Crosswords0 min ago
U.S.
11 Answers
According to the missus, an episode of 'Sex & the City' implied that the vast majority of American guys have been circumcised. Does anyone know if this is true, or is it just the sort of circles that the characters move in? I'm find it hard to believe that most people would pay for the operation, given the cost of medical care, or is it a 'freebie'?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeMarchand. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As many as 90% of American boys were circumcised at one time. In these 'human rights' days, the figure isn't as high, but the operation (disfiguration?) is still pretty routinely performed on infants. Click http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html
for an informative web-page.
It most certainly is not a "freebie" many American clinics make routine cash from this practice of mutilation. The theory goes that the result is cleaner and less likely to succumb to infection. In the cultural context, men are said to be quite sensitive about the appearance of their little friend, and to have one that is not like all the others could be traumatic and cause the poor darlings to be repressed or worse, turn gay.
There was a grat amount of cultural pressure for circumcision in America until very recently, and it has only reduced slightly, not gone away. It is still an entrenched belief, if the Yanks that I have had anything to do with are anything to go by.
As an aside, our Royal Family (no shining example for anything in particular) have routinely called for circumcision for their male offspring for centuries. Diana Princess of Wales was vehement in her opposition to her sons being subjected to this disfigurement and there was a huge family row about it. Her wishes prevailed, but at what cost to her, we ask?
There was a grat amount of cultural pressure for circumcision in America until very recently, and it has only reduced slightly, not gone away. It is still an entrenched belief, if the Yanks that I have had anything to do with are anything to go by.
As an aside, our Royal Family (no shining example for anything in particular) have routinely called for circumcision for their male offspring for centuries. Diana Princess of Wales was vehement in her opposition to her sons being subjected to this disfigurement and there was a huge family row about it. Her wishes prevailed, but at what cost to her, we ask?
-- answer removed --
I feel I have to comment about an interesting statement that Hippy made, within Hippy's answer:
"...cause the poor darlings to be repressed or worse, turn gay."
In today's society of supposed tolerance and equal rights, and understanding, I found Hippy's comment that people can "turn" Gay, and using the word "at worse" implying this is something bad, just continues to enforce negativity, and mis-information, on this subject. I just get so mad when I see any kind of subtle prejudice creeping into people's comments, whether it is homophobia, racism, anything! Hippy certainly has not lived up to his/her name which to me represents the live-&-let-live ideology...!
If you support Hippy's comment, Marchand, tell me this: How could someone in the scenario as described, who has a complex about the way their penis might look compared to others, and therefore becomes repressed regarding meeting women, therefore decide that - "I know - I'll turn Gay - the Gay community will accept me." Surely such a repressed person would shy away from all physical contact whether male or female? No - the way Hippy phrased that, is in my view definitely a subtle - maybe even subconcious - put-down of homosexuality. If you yourself cannot see that, then I suggest, you try to read it, as I have done, from a gay person's perspective..i.e. how a Gay person might feel reading that.... then tell me if you think the comment is acceptable?
Without wishing to start an unholy row - I did not say that I agreed with the view expressed by Hippy, and (I think) neither does he/she. Maybe I didn't word my post clearly, but the point I was trying to make is that I believe that Hippy's wording was chosen to reflect the mindset of a right-wing American, for whom having a son who was homosexual would probably be worse than having a Communist in the family. Your point about repression makes sense to me, but this sort of person doesn't work on logic. As for "turning gay", I find it hard to believe that you have not encountered people who think that it is possible to be "turned gay" by prolonged contact with homosexuals. So, unless Hippy turns up and tells us that the statement is actually what he/she believes, I'm afraid that I'm sticking to my original thought: that the wording was "in the style of" a right-wing American.
1 to 11 of 11
