in the 40's and 50's was male circumcision widely done?

Question

Secondly, in the same era was there anything like partial circumcision, ie only a small amount of skin removed from tip? I ask because i cant figure out if i was partially or not circumcised. Part of the tip almost is always exposed as the skind does not reach to cover entirely.

Answer 1

Yes it was. Circumcision rates increased throughout that period, reaching a peak of 90% in 1965 (US Statistics). Since then, there has been a gradual decline, with a rate of 68% nationally in 2004. There is a regional variation, with 39% in the Western states, and much higher rates in the Eastern states.

In your case you may not have been circumcised; in un-circumcised adults there can be a large quantity of foreskin folded down over the tip, or it may barely cover the penis. Foreskin is a more red color when erect and has a different texture - it is muscous membrane, and contains thousands of nerve endings. A circumcised man only has normal skin on his shaft.

Answer 2

There is no such thing as partial circumcision. However, circumcisions done in the hospitals I've learned are not done properly. They always manage to leave some amount of skin on the penis. If I could do it all over again, I would beg a Jewish rabbi to do it for my son and all the little boys of my friends. Rabbis (or some person in the Jewish religion) and Muslims do it best because it's what they do - no kidding.

Answer 3

I have heard of partial circumcision. It is basically when the doctors don't remove as much skin.

Answer 4

Yes, some doctors did that style of circumcision. Also depending on the technique used, more or less of the foreskin is removed. Some techniques only removed overhanging skin.

Alternatively, some men have short foreskins.

Answer 5

I don't think there's is such a think as partial circumcision...it wouldn't make sense. The reason why circumcision is done is for hygene purposes...it's cleaner. NEway...40-50 ppl got circumcised....maybe b/c of your religion you didn't.

Answer 6

There was no partial circumcision that I have ever heard of.

Answer 7

yes in the 40's and 50's and still is widly done. catholics do it (other than spanish catholics). jewish do not. ask your mom, partial done doesn't sound right. you probably just dont have the regular length of skin for coverage.

Answer 8

I dont know, probably your circumcision was done in a wrong way. But from what you say, in your case it was a "good" thing they did it wrong.







The “medical” reasons for circumcision are for Doctors to make MONEY!!!
Circumcision is “nothing” compared to other much more terrible things that people do for MONEY, when MONEY is involved EVERYRHING is possible, MONEY is the priority not moral values, not ethics, not health, not wrong or right, not even human life, etc. People are selfish by nature. And that is soooo sad. $$$CASH$$$

Simply does not matter if circumcision has advantages or not; he has the right to his body to be intact, and that overrides everything else. And btw it only has disadvantages, see below.

MOTHERS, the feelings of mothers who observed the circumcision of their babies. Go here if you have the courage:
http://www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm
They do not remember the pain when they grow up, but I wonder what kind of neurological/emotional damage it does to inflict such severe pain to such a young one!

In the US circumcision started to stop boys from masturbating; they will take much longer to reach the orgasm, and the orgasm will not be as intense, but that will not stop them.
Nowadays the “medical” reasons to circumcision are for Doctors to make MONEY!!!

RELIGION--If God intended boys to not have "skin" He would have made them so.
Also, if you examine the bible, lest just say that is full of terrible things that are considered very illegal nowadays, and many of those terrible things are AGAINST WOMEN. Women, how would you like it if those things get legalized?
http://www.nocirc.org/religion/

HYGIENE--Use a new invention, soap and water!!! Women produce much more “smegma”, all kinds of discharges, wetness, and smells; because of physiologic and anatomical reasons, and how would you feel if they cut your vulva lips??? Women, why don’t you answer my question, are you afraid? Women are more likely to get urinary tract infections and no one suggests we surgically alter them at birth to reduce the risks! Just one of many double standards and laws that always treat men worse.

