Haven't Americans always been circumcised?

In Victorian times in America, masturbation was thought to be the cause of many diseases including epilepsy, tuberculosis, and bed wetting. Since doctors of the time period, knew that the foreskin abets masturbation by providing a natural lubricant(circumcised men often have to use an artificial lubrication in order to masturbate without rubbing themselves raw with dry friction) and that it contributed to the pleasure-motive of masturbation since the whole underside of the foreskin is sexually sensitive to stimulation(as opposed to the non-sexual shaft skin), it appeared logical to them to promote circumcision as way to decrease masturbation and hence disease.

Isn't foreskin difficult to keep clean?

The American Academy of Pediatrics currently states: "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. No special care is required. No attempt should be made to forcefully retract the foreskin [of a child whose foreskin is not yet retractable]."

Don't Christians have to be circumcised?

Christians are under no religious obligation to circumcise as Paul in the New Testament makes clear. In fact most Christian men in the world have their foreskin.

Isn't foreskin useless?

Some functions of the foreskin are protecting the head from abrasion, providing a natural lubricant for masturbation and intercourse(We circumcised Americans, tend to buy much more KY jelly than men from cultures where circumcision is not done.), and adding to pleasure as the whole underside of the foreskin is sexually sensitive skin(if you are circumcised you can check this by noting the skin from your scar line to your head as being sexually sensitive).

Isn't amputated foreskin just thrown out in the trash?

Some hospitals have undisclosed motives for encouraging infant circumcisions, in that they will sell for profit the baby's amputated foreskin to biomedical companies for research and for use in the manufacture of certain cosmetic products like wrinkle creams and collagen for lip plumping injections.

Doesn't circumcision always remove the same amount?

The ancient forms of the circumcision rite would often just remove the part of the foreskin that was beyond the glans(without separating the foreskin from the glans which are naturally fused together, which is also true for girls with their biologically analogous clitoris and clitoral hood), whereas the modern American hospital version with the advent of metal clamps which makes it easy to cut off all the skin covering the glans and also often removes the highly erogenous of frenulum. Also, how much and what is cut off can vary extensively depending the cutting tool and clamps, used and the doctor's own predilection, so it is important to remember that one's own experience as a cut male is not necessarily extrapolatable to the experiences of all cut males.

Isn't circumcision necessary for health reasons?

No medical organization in world recommends routine infant circumcision. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated neonatal circumcision is not justifiable for medical reasons; however they then go on to hedgingly say that if parents want it done for cultural tradition that is fine with them -- I would like to know whether you think cultural tradition is an acceptable justification to cut off the clitoral hood(biologically analogous to foreskin) of baby girls(eg as certain Indonesians do for their claimed reasons of it being cleaner, healthier, and better-looking to the opposite sex -- oddly similar to the same reasons we Americans tell ourselves).

Isn't every 'civilized' person circumcised?

America is the only country in the world to practice secular infant circumcision on the majority of their babies. If you and I were in practically any other modern civilized industrialized country, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion, because it would just be assumed that if you are having a baby boy, you would let him keep his entire penis he was born with.

Don't fathers and sons need matching penises?

Men with foreskin like their penises just as much as you like your circumcised one. Your son will not dislike his penis just because he has all of it. If the oft-cited father son comparison ever takes place, he will likely first notice other differences like hair and size, but if he asks you why his has more skin, you can just say "When I was born, people thought it was a good idea to cut part of it off, but now we know it isn't necessary to do that". If anything he will probably express shock that they cut off part of yours.

Aren't women 'unmastectomied'?

Then why do we describe men who have foreskin as being 'uncircumcised'? Notice how we use language to suggest that foreskin is an aberration in need of amputative correction. However, from a biological perspective having foreskin is the natural state for a man to be.