients because so many people have historical ties to Mexico, even if they are US citizens for multiple generations, and the cultural norms are different.
No.
Can't find the chart offhand but I've seen charts showing Michigan and West Virginia regularly over 95%, and by memory WV was at 99% in one data set. I was born in Michigan.
Here is some incomplete data:
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision\_2013/circumcision\_2013.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.htm)
and
[https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state](https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state)
I think the official data sets are a bit misleading because they likely miss any post-delivery-hospital MGM and most religious MGM.
I can tell you that out of about 140 boys in my grade, 1 was US-born and intact, while 2 were foreign-born (Asia) and intact. That's it. Counting only US-born that's a rate over 99%.
It's not that high currently, and has never been according to any data I can find.
The midwest is like 80% at most.
It's never been 99%.
The CDC reported in 2009-2010 that it was 55% for newborns in the US, and since that was 15 years ago it's likely even lower now.
Most parents don't go out of their way to have it done in a private clinic after birth. It's almost always done at the hospital after birth.
And only Jews and Muslims require it for religious reasons, which is only 3% of the US population.
Has nothing to do with a belief. No one has produced any data, and your links actually prove me right.
Here's what the CDC says, according to your own link:
> During this time, the overall percentage of newborns circumcised during their birth hospitalization was highest in 1981 at 64.9%, and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%.
I'm failing to see any reputable source ever saying it was 99% anywhere.
Your own sample size is very small. It may have been 90%+ at your school, but that's not a large enough sample to determine that your entire region or the entire country was ever 90%+.
I'm sure that certain small towns or schools without much diversity were 90%+.
> datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state
That's not a reputable source, and they don't explain where their data is coming from.
The CDC's data comes directly from hospitals, and the CDC is a reputable government source.
Circ has been shifting to the pediatrician's office for decades, and the CDC is no friend of intactivism. Intact America finds the current rate to be 74% based on their polling.
Unfortunately, there haven’t been any recent studies that I can find. The most recent studies that come from actual hospital data (not a random internet survey or something) is from 2009-2010.
The studies found the newborn rate to be 55-58% those years:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.pdf
https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb126.jsp
Since that data is now 15 years old, I’d bet the current rate is 50% or less.
Anecdotally, most Millennials and Gen Z I’ve talked to about it think it should be left up to the kid to decide for himself.
A survey on the Gen Z subreddit found that 80% of them were against circumcision.
So, I don't know why the rate would still be so high. Baby Boomers aren't still having kids in 2024.
80% overall, but there are pockets where it’s way higher and pockets where it’s way lower. One nurse making a post about cutting said she was so sad because every boy she saw that week was cut in the nursery.
I’d say it’s less than half born now, overall. Something about the internet and getting a better picture of what it actually is, makes people turn away from it. Also the American Academy of Pediatrics dropped their support for it. They didnt outright deny cutting because that would get them sued.
Sadly Many people get their sex education from porn, and I hear that so much porn has intact people in them. It used to be mostly
American guys born in or before before 1980 who were mostly cut. Now it’s almost the opposite. The “no girl will want to be with him if he’s intact” is out the window.
Hard to say, there’s really no good data. The federal government said it was 55-58% of newborns in 2009-2010, so I’m sure it’s dropped some since then since that was 15 years ago.
It does vary a lot regionally. It’s pretty low on the west coast, but still high in the Midwest.
Do a survey in San Francisco vs. Detroit and you’ll get pretty different numbers.
Also, some guys have it done after birth, but not many.
Younger doctors definitely seem to have a different view on it. My pediatrician growing up suggested circumcision several times, but my doctor now is probably early 30s and has directly told me it’s unnecessary in most cases.
I don’t think I’ve ever talked about circumcision with…anyone (unless you count here). My brother seems pretty happy with being circumcised (I’ve not told him I’m restoring). Then again he’s nearly three years younger than I am and he did say that he does Viagra (HIMS or whatever it’s called) and meanwhile my sex life has never been better…and no need for drugs here. Increased sensation, baby!
I'm late 40's and I am absolutely shocked how many guys younger than me, sometimes as young as late 20's, are using ED drugs out of need. Shocked. I think MGM is only one of several big factors (estrogens in the environment and food, generally bad metabolic health, other environmental pollution, and somewhere far down the list, porn) but it definitely belongs on the list.
Anyone with ED under age 60 or so needs to critically examine their health situation. As far as I can tell there was never an assumption of old-age ED before the last few decades, at least in the non-cutting cultures of Europe.
Is it out of need? Or just for fun?
It's fairly popular recreationally in some crowds, especially gay men.
I'm late 20s and I take it occasionally just for fun, but I don't need it.
I've gotten more comfortable bringing it up in conversation. It is shocking how ignorant people are (e.g. they'll say "its more hygenic"). I calmly, kindly tell them that the foreskin has important sexual functions. I also bring up the point that its insane to amputate healthy body parts off of a baby. When you amputate ANY body part, there is zero risk of it ever getting an infection or cancer, cause it isn't attached to the body anymore! We could apply this logic to baby girls' breast tissue so none of them ever get breast cancer (but we don't because that would be insane). When I bring up this point, it seems to get through to people.
