Rates of circumcision falling sharply in the United States
By James Brady RyanAugust 17th, 2010, 12:55 pmComments (28)
A company that analyzes health care data recently came up with some figures that showed a steep drop in the rates of circumcision in the US — down to about one-third of newborn boys from over half in 2006. These findings were presented recently at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna, where they made quite a stir. Because circumcision can help reduce the chances of contracting HIV, many organizations working to stop the spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, including the federal government, have been debating whether or not to endorse the procedure.
But the New York Times notes that the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt:
The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.
So, maybe it's not quite that large of a drop. But the general trend is toward fewer, not more circumcisions every year. All of this is to say that if you're planning to rob the cradle in eighteen years or so, now you'll know what to expect.
Via Gakwer.
Commentarium (28 Comments)
It's weird that so many people are freaked out by uncircumcised penises when that's how everyone comes out in the first place.
I love it when women freak out about uncut cock. How would you like it, ladies, if we insisted you get labiaplasty because your twats are so gross looking?
I knew a meth head who said she didn't get her baby boy cut because it cost over $100 to do it. We're in a recession folks!
I personally wouldn't want to choose NOT to have my son circumcised and have him hate me for it later when he's ridiculed by women he sleeps with, the rest of the soccer team, etc.
You know what reduces HIV more than circumcision? A condom, people... A condom!! That study has more holes than a brick of swiss...
As a woman, I don't know why people are so hung up on uncut cocks either. I prefer them. They are natural and look so much better. Why would we insist on mutilating our men when we would not allow someone to insist we cut our hoods off.
This whole debate is stupid.
Two things:
1.) It is HILARIOUS to listen to religifucks fall over themselves to endorse circumcision as a "sure-fire way to prevent AIDS" (best figures: it reduces it by 8%) when at the same time they hate condoms (which reduces the chance of AIDS transmission by 95%).
2.) Kushin: Nice try; hospital circumcision costs around USD $800.
Ritual genital mutilation on an infant unable to give consent. Any doctor who performs this procedure should lose his or her license to practice medicine. Everyone is up in arms about this being done to girls in Africa, yet right here in US we mutilate the genitals of millions of babies every year for the aesthetic pleasure of adults. Its sick.
Right on, Jack. We just found out it'll be a boy in November. I don't see any particular reason why I, one of the people who's supposed to love and protect him from harm, should have a doctor slice off a piece of him.
Hey religious people: If god's so great, why do you want to mess around with what he's created?
My baby boy is not circumcised. I am, but I didn't have a choice in the matter, unfortunately. While it's impossible to tell since I wasn't given the choice, I'm pretty sure I would not have opted for it voluntarily. If my boy wants to get the tip of his penis chopped off someday, he can make that call himself. I don't buy the HIV transmission study results, and won't unless I see a well-designed study that takes place in an environment that more closely resembles the U.S.A., where I live, rather than in African nations that have much higher rates of HIV infection, high rates of prostitution, and cultural norms that strongly disfavor condom use.
What Jack said. Also, on the slim chance he REALLY wants to get circumsized later in life, he can have the procedure with his own consent. It's not a big procedure -- you don't even need to be put to sleep for it. But I've definitely met more men pissed as hell that someone chopped off a part of their body without their consent than I have men wanting rid of their foreskins.
If I ever have a son I won't get him circumcised. I just don't really get the point.
Jack, male and female circumcision are worlds apart. Male circumcision is usually done at a young age, while female circumcision is done to girls and women who will remember the pain. There is also essentially no negative consequence to circumcision while there is a host of problems with female circumcision, including an inability to feel sexual pleasure and sometimes the inability to conceive children if something goes wrong. They have the same name, but they're not very similar. It's like the people who think the Cordoba House is being funded by Al Qaeda.
No, the version you are describing here is clitorectomy--removal of the clitoris. Female circumcision is only the removal of the small flap that just covers the clitoris--not the Labia, not the clitoris. There is a serious terminology misunderstanding in North America over what female circumcision is. Perhaps if there were terms for the other African ritual procedures to better identify what they are or involve....
I'm perplexed by parents who use the "he may get laughed at by women [and the soccer team?!?] later in life" as a reason to do this. A healthy, well-rounded man would, and should, tell any such tittering fool to fuck off. If he's born with a nose that's a little flat, will you opt for the infant rhinoplasty (you know, in case he wants a different nose later)? When do you start taking him to the tanning salon? Because you know chicks dig a golden tan, so you may as well start now.
I agree, thinkeywritey. Those who believe uncut guys will "get laughed at in the locker room" are either A.) women or B.) guys without much locker room experience. Because it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the sociology of locker rooms would allow for a "Hey look at ardvark!" situations. As Mike Nelson (of MST3K fame) noted, the unspoken, mutual agreement of men in locker rooms is We Will All Pretend We Are Not Naked. Seriously: No matter how naked we actually are, it is FORBIDDEN to acknowledge the fact. Women may not get this, but it is an indisputable fact. If a guy so much as says, "Hey, you've lost a little weight there" it is a complete record-scratch-off moment. Because that guy has just admitted he LOOKED at another guy. And that breaks the Mutual Agreement.
Me: "There is also essentially no negative consequence to circumcision..." except, y'know, incredible pain, great expense, the potential for an incompetent surgeon (they exist and what they can do is cringe-inducing), the chance of infection, etc. Why is it not good enough for you to say that nobody should have anything surgically cut off them until they are old enough to say "no" to the procedure?
