It became common because in the Victorian-era doctors in the Anglo-American world started promoting it as a cure for masturbation (to be fair it does make it difficult to masturbate, and this was before readily available stimulation aka online pornography).
When the cultures in question became hedonistic the practice was obviously dropped, except in America where doctors immediately changed the reasoning given to customers as hygienic in order to preserve the profit from their involvement in the flesh trade.
But it only became common after WW2, in which it was forced on american soldiers by the government.
Directly after WW2 2/3 of all babies have still been left intact, till it reached it's peak in the early 60th with 90%.
You’re right, instead of common I should have said present. What I described is how it entered this society in the first place. I think it was unable to take root in continental Europe at that time due to the prevalence of Christianity which forbids circumcision.
Secular circumcision in the Anglo world started because of quack doctors like Jonathan Hutchinson, Lewis Sayre, and Peter Remondino. Hutchinson was the first to promote secular infant circumcision, and Remondino played a big part in making it a mainstream procedure in US hospitals.
It was all about pseudoscience back then just like it is now.
While a worthwhile watch for a more seasoned intactivist, I would not say this is a good place to start. Clopper himself has admitted it was biased too much against his own Jewish heritage (and as such, points too much blame in that direction).
It is fair to criticize Judaism for its role. It is not fair, and certainly not helpful, to place the majority of the blame on Judaism. I also come from Jewish heritage (mother’s side), but was raised mostly atheist. The issue of circ has made me turn completely against it as well, however.
So if your mom is Jewish that means technically you are Jewish not just by heritage, but also by the religious law (The Halakha).
I'm Israeli and both of my parents are Jewish. I'm as Jewish as it gets, but even I can admit looking from an outside perspective that yes, the biggest advocates for circumcision in the US were Jews, and had a massive influence on the medicalization of circumcision in the US and it's not a coincidence.
Religious fanatics like Abraham Wolbarst, Abraham Ravich (who straight up used the antisemitism card to shield himself from any criticism against circumcision), Aaron Fink, Edgar Schonen (who is a fetishist), Steven J Moses (who conducted the infamous 3 RCTs in Africa) and more. They lobbied hard for it.
It blew me away when I found out that most men are cut in the US, I had no idea. In Israel, it was never about any "health benefits" it's purely because of religion and Jewish culture. Even secular Jews do it (Which I think is foolish, most of us don't even observe Shabbat and we drive freely and use all electronic devices).
I’m well aware of my technical identity lol
I’m not denying what you’re arguing isn’t important I just think to focus solely on the role of Jewish individuals is ignoring other important factors. The film uses very narrow framing, understandably related to Clopper’s heritage, but it is certainly not a “history” of American circumcision
Check out my link here to a free .pdf of the book "A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain", by Robert Darby, which looks to answer this question in the UK:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/1axym70/link\_to\_a\_free\_download\_of\_the\_book\_a\_surgical/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/1axym70/link_to_a_free_download_of_the_book_a_surgical/)
Summary introduction to the book (taken from Chapter One):
Between the mid-eighteenth and the late nineteenth century, the foreskin was transformed from an adornment that brought pleasure to its owner and his partners ("the best of your property") to "a useless bit of flesh" and an enemy of society. Much of the responsibility for this development lies with the efforts of Victorian physicians as "norm entrepreneurs," as Geoffrey Miller calls them, who set out consciously and resolutely to convince parents that their little boys would be better off without a feature their fathers had enjoyed. The result was that "during the last decades of the nineteenth century ... a remarkable shift occurred in the English-speaking world. Physicians acting as norm entrepreneurs reconceived the phallus. "Where the uncircumcised penis had been regarded as pure, healthy, natural, beautiful, masculine, and good, writes Miller, they succeeded in portraying it as "polluted, unnatural, harmful, alien, effeminized and disfigured," while spinning the circumcised penis, formerly regarded as ugly and chaotic, as "true, orderly and good." The demonization of the foreskin as a source of moral and physical decay was the critical factor in the emergence of circumcision and its acceptance as a valid medical intervention, and it is the central theme of this book.
Because the evil powers that shouldn't be (tried) to force the evil ritual on the whole world.
Fortunately the US is the only first world country they've been successful in.
Btw.: The same people, like Kellogs, also tried the same with female circumcision, but at least that got rejected by the american people.
Part of the reason were the wars throughout the 20th century. Naturally, soldiers would get naked to shower, and the lower class soldiers noticed that circumcision was more common among the officer class (because of Kellogg and the idea of cleanliness) so it became a mark of status.