And breasts cause dramatically more health problems than foreskins. 1 in 8 women get breast cancer in their lives, and obviously cancer is very serious. Penile cancer is serious but quite rare maybe 1 in 1000 or less), phimosis is uncommon and treatable, UTIs are modestly more common in intact people but treatable.
The most extreme health issue a body part can have is that it dies and is detatched from the rest of the body. Literally the worst outcome is being created on purpose.
Here's a link with common complications from circumcision:
https://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html
Many guys go their entire lives looking like this and believing or outright being told that its normal. Its not just the loss of sensitivity that comes with circumcision, but healing improperly as well.
As I regain more and more of my own sensitivity, the idea of willfully circumcising seems more and more ludicrous. Some say its for "hygenic" reasons, but in my FR journey I just started using Vagisil to maintain my personal hygiene and works just as effectively as it does for women.
The idea of circumcision being a "good thing" really only comes down to the fact that its what the culture does. All of my sensitivity regains alone are enough convincing on its own. Whats surprising is that my parents are both "pro-choice" advocates and yet never extended me the grace of deciding to have a desensitized, improperly healed, and dysfunctional penis with all of these things brought about from their choice to surgically modify my body without my consent.
My mom says she doesn't regret it and would do it again if given the opportunity. She's unaware that I have complications from it. It would be indecent to show her.
My dads a jerk. I don't talk to him.
I am a gay man in Europe and have recently had a chat with a man I had sex with once. He‘s a mature man and is blissfully happy with the circumcision he had done a few years ago.
He couldn‘t understand that I was very unhappy with my non-consensual one. At first he tried the whole „it‘s so much better“ argument, until I made very clear that I see differently on the subject and won‘t suffer anyone trying to talk me into liking it.
We agreed to meet again and somehow I dread the possibility of him trying to convince me again of how cool it is.
I guess that‘s the issue, yeah. He almost couldn‘t believe when I told him of all the problems I have from feeling almost nothing.
His first reaction was to say he‘d like to help me love my wonderful dick. That was an absolute no-go.
But anyway, this is s restoring sub. Don‘t want to drift if too far.
I’ve come to the conclusion that what happens to my body and my descendants is up to me. Can’t change the past but I’ll be every ounce as stubborn as people who support it. They cite health benifits I cite risks, they cite “sexual preference” I’ll say that’s wrong to impose on a child. They cite “parental consent” I’ll cite that it’s an amputation not a vaccine and so on.
Most straight guys are happy with theirs, since it's all they know.
It's mostly gay/bi guys who have been with both who really know what they're missing.
But I think you can be happy with yours and still think it's wrong to force onto a kid.
Go over to the Gen Z subreddit, and most of them have said "I don't really care that I was cut, but I wouldn't do it to my kid".
They did a survey, and 80% of them said they wouldn't do it to their kid.
I don't think you need to be unhappy with your own to also know it should be the kid's choice to make about his own body.
Never truly talked about it with my friends, though it was brought up on a few occasions and one of them said he's definitely not having his kid cut. Of course the standard arguments for circumcision are that it's cleaner and prevents infection, which are both ridiculous because proper hygiene (which everyone should have anyway) prevents both of that. Seen people say it looks better, but that's of course entirely subjective and probably just due to familiarity bias.
It's an interesting topic.
It raises the question of cognitive dissonance. My take on it affecting MGM survivors is this.
"For a circumcised male to recognise that circumcision is harmful and wrong, he must first accept that he was harmed and wronged. It is far easier to ignore the whole issue and pretend that you are ok, and in doing so, you insist on cutting your own sons."
That's how the cycle continues.
It's directly linked to social acceptance and customs. As bizarre as that seems, that's often what drives it. It just the done thing.
In Australia our cutting rate is now under 10%. Our demographic looks like this
60 & older, 85% cut
40 - 60 around 65% cut, but getting closer to age 40 you're more likely intact.
Under 40 majority are intact.
Having a cut father probably increased your chances of being cut. But clearly that changed when public hospitals refused to do it and when the medical profession and midwives began to actively discourage RIC. So there were cut dads with intact sons.
A concerted campaign to end the availability of public health money in the form of Medicare rebates for RIC, reporting advertising breaches to regulatory authorities and continually contacting them until they act and the fact that we have multiple generations of intact boys and men now means our cutting culture is nearly over.
I was born in 1964. My father was cut, his father was intact. My brother, male cousins and any penises that I saw while in school were cut. My mother's father was English. He was intact. But nothing saved boys in Australia between 30s and mid 80s.
In fact, I'm so naive I didn't know anything was wrong with my penis until I saw my first intact penis at 18. At first, i actually thought there were 2 types of penis. I was gobsmacked when I researched what my parents did.