A bit of Googling will find the numerous flaws in the African pro-cutting studies. In one case they only gave condoms to the circumcised test subjects. I think one study was also sponsored by a U.S. company that manufactures circumcision supplies and has been losing business as educated American parents continue to drop circumcision.
Also, as we all know, for years the U.S. had a very high (almost universal) rate of circumcision and that did not prevent a AIDS outbreak in the U.S. Fact: the U.S. is one of the few industrialized countries with high circumcision rates. Great Britain, Europe, Scandinavia etc do not practice circumcision (the UK used to but never to the extent of the US and they stopped after WWII). All these countries have lower AIDS rates than the U.S. Even in Africa, not all African countries are suffering the same AIDS epidemics. There are some non-circumcising African countries with declining AIDS rates. Likewise, there are some Muslim (and hence circumcising countries) such as Malaysia where AIDS is increasing. My point is that large national statistics (where you would get a good regression to the mean) contradict the weird pro-circumcision studies.
Jesus, who cares? Sure, there's pain, but so what? They're like 1 month old. Babies feel pain. They're not going to remember it. Has any adult been affected by the pain they felt that young? I think no. I get that the baby can't consent and that sometimes things go wrong, but honestly, don't we as a society have better things to do? I'm guessing a few dozen Americans have been seriously damaged by a botched circumcision, if that. And can't an uncircumcised penis get infected if uncleaned? It happened to someone I knew in grammar school. I'm sure there were others. Maybe male circumcision is bad, I haven't thought too much about it. I know that there's a shit ton of injustice in the world, and I don't have the time or energy to care about all of it. Male circumcision is well below my level of giving a fuck.
I really don't understand this "Babies won't remember it hurting" bit. I've done a lot of stupid things, and they've resulted in cuts, burns, scrapes and stitches. Do I remember the pain from any of them? Hell no. But I do remember that they hurt.
Would it be alright to inflict pain of someone with anterograde amnesia, because you knew they wouldn't remember it? What a stupid justification.
And yet, on you go. I'm not sure the pain of the procedure is a particularly good argument against the practice myself. But, ya know, the fact that there are other, worse things, doesn't mean it isn't something worth discussing. As a million internet commenters have said before, and a billion will say in future: if you don't want to waste your time thinking/posting about it, don't think or post about it. Duh. Now, what I should add is that, as a woman — an American woman at that — I don't find an uncut penis to be SHHHHOOOOCKING!! like some people seem to believe we'd find it. Surprisingly enough, I'm usually more interested in the person attached to it, and have known a few rather charming uncut penises in my lifetime. If it were something that proved *significantly* advantageous, health-wise, that would be one thing. The argument most of the commenters are making is that the study suggesting circumcision is a good prophylactic (heh) against HIV is controversial at best, and dismissible at worst. And further, "it just looks better" is a HORRIBLE reason to remove a piece of (Hooksexup-rich) flesh from a baby. So I say, sounds a good thing that the numbers are dropping, or that it's at LEAST not such an automatic thing as it has been in decades past.
Why can't we just let parents decide whether or not they want to circumcise their kids? I don't mean I don't care so much as we shouldn't care. If the people who focused their attention on circumcision focused it on something important, more stuff would actually get done.
We DO let parents decide whether or not to circumcise their children. This is what we call a philosophical debate. And you know what I'd be doing if I weren't thinking about this right now? I wouldn't be curing cancer or rescuing people from floods in Pakistan. I'd be debating some other philosophy (or looking at kitten videos). Are you suggesting, Me, that we never discuss anything that isn't at the absolute apex of importantness? Not have opinions about anything that isn't world-changing? I absolutely agree that there are some commonly-discussed things not worth burning brain cycles on (hello, Lady Gaga), so I don't; but there are other topics that just tickle that opinion center in the brain. And when they do? We talk about it. This isn't the UN; we aren't changing world policy via the Scanner comments threads. The extent to which you get worked up on these comment threads is both funny and interesting. Yes, there ARE more important things in the world, but that's not stopping you from posting "this is old news" every other day on Scanner...
I usually find that the people who horn in and say "shouldn't we be talking about something IMPORTANT?" say that no matter what topic is at hand, and use it as a fall back to cover up their lack of researched opinion on anything.
As somebody /with/ an intact foreskin, I have to say I've never felt any kind of shame about it. I honestly have no idea why somebody would want to get rid of it; it's pretty awesome. Myths about cleanliness or unattractiveness are all completely unfounded, I assure you.
I do get worked up on these comments (and on pretty much every other website I visit). I do it in real life, too. I hold many opinions and feel strongly about them, and that expresses itself way too much in what is essentially a pop culture blog. Anyway, I think I'm just going to say what I think about male circumcision one last time and then probably forget about this page. I think people who are against it are often way too against it. Jack said, "Any doctor who performs this procedure should lose his or her license to practice medicine." The procedure is harmless virtually every time. Whether someone's cock is cut or not is pretty trivial by ever barometer, including as HIV/AIDS prevention and a sexual turn on/off. From a philosophical point of view, I think that its the parents' job to protect and help their son in any way they can, and it's up to them to decide whether circumcision helps or hurts their child.
About time too:
Drops in circumcision rates in other countries:
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
Now you say something