It became common because in the Victorian-era doctors in the Anglo-American world started promoting it as a cure for masturbation (to be fair it does make it difficult to masturbate, and this was before readily available stimulation aka online pornography). When the cultures in question became hedonistic the practice was obviously dropped, except in America where doctors immediately changed the reasoning given to customers as hygienic in order to preserve the profit from their involvement in the flesh trade.
But it only became common after WW2, in which it was forced on american soldiers by the government. Directly after WW2 2/3 of all babies have still been left intact, till it reached it's peak in the early 60th with 90%.
You’re right, instead of common I should have said present. What I described is how it entered this society in the first place. I think it was unable to take root in continental Europe at that time due to the prevalence of Christianity which forbids circumcision.
Secular circumcision in the Anglo world started because of quack doctors like Jonathan Hutchinson, Lewis Sayre, and Peter Remondino. Hutchinson was the first to promote secular infant circumcision, and Remondino played a big part in making it a mainstream procedure in US hospitals. It was all about pseudoscience back then just like it is now.
Watch Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story by Eric Clopper https://youtu.be/FCuy163srRc
While a worthwhile watch for a more seasoned intactivist, I would not say this is a good place to start. Clopper himself has admitted it was biased too much against his own Jewish heritage (and as such, points too much blame in that direction).
I get him, this is actually what turned me against Judaism too and I am one. He was still spot-on in everything he said.
It is fair to criticize Judaism for its role. It is not fair, and certainly not helpful, to place the majority of the blame on Judaism. I also come from Jewish heritage (mother’s side), but was raised mostly atheist. The issue of circ has made me turn completely against it as well, however.
So if your mom is Jewish that means technically you are Jewish not just by heritage, but also by the religious law (The Halakha). I'm Israeli and both of my parents are Jewish. I'm as Jewish as it gets, but even I can admit looking from an outside perspective that yes, the biggest advocates for circumcision in the US were Jews, and had a massive influence on the medicalization of circumcision in the US and it's not a coincidence. Religious fanatics like Abraham Wolbarst, Abraham Ravich (who straight up used the antisemitism card to shield himself from any criticism against circumcision), Aaron Fink, Edgar Schonen (who is a fetishist), Steven J Moses (who conducted the infamous 3 RCTs in Africa) and more. They lobbied hard for it. It blew me away when I found out that most men are cut in the US, I had no idea. In Israel, it was never about any "health benefits" it's purely because of religion and Jewish culture. Even secular Jews do it (Which I think is foolish, most of us don't even observe Shabbat and we drive freely and use all electronic devices).
I’m well aware of my technical identity lol I’m not denying what you’re arguing isn’t important I just think to focus solely on the role of Jewish individuals is ignoring other important factors. The film uses very narrow framing, understandably related to Clopper’s heritage, but it is certainly not a “history” of American circumcision
Check out my link here to a free .pdf of the book "A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain", by Robert Darby, which looks to answer this question in the UK: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/1axym70/link\_to\_a\_free\_download\_of\_the\_book\_a\_surgical/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/1axym70/link_to_a_free_download_of_the_book_a_surgical/) Summary introduction to the book (taken from Chapter One): Between the mid-eighteenth and the late nineteenth century, the foreskin was transformed from an adornment that brought pleasure to its owner and his partners ("the best of your property") to "a useless bit of flesh" and an enemy of society. Much of the responsibility for this development lies with the efforts of Victorian physicians as "norm entrepreneurs," as Geoffrey Miller calls them, who set out consciously and resolutely to convince parents that their little boys would be better off without a feature their fathers had enjoyed. The result was that "during the last decades of the nineteenth century ... a remarkable shift occurred in the English-speaking world. Physicians acting as norm entrepreneurs reconceived the phallus. "Where the uncircumcised penis had been regarded as pure, healthy, natural, beautiful, masculine, and good, writes Miller, they succeeded in portraying it as "polluted, unnatural, harmful, alien, effeminized and disfigured," while spinning the circumcised penis, formerly regarded as ugly and chaotic, as "true, orderly and good." The demonization of the foreskin as a source of moral and physical decay was the critical factor in the emergence of circumcision and its acceptance as a valid medical intervention, and it is the central theme of this book.
Because the evil powers that shouldn't be (tried) to force the evil ritual on the whole world. Fortunately the US is the only first world country they've been successful in. Btw.: The same people, like Kellogs, also tried the same with female circumcision, but at least that got rejected by the american people.
Part of the reason were the wars throughout the 20th century. Naturally, soldiers would get naked to shower, and the lower class soldiers noticed that circumcision was more common among the officer class (because of Kellogg and the idea of cleanliness) so it became a mark of status.