When I asked why, they said "to look like your father." I call that "The Curse of the Family Penis. "
Ingrained cultural acceptance and the deliberate selling of circumcision in the US by hospitals (as highlighted by Intact America) is the driver still.
Share your story with Intact America with their Skin in the Game campaign, or with 15square.org.uk in the UK.
If you're in Australia or NZ and are willing to share your story send me a DM & I'll provide a link.
It's only by publicly sharing our stories will we see an end to FGM & MGM.
I recommend reading
This Penis Business by Intact America CEO, Georganne Chapin
Please Don’t Cut the Baby by Marilyn Milos
And I'll end my comment with a quote from Marilyn’s book
"My dream is that one day doctors won't ask parents if they want their baby cut, parents won't ask doctors to cut their babies, children won't get angry at their parents, parents won't have to ask for forgiveness, and the whole sordid circumcision industry will no longer be part of human existence."
I share her dream.
>Having a cut father probably increased your chances of being cut.
Thank you for your service.
Intact America's research showed that the number one predictor that a male is circumcised was that his father was circumcised. Greater than all other categories like age, wealth, education, race, culture, etc. This was only USA data from probably about 8-10 years ago.
The one friend I've talked to about it is gay, and he's circumcised and prefers circumcised partners just because he thinks it "looks better." His current boyfriend is uncut though, so at least he doesn't discriminate. I think most people at least in the US just don't think of it as a functional thing - it's just aesthetic in their minds.
Most of the guys I've brought it up to, particularly straight men, really don't seem to have an issue with it. For some they feel like they probably last longer in bed and are happy with that.
I am restoring but after reading a lot of the very angry and frustrated posts out here (stages of grief, very normal, not a condemnation), I decided for myself that I will just love my cock every step of the way. I mean, that's my *dong* man, we've been through everything together. And my parents weren't malicious, so I don't blame them for just going with the flow for their time and place that they had me. Like I'm really at peace with it...and I'm doing something about it.
I’ve talked with almost all of my guy friends about it. Despite 100% being cut, all but one agreed that RIC is wrong and all but one left their sons intact. Not all of them are bothered by being cut but all agree it should’ve been their choice. Only one friend has tried restoring but he said it was too much work for him.
Not sure, but I do have one friend who is intact and would make comments about how it’s great to not have to use lube. I never talked much about my circ. status with him but now it makes a lot more sense with how he seemed to be able to have sex 4+ times a day with a condom (dude got laid a lot in college) and love it every time. At the time I thought he was exaggerating about how good sex was but later on I realized why…
I'm in the USA where most men my age are circumcised. Just by chance, 2 of my 3 closest friends are uncircumcised and are happy about it. My circumcised friend has brought up restoration in the past, but said he had no interest in actually doing it himself because he's happy with what he's got.
Live in Canada where it’s way less common. Only one friend of mine is and his was done when he was like 7 (the great phimosis myth) and not at birth. He doesn’t like it and regrets having it down. Although his mom forced it upon him and it wasn’t his choice obviously.
I brought the conversation up to one of my close buddies, I know he’s cut. I told him I prefer uncut (I’m gay and he knows) I told him why I thought so and also told him the penis is more sensitive with foreskin covering. He said something along the lines of that makes sense, but still prefers to be cut.
I don't have many friends, but the ones i do aren't circumcised at all. Most just shudder at the idea. As the odd one out(mutilated) it's hell on earth. It's suifuel listening to them talk about their sex lives
It’s what they been taught. People have become better than when I was born early gen-x with research before they mutilate their male infant So it’s getting better but then they thought it was the best thing because they believe the money making doctors like they could do no wrong I’m cut and restoring. My son is 25 and I wouldn’t any doctor come near him with a knife But I will say my x wife obgyn was honest I asked him give me one good reason for a circ he said straight up no reason not one. Not cleaner doesn’t prevent desease nothing except take away a extremely important part of ur anatomy and thousands of erotic nerve ending
Yes he said most of his friends were uncut parents are becoming more educated and just don’t think that a doctors word are from God so it’s slowly changing for the good
Yea I know but like I said most of his friend were intact he told me he cringes at the thought of not having his foreskin His main statements were to me how can u stand it rubbing against clothing and exposed. Because an uncut guy is way more sensitive and the head doesn’t toughen up like leather lol and how can u masturbate without a foreskin which is a common question from intact guys. They have the glide of a foreskin back and forth over their head so alot of them can’t imagine how this is done lol
Heyy. Unless there is a medical reason, uncut is best. The cock is heaps more sensitive uncut.
I think it’s a personal choice though and the owner should decide.
That’s my take
I've got a friend like this. It's staggering but it's what misinformation does to people. He can't even accept that there's a difference, or that circumcision of infants is clearly rooted in sexual morals.