MEDICAL REASONS--No medical reasons. It is not a birth defect! A extremely small chance of a complication do not justify the removal of the foreskin, if so, why don't we remove the tonsils and the appendix when a child is born, and the chance of complications of the tonsils and the appendix is much greater. And what is even greater is the chance of breast cancer so the best thing to do is to remove the breast glands of young girls or at least remove them at the first sign of trouble without trying any alternative treatments first in order to preserve the breast(women, how do you like it now?). And for infections of all the organs, including female organs, use a new invention called antibiotics. Talking about complications, in fact many baby boys die each year from circumcision and related complications.
EVEN if “TRUE phimosis” occurs, instead of chopping it off like barbarians!, use Conservative Treatments like:
-Topical Medication(non-traumatic and non-destructive)
-Dilation and Stretching(non-traumatic and non-destructive)
-Combination treatment(non-traumatic and non-destructive)
-Preputioplasty is the medical term for plastic surgery of the prepuce or foreskin(many methods).
If you want more detail on Conservative Treatments, go here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
http://www.circinfo.org/alternatives.html
The foreskin can still be tight even after puberty, and it is natural, not TRUE phimosis.
And now they invented a new reason to make money, the risk of STD in uncircumcised men. Well actually uncircumcised men have more protection, but in practical terms that protection means nothing, because circumcised or not, if you have sex without protection and your partner have an STD you will be infected FOR SURE! That means, it is just one more stupid and desperate reason in order to make money with circumcisions.

SEX--Foreskin actually enhances the sexual experience for men because it constantly moves over the head of the penis causing more friction and pleasure. Men will also lose much sensitivity to the glans if circumcised.
Circumcised men will have to deal with discomfort and dry glans. Uncircumcised men, pull the foreskin back for a day, and see how it feels against your underwear all day, and see what happens. The frenulum is the G SPOT in men.
The foreskin have those functions: protective, erogenous, sensory, and sexual physiologic. After all, why would you want to lose all of those “Meissner corpuscles”, the same nerve complexes which provide fine touch to the fingertips?
It is there for many reasons, that is how a man should be(it is natural).
If women like it better circumcised because it looks better(strange, not natural) or gives them more sexual pleasure(strange, not natural), then too bad, they do not have the right! All men do not like mutilated vulvas, and all men like breasts with nipples, they do not like mutilated breasts, etc, etc, etc, because that is the way those organs are supposed to be, it is natural. Interesting, isn’t?!!!

If that was a common practice to do that to baby girls, all the women would be in a BIG UPROAR about it(and men too!, men are not like women), but it’s ok to mutilate little boys. The great majority of the ones that agree with circumcision are women for their stupid selfish reasons. Even court cases reported in which mother and father fight because the mother wants to mutilate the son, it is always the mother!. You women should be ashamed to that to your son. Men that are not circumcised, will not get circumcised when adults, they would scream, kick, fight and run, if someone tries to mutilate their privates area, just like you women would run too if someone tried to do that to your labia. Men that where circumcised do not realize what they lost because never had one, and most of them that do realize try to justify it so they do not feel bad about it. Many circumcised men feel very bad emotionally because of what was done to them to such a private area.
The uncut boys don’t joke the cut ones. The cut ones joke because they are jealous and traumatized, it makes them feel better, minimize the emotional pain.
It is mutilation of defenceless children in the most private spot, genital mutilation.
It is cruel and barbaric.
It is a human rights violation.
It is not the parent’s decision; it is the parent’s decision if they want to abuse him, rape him, or to kill him? It is the parent’s decision to choose the son religion? How can he chose a religion or his believes, if he is just a baby?
I do not even agree that it is ok if an adult man wants to get circumcised. I think it is wrong, because if a man wants to lose a finger, the Doctor can not do that to him. Think about it, think, think. And by the way, adult men that decide to get circumcised, do it because they know most women like it, they just do it to be more accepted by women.
I think it is just like slavery and all other barbaric acts of the past, it was accepted because it was common practice or tradition, everyone accepted slavery without questioning the facts, but it is not accepted anymore in a modern and fair and civilized society. Circumcision must not be allowed, BY LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many other reasons not to do it, check it out:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/boydies.html

Answer 9

no
it was an expensive process

Answer 10

ask your doctor.