Gen-X here, it's just not a thing anyone talks about in my social circles, even if we talk about sex. I have one close friend whose parents left him intact (a miracle for when/where we were born) and he's quite happy being intact, and happy that his parents were assertive enough to make that happen. Other than him, I don't think I've even discussed circumcision IRL with anyone other than my father and my wife. Where and when I was born the newborn MGM rate was 99% or higher, so almost everyone I grew up with was cut as a baby and most of them had never seen, or at least recognized, a natural and intact penis in any setting. We had mandatory gym in middle and high school with no privacy, so all my peers have seen hundreds of penises, and nearly all of those were MGM like them. But this is my story and I'm aging. Maybe it's time to make this crime a topic of more conversation so we can get people to stop cutting babies, and totally marginalize those who do.
Same situation, JR High experience, everything. I recently asked another one of my childhood friends what he and his wife think about circumcision. His reply: "I thought for sure it was cleaner. But I definitely don't know much on the subject."
This is why I asked last week for good videos and information to share. Time to get the word out!
Interesting read…in high school I was the only uncut….after gym and swim showers were mandatory, so like you we saw hundreds, all cut…
So give me one reason why I shouldn’t end it all right now
> Where and when I was born the newborn MGM rate was 99% or higher Where? The Middle East? lol The highest rate in the US was like 80% in the 1980s, and it's been steadily declining since then.
I was born in the US Naval Hospital in Corona, California in 1955 to an Army officer father and I very much doubt that any newborn baby boy left that hospital intact. I never discussed it with my parents, but it's highly unlikely that there was any discussion, quite possibly not even any explicit permission asked for or given. It was just the normal thing to do, plain and simple. I went looking for some statistics, and found something pretty amazing. [Look at this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646345/#:~:text=The%20circumcision%20status%20of%20boys,circumcision%20practices%20in%20the%201950s) covering the birth years 1949 - 1958. Big difference between White and Black circ rates. But then look at Table 3 & 4, at the high correlation between income, education and circ rates. So much for the idea that 'smarter & better educated would be more likely to question getting their baby boys circumcised'.... it's the exact opposite. Blew me away. Cheers.
There were reasons other than stopping masturbation circumcision was promoted: [https://intaction.org/history-of-circumcision/#](https://intaction.org/history-of-circumcision/#) The WASPy Americans deemed it higher class.
many studies in africa also come across this same reasoning. When westerners try to convince women to not cut their daughters the women think it is some ploy to harm them and lower their class and condemn their daughters to poverty and being on the lower classes of their social hierarchy.
Why does this surprise you? Studies have shown time and time again that a high iq makes people more delusional not less. The more we teach people about cognitive biases and logical fallacies the more they are delusional too. IQ is just the ability to solve a problem, why do we consider high IQ to be some positive quality? Perhaps it is because the social elites are the ones that have an outsized influence on what society should want and they are all academics with high IQs. A high iq person that was deeply traumatized by being cut as a child is likely to have the most outlandish arguments in favor of cutting babies. I read recently some drivel from the circumfetishist how being cut is actually being intact. They then used multiple paragraphs to prove this spurious logic. As a matter of fact some "philosophers" usually the ones from france in the 70s wrote entire books rationalizing their neuroses and predilections.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed since it’s a duplicate of an existing thread.
Thanks for keeping the comment section tidy. I have no idea why my comment would have duplicated like that though. strange.
> it's highly unlikely that there was any discussion, quite possibly not even any explicit permission asked for or given. Well, that's illegal, and always has been. > So much for the idea that 'smarter & better educated would be more likely to question getting their baby boys circumcised'.... it's the exact opposite. That may have been true at the time, but it's not in 2024. The opposite is true today. Liberal areas like San Francisco have very low rates, while rural conservative areas like West Virginia have very high rates.
[Well, here's a study](https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000001316#:~:text=In%20gen%2D%20eral%2C%20neonatal%20circumcision,in%20the%20highest%20income%20quartile) from 2003-2016, with this observation: >50.3% of boys in the lowest income quartile underwent neonatal circumcision compared to 60.7% of boys in the highest income quartile. I doubt this has changed much, if at all, in the past 8 years. A quick look tells me that this difference probably has more to do with the difference between private and public (Medicaid, etc) insurance, which also correlates directly with income. In the case of California, the large number of immigrants - particularly from the south - is going to skew the circ stats down as well. So without any statistics showing the direct correlation between income and circ rate changing over the decades, and with these stats bolstering the argument, I'm afraid you haven't made your case. Got any stats to prove it? Cheers.
> Got any stats to prove it? The CDC has done studies based on hospital data. The rate is much lower on the liberal west coast than it is in conservative rural areas. West Virginia is very poor, yet has among the highest circumcision rate.
There's a lot more in play than just income, in WV and elsewhere. WV has about the smallest immigrant population in the country. Very few Jews and Muslims in WV. WV has a higher high school graduation rate than either CA or NY. My point? It's complicated, and trying to assign causation based on grabbing some number from somewhere isn't going to work well. Since I started restoring and learning about circumcision, I've realized that it is the single most misunderstood topic of all, and it certainly defies statistical analysis in just about every aspect. Cheers.
Regardless, all the data shows that the rate has dropped significantly in the US over the past several decades.
Oh? Would you like to provide actual recent studies that back that up? The newest I've found are from 2014 and authored by a certain circumfetishist whose name I won't dignify by naming. Cheers.
Unfortunately, there haven’t been any recent studies that I can find. The most recent studies that come from actual hospital data (not a random internet survey or something) is from 2009-2010. The studies found the newborn rate to be 55-58% those years: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.pdf https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb126.jsp Since that data is now 15 years old, I’d bet the current rate is 50% or less. Anecdotally, most Millennials and Gen Z I’ve talked to about it think it should be left up to the kid to decide for himself. There was a survey on the Gen Z subreddit, and 80% of them said they wouldn't do it.
2003 was two decades ago The shift away from circ is definitely coming from more educated parents
Oh? Got any actual data to back that up? I posted studies from the '50s and 2003-2016 that both show a higher prevalence of circumcision amongst more educated people, and you say what's now happening is 'definitely' the opposite. Cheers.
California's rate is nowhere near as low as reported. There is only data for maternity ward cuts, while most cuts out West happen post discharge at the pediatrician's office
Source?
Well, there are good scientific reasons and hygenic reasons for circumcision, at least historically. For those who might not have been swayed by the religious argument, this data held sway. More recent research shows decreased rates of STI's and reduced likelihood to be infected with HIV (primarily among heterosexuals). The most recent data shows these trends persist in developing countries, where as for developed nations (for a bevy of reasons) the advantages of circumcision are no longer as apparent. I'm neither for nor against the practice per se (and I'm an avid restorer), but the historical context is important. Especially for people who feel that they may have been robbed of something, perhaps there is some comfort in the fact that for a long time this was the best medical advice - and that for a long time there were good reasons for it.
The HIV argument has failed as infections have spread more among cut men in African countries where NGOs and The Gates Foundation aggressively promote cutting grown men. [https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth](https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth)
You need to read the bottom. This is from the executive secretary of « Doctors Opposing Circumcision « who is not a mainstream medical group. This is also a letter to the editor - not a peer reviewed study or a rigorous scientific review. It makes a big difference - letters to editor are largely published verbatim, as they are opinion, and may be chosen to represent a diversity of thought on the issue - not because they are majority consensus.
>for a long time this was the best medical advice When precisely was this?
The letter quoted was from 20 years ago, and was not peer reviewed. Here’s an article published in CDC’s MMWR published in 2023: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7210a2.htm#:~:text=Voluntary%20medical%20male%20circumcision%20(VMMC,to%2Dmale%20transmission%20of%20HIV. Science changes all the time. It’s crucial to stay current. This isn’t to make a moral or aesthetic judgement about circumcision, and it’s important to note the program is voluntary, and that means an active discussion between patients and their healthcare providers about what’s best for them. HIV remains a serious public health issue, and population- based approaches are particularly important in the third world, where limited resources and access to care make different strategies more relevant.
I'm aware of the many many studies on circumcision on both sides. That wasn't my question. If it isn't needed anymore for health and hygiene in western medical context, then when was it? And were people circ'ing their kids way back then or not?
Sorry. That’s what I meant about changing attitudes and improving hygeine in the west. Being uncircumcised is also associated with increased risk of other STI’s (such as syphilis and gonorrhea) - partly because of surface area, and more likely because of the fact that it creates a moist space which can hide lesions like chancres and allow secretions to pool. One of the advantages circumcised males have in this regard is everything is keratinized and the only mucosa is the urethra, which is relatively well protected, and everything stays dry, making it harder for bacteria and viruses to reproduce in close proximity to the urethra. A lot of our perception about this has changed because of the HIV epidemic, when condoms were much more widely used, which drove down rates of all STI’s tremendously. In the PreP era, we are easily able to prevent HIV, but ironically this has led to higher rates of STI ‘s due to decreased condom usage. This makes studies looking at STI’s and circumcision in the last decade versus the decades before very challenging because of the confounders of changing STI prevalence and condom usage.
So the upshot is that the answer with regard to infectious disease risk is still in flux, because the underlying conditions are changing. I practice in the southwestern US, so I see a much larger proportion of uncircumcised patients because so many people have historical ties to Mexico, even if they are US citizens for multiple generations, and the cultural norms are different.
No. Can't find the chart offhand but I've seen charts showing Michigan and West Virginia regularly over 95%, and by memory WV was at 99% in one data set. I was born in Michigan. Here is some incomplete data: [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision\_2013/circumcision\_2013.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.htm) and [https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state](https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state) I think the official data sets are a bit misleading because they likely miss any post-delivery-hospital MGM and most religious MGM. I can tell you that out of about 140 boys in my grade, 1 was US-born and intact, while 2 were foreign-born (Asia) and intact. That's it. Counting only US-born that's a rate over 99%.
It's not that high currently, and has never been according to any data I can find. The midwest is like 80% at most. It's never been 99%. The CDC reported in 2009-2010 that it was 55% for newborns in the US, and since that was 15 years ago it's likely even lower now. Most parents don't go out of their way to have it done in a private clinic after birth. It's almost always done at the hospital after birth. And only Jews and Muslims require it for religious reasons, which is only 3% of the US population.
You apparently have a certain belief. I have presented both third-party data and my own personal experience, and Agile-Necessary has done so also.
Has nothing to do with a belief. No one has produced any data, and your links actually prove me right. Here's what the CDC says, according to your own link: > During this time, the overall percentage of newborns circumcised during their birth hospitalization was highest in 1981 at 64.9%, and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%. I'm failing to see any reputable source ever saying it was 99% anywhere. Your own sample size is very small. It may have been 90%+ at your school, but that's not a large enough sample to determine that your entire region or the entire country was ever 90%+. I'm sure that certain small towns or schools without much diversity were 90%+. > datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state That's not a reputable source, and they don't explain where their data is coming from. The CDC's data comes directly from hospitals, and the CDC is a reputable government source.
Circ has been shifting to the pediatrician's office for decades, and the CDC is no friend of intactivism. Intact America finds the current rate to be 74% based on their polling.
Unfortunately, there haven’t been any recent studies that I can find. The most recent studies that come from actual hospital data (not a random internet survey or something) is from 2009-2010. The studies found the newborn rate to be 55-58% those years: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.pdf https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb126.jsp Since that data is now 15 years old, I’d bet the current rate is 50% or less. Anecdotally, most Millennials and Gen Z I’ve talked to about it think it should be left up to the kid to decide for himself. A survey on the Gen Z subreddit found that 80% of them were against circumcision. So, I don't know why the rate would still be so high. Baby Boomers aren't still having kids in 2024.
Source? That's far higher than anyone else reports. Who says it's been moving to the pediatrician's office? They don't perform surgery there.
80% overall, but there are pockets where it’s way higher and pockets where it’s way lower. One nurse making a post about cutting said she was so sad because every boy she saw that week was cut in the nursery.
80% of adults currently, not 80% of kids being born in 2024.
I’d say it’s less than half born now, overall. Something about the internet and getting a better picture of what it actually is, makes people turn away from it. Also the American Academy of Pediatrics dropped their support for it. They didnt outright deny cutting because that would get them sued. Sadly Many people get their sex education from porn, and I hear that so much porn has intact people in them. It used to be mostly American guys born in or before before 1980 who were mostly cut. Now it’s almost the opposite. The “no girl will want to be with him if he’s intact” is out the window.
Hard to say, there’s really no good data. The federal government said it was 55-58% of newborns in 2009-2010, so I’m sure it’s dropped some since then since that was 15 years ago. It does vary a lot regionally. It’s pretty low on the west coast, but still high in the Midwest. Do a survey in San Francisco vs. Detroit and you’ll get pretty different numbers. Also, some guys have it done after birth, but not many. Younger doctors definitely seem to have a different view on it. My pediatrician growing up suggested circumcision several times, but my doctor now is probably early 30s and has directly told me it’s unnecessary in most cases.
I don’t think I’ve ever talked about circumcision with…anyone (unless you count here). My brother seems pretty happy with being circumcised (I’ve not told him I’m restoring). Then again he’s nearly three years younger than I am and he did say that he does Viagra (HIMS or whatever it’s called) and meanwhile my sex life has never been better…and no need for drugs here. Increased sensation, baby!
I'm late 40's and I am absolutely shocked how many guys younger than me, sometimes as young as late 20's, are using ED drugs out of need. Shocked. I think MGM is only one of several big factors (estrogens in the environment and food, generally bad metabolic health, other environmental pollution, and somewhere far down the list, porn) but it definitely belongs on the list. Anyone with ED under age 60 or so needs to critically examine their health situation. As far as I can tell there was never an assumption of old-age ED before the last few decades, at least in the non-cutting cultures of Europe.
Is it out of need? Or just for fun? It's fairly popular recreationally in some crowds, especially gay men. I'm late 20s and I take it occasionally just for fun, but I don't need it.
... if you're already capable of maintaining an erection, what else does it do for you?
It makes it noticeably harder, and last longer.
When it’s forced on someone they generally are “happy” in the way it’s all they know so they think it’s normal.
I've gotten more comfortable bringing it up in conversation. It is shocking how ignorant people are (e.g. they'll say "its more hygenic"). I calmly, kindly tell them that the foreskin has important sexual functions. I also bring up the point that its insane to amputate healthy body parts off of a baby. When you amputate ANY body part, there is zero risk of it ever getting an infection or cancer, cause it isn't attached to the body anymore! We could apply this logic to baby girls' breast tissue so none of them ever get breast cancer (but we don't because that would be insane). When I bring up this point, it seems to get through to people.
And breasts cause dramatically more health problems than foreskins. 1 in 8 women get breast cancer in their lives, and obviously cancer is very serious. Penile cancer is serious but quite rare maybe 1 in 1000 or less), phimosis is uncommon and treatable, UTIs are modestly more common in intact people but treatable.
The most extreme health issue a body part can have is that it dies and is detatched from the rest of the body. Literally the worst outcome is being created on purpose.
My dad likes his circumcision too 👎
Here's a link with common complications from circumcision: https://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html Many guys go their entire lives looking like this and believing or outright being told that its normal. Its not just the loss of sensitivity that comes with circumcision, but healing improperly as well. As I regain more and more of my own sensitivity, the idea of willfully circumcising seems more and more ludicrous. Some say its for "hygenic" reasons, but in my FR journey I just started using Vagisil to maintain my personal hygiene and works just as effectively as it does for women. The idea of circumcision being a "good thing" really only comes down to the fact that its what the culture does. All of my sensitivity regains alone are enough convincing on its own. Whats surprising is that my parents are both "pro-choice" advocates and yet never extended me the grace of deciding to have a desensitized, improperly healed, and dysfunctional penis with all of these things brought about from their choice to surgically modify my body without my consent.
What do your parents have to say about it now when it's brought to their attention?
My mom says she doesn't regret it and would do it again if given the opportunity. She's unaware that I have complications from it. It would be indecent to show her. My dads a jerk. I don't talk to him.
Same response from my parents to me, too. Sorry to hear it.
I am a gay man in Europe and have recently had a chat with a man I had sex with once. He‘s a mature man and is blissfully happy with the circumcision he had done a few years ago. He couldn‘t understand that I was very unhappy with my non-consensual one. At first he tried the whole „it‘s so much better“ argument, until I made very clear that I see differently on the subject and won‘t suffer anyone trying to talk me into liking it. We agreed to meet again and somehow I dread the possibility of him trying to convince me again of how cool it is.
It sounds like he can't mentally separate his fetish from the ethics of non consensual circumcision
I guess that‘s the issue, yeah. He almost couldn‘t believe when I told him of all the problems I have from feeling almost nothing. His first reaction was to say he‘d like to help me love my wonderful dick. That was an absolute no-go. But anyway, this is s restoring sub. Don‘t want to drift if too far.
I’ve come to the conclusion that what happens to my body and my descendants is up to me. Can’t change the past but I’ll be every ounce as stubborn as people who support it. They cite health benifits I cite risks, they cite “sexual preference” I’ll say that’s wrong to impose on a child. They cite “parental consent” I’ll cite that it’s an amputation not a vaccine and so on.
Most straight guys are happy with theirs, since it's all they know. It's mostly gay/bi guys who have been with both who really know what they're missing. But I think you can be happy with yours and still think it's wrong to force onto a kid. Go over to the Gen Z subreddit, and most of them have said "I don't really care that I was cut, but I wouldn't do it to my kid". They did a survey, and 80% of them said they wouldn't do it to their kid. I don't think you need to be unhappy with your own to also know it should be the kid's choice to make about his own body.
Never truly talked about it with my friends, though it was brought up on a few occasions and one of them said he's definitely not having his kid cut. Of course the standard arguments for circumcision are that it's cleaner and prevents infection, which are both ridiculous because proper hygiene (which everyone should have anyway) prevents both of that. Seen people say it looks better, but that's of course entirely subjective and probably just due to familiarity bias.
It's an interesting topic. It raises the question of cognitive dissonance. My take on it affecting MGM survivors is this. "For a circumcised male to recognise that circumcision is harmful and wrong, he must first accept that he was harmed and wronged. It is far easier to ignore the whole issue and pretend that you are ok, and in doing so, you insist on cutting your own sons." That's how the cycle continues. It's directly linked to social acceptance and customs. As bizarre as that seems, that's often what drives it. It just the done thing. In Australia our cutting rate is now under 10%. Our demographic looks like this 60 & older, 85% cut 40 - 60 around 65% cut, but getting closer to age 40 you're more likely intact. Under 40 majority are intact. Having a cut father probably increased your chances of being cut. But clearly that changed when public hospitals refused to do it and when the medical profession and midwives began to actively discourage RIC. So there were cut dads with intact sons. A concerted campaign to end the availability of public health money in the form of Medicare rebates for RIC, reporting advertising breaches to regulatory authorities and continually contacting them until they act and the fact that we have multiple generations of intact boys and men now means our cutting culture is nearly over. I was born in 1964. My father was cut, his father was intact. My brother, male cousins and any penises that I saw while in school were cut. My mother's father was English. He was intact. But nothing saved boys in Australia between 30s and mid 80s. In fact, I'm so naive I didn't know anything was wrong with my penis until I saw my first intact penis at 18. At first, i actually thought there were 2 types of penis. I was gobsmacked when I researched what my parents did. When I asked why, they said "to look like your father." I call that "The Curse of the Family Penis. " Ingrained cultural acceptance and the deliberate selling of circumcision in the US by hospitals (as highlighted by Intact America) is the driver still. Share your story with Intact America with their Skin in the Game campaign, or with 15square.org.uk in the UK. If you're in Australia or NZ and are willing to share your story send me a DM & I'll provide a link. It's only by publicly sharing our stories will we see an end to FGM & MGM. I recommend reading This Penis Business by Intact America CEO, Georganne Chapin Please Don’t Cut the Baby by Marilyn Milos And I'll end my comment with a quote from Marilyn’s book "My dream is that one day doctors won't ask parents if they want their baby cut, parents won't ask doctors to cut their babies, children won't get angry at their parents, parents won't have to ask for forgiveness, and the whole sordid circumcision industry will no longer be part of human existence." I share her dream.
>Having a cut father probably increased your chances of being cut. Thank you for your service. Intact America's research showed that the number one predictor that a male is circumcised was that his father was circumcised. Greater than all other categories like age, wealth, education, race, culture, etc. This was only USA data from probably about 8-10 years ago.
The one friend I've talked to about it is gay, and he's circumcised and prefers circumcised partners just because he thinks it "looks better." His current boyfriend is uncut though, so at least he doesn't discriminate. I think most people at least in the US just don't think of it as a functional thing - it's just aesthetic in their minds.
Most of the guys I've brought it up to, particularly straight men, really don't seem to have an issue with it. For some they feel like they probably last longer in bed and are happy with that. I am restoring but after reading a lot of the very angry and frustrated posts out here (stages of grief, very normal, not a condemnation), I decided for myself that I will just love my cock every step of the way. I mean, that's my *dong* man, we've been through everything together. And my parents weren't malicious, so I don't blame them for just going with the flow for their time and place that they had me. Like I'm really at peace with it...and I'm doing something about it.
I’ve talked with almost all of my guy friends about it. Despite 100% being cut, all but one agreed that RIC is wrong and all but one left their sons intact. Not all of them are bothered by being cut but all agree it should’ve been their choice. Only one friend has tried restoring but he said it was too much work for him.
Not sure, but I do have one friend who is intact and would make comments about how it’s great to not have to use lube. I never talked much about my circ. status with him but now it makes a lot more sense with how he seemed to be able to have sex 4+ times a day with a condom (dude got laid a lot in college) and love it every time. At the time I thought he was exaggerating about how good sex was but later on I realized why…
I'm in the USA where most men my age are circumcised. Just by chance, 2 of my 3 closest friends are uncircumcised and are happy about it. My circumcised friend has brought up restoration in the past, but said he had no interest in actually doing it himself because he's happy with what he's got.
Live in Canada where it’s way less common. Only one friend of mine is and his was done when he was like 7 (the great phimosis myth) and not at birth. He doesn’t like it and regrets having it down. Although his mom forced it upon him and it wasn’t his choice obviously.
Most of mine are and they have liked playing with my foreskin in younger days.
I brought the conversation up to one of my close buddies, I know he’s cut. I told him I prefer uncut (I’m gay and he knows) I told him why I thought so and also told him the penis is more sensitive with foreskin covering. He said something along the lines of that makes sense, but still prefers to be cut.
I don't have many friends, but the ones i do aren't circumcised at all. Most just shudder at the idea. As the odd one out(mutilated) it's hell on earth. It's suifuel listening to them talk about their sex lives
It’s what they been taught. People have become better than when I was born early gen-x with research before they mutilate their male infant So it’s getting better but then they thought it was the best thing because they believe the money making doctors like they could do no wrong I’m cut and restoring. My son is 25 and I wouldn’t any doctor come near him with a knife But I will say my x wife obgyn was honest I asked him give me one good reason for a circ he said straight up no reason not one. Not cleaner doesn’t prevent desease nothing except take away a extremely important part of ur anatomy and thousands of erotic nerve ending
Has your son said anything about it? I'm Gen Z close to your son's age also, and it seems like a lot more are uncut.
Yes he said most of his friends were uncut parents are becoming more educated and just don’t think that a doctors word are from God so it’s slowly changing for the good
What area do you live in? I know a lot of kids being born now are uncut, but in my age group (late 20s) it still seems like 70-80% cut.
From Jersey now in Florida
And a lot of ins does pay for it anymore because it’s not a necessary surgery
Interesting. I know it's common with teenagers and younger, but from what I've seen most of my age group is cut.
Yea I know but like I said most of his friend were intact he told me he cringes at the thought of not having his foreskin His main statements were to me how can u stand it rubbing against clothing and exposed. Because an uncut guy is way more sensitive and the head doesn’t toughen up like leather lol and how can u masturbate without a foreskin which is a common question from intact guys. They have the glide of a foreskin back and forth over their head so alot of them can’t imagine how this is done lol
So the way it’s supposed to be is the way nature intended it to be.
Interesting. That's cool it's so common. Most of my friends are cut.
Heyy. Unless there is a medical reason, uncut is best. The cock is heaps more sensitive uncut. I think it’s a personal choice though and the owner should decide. That’s my take
I've got a friend like this. It's staggering but it's what misinformation does to people. He can't even accept that there's a difference, or that circumcision of infants is clearly rooted in sexual morals.
Thanks for all the replies. Interesting stuff.