More Americans protecting their willies

[Gentle Giant]

C'mon, people, it's the kindest cut of all.


U.S. circumcision rate drops
By Rachel Konrad, Associated Press Writer | June 18, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO --On the eighth day of her son's life, Julia Query welcomed friends and family to celebrate his birth and honor their Jewish heritage.

But there was no crying, no scalpel, no blood, no "mohel" -- the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith. In fact, Elijah Rose's "bris" differed markedly from the ceremony long used to initiate Jewish boys into a covenant with God: There was no circumcision.

"I knew before I was even pregnant that I would not circumcise," said Query, 39, a San Francisco filmmaker whose son was born in 2002. "It's not like you're just cutting a piece of paper off a pad -- there's no `cut here' line. It's not made to be cut off, and I would never, ever do that to my baby."

Query is among a growing number of American parents refusing circumcision, in which the foreskin is removed from the penis.

According to a study by the National Health and Social Life Survey, the U.S. circumcision rate peaked at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s but began dropping in the '70s. By 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent.

Experts say immigration patterns play the biggest role in the decline, which is steepest in Western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries where circumcision is uncommon. The trend has also accompanied a change in Americans' attitudes toward medicine and their bodies.

"The rates of drug-free labor and breast-feeding all rose during the 1980s, while the initial declines in male circumcision rates began during the 1980s as well," said Katharine Barrett, an anthropology lecturer at Stanford University. "It may have been part and parcel of the wider effort to reclaim bodies -- adult female and infant male -- from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions."

Circumcision remains the nation's most common surgery, and the United States is still one of the few developed countries where a majority of baby boys are circumcised. But circumcision is a heated issue and the subject of vehemently pro and anti Web sites.

"We were all circumcised when I was born," said R. Louis Schultz, a 79-year-old New Yorker and author of "Out in the Open: The Complete Male Pelvis." "People thought it could ward off masturbation or disease, and those funny attitudes have really changed. Now people are saying, `Why do it?'"

Many doctors still recommend circumcision because of some evidence that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, HIV and perhaps other sexual transmitted diseases. Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.

But circumcision opponents say the medical benefits are dubious. Penile cancer, for example, is extremely rare. Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics has not endorsed routine circumcision.

The debate escalated in February, when studies found that heterosexual men in Africa who were circumcised had HIV infection rates up to 60 percent lower than uncircumcised men. Because of those studies, the American Academy of Pediatrics is taking another look at its policy.

About one in three males worldwide is circumcised. In the United States, the rates vary widely by region.

It is most prevalent in the upper Midwest. In 2004, according to data compiled by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, more than 79 percent of newborn boys in the Midwest were circumcised before leaving the hospital. Michigan and Kentucky had the highest rates, at 85 percent.

In the fast-growing West, the rate declined dramatically -- from 64 percent in 1979 to just under 32 percent in 2004.

In California, the rate of hospital circumcisions among newborns was 21 percent. California -- which has more immigrants than any other state -- had the lowest circumcision rate in the study, which had comprehensive data on only 27 states.

The decline coincides with rising immigration from Asia and Latin America.

"If you have a solid Victorian, American background, routine circumcision is not unusual," said Carol A. Miller, clinical professor of pediatrics at University of California at San Francisco.

Circumcision was uncommon in 35-year-old Usha Toland's family, which has roots in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. When her son, Reynick, was born in 2005 in San Francisco, her husband, Chris, a white man from Southern California, assumed his son would be circumcised. But after the couple read Web sites and medical literature, they decided against the surgery.

"Usha probably would have understood if I really wanted to have Reynick circumcised," said Chris, a 42-year-old advertising executive. "But ultimately I didn't want to bring pain to the child unnecessarily. We wanted to do things the way God or the universe meant them to be."

Many parents fear their boys would feel awkward in the locker room if they were not circumcised.

"I like the idea of him looking like his dad -- that's the most important thing for me," said Denise Milito Stockwell, 40, an artist in Chicago who had her 15-month-old son, Harlan, circumcised. "It wasn't traumatic for him in any way. He came back from the event sleeping."

Circumcision is still common in many Jewish and Muslim communities.

Ruth Katz, 38, of San Francisco had both her sons circumcised at brises. She and her husband, Michael Rapaport, were astonished when the teacher in their birthing class described circumcision as "immoral" and "not consensual."

"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this."

[clinthopson]

"So you gave them the desert with all the oil and you had us cut our WHAT off?"

[Vince Kargatis]

The fewer the better. How anyone rationally defends nonconsensual elective permanent alteration (I'll avoid the term mutilation for argument's sake) of a child's body is beyond me. It absolutely disgusts me that the western medical establishment still kowtows to the practice (in that they just effectively present it as a choice among equal choices, even though they've at least stopped recommending it).

[jesus marion joseph]

Fortunately I was born without a foreskin, so I elected to skip circumcision at birth.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Fortunately I was born without a foreskin, so I elected to skip circumcision at birth.

I knew it! jmj's a chick!

[Jazzzoline]

i've read somewhere that they noticed in Africa circumcision would prevent hiv transmission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Jazzzoline

i've read somewhere that they noticed in Africa circumcision would prevent hiv transmission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

I read that somewhere, too, but I just can't remember where.....

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Jazzzoline

i've read somewhere that they noticed in Africa circumcision would prevent hiv transmission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

Yes, and there's been some talk of requiring circumcision in some countries most affected by HIV.

[Gary Sisco]

Not prevent but can help the odds against it.

I'd have mine no other way.

Mileage may vary of course. No sense being an absolutist.

I object much more to having been baptized while a defenceless infant not old enough yet to even object.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'd have mine no other way.

A healthy attitude for all those of us who were circumcised at birth. Why worry about something you can't change anyway? Circumcision was so widespread in the US when I was born (1958) that I must have been ten years old before I realized that boys weren't born that way. Seriously! All boys, or near enough, were circumcised. Then when I was around ten, I heard a kid who had only just been circumcised (presumably for some medical reason) talking about it, and that was when I first learned about foreskins. I had never heard of them before that and had certainly never seen one.

My son and nephews aren't circumcised. Times change!

[Vince Kargatis]

Myself, I'd rather not be circumcised. That chafing exists where none would with a foreskin is a hard fact that shows up, for example, every time I ride my bike. But whether or not people "mind" having it done to them as babies, that's no excuse for doing it in the first place.

[Monte Smith]

I have two friends who are in that subclass of men who deeply resent the removal of their foreskins. One believes that the procedure has inclined him to ejaculate prematurely, the other (Pumpy) believes that the loss of nerve cells has decreased his sexual pleasure by 30%. He actually names that figure. Nevermind that no one who was circumcised as a child was also not circumcised as a child and so can compare. Both of these friends have personalities which make me believe that their want of a foreskin is not the primary problem.

[steve(thelil)]

When I was old enough to decide for myself, I had elective surgery to produce an aftskin.

[Gary Sisco]

'54 model, here. There were kids in my neighborhood that weren't circumsized.

To each his own. I'd still rather be circumsized without my consent or knowledge than baptized without it. What can a baptism even mean to an infant? Even the book would say, Nothing. Fucking mumbo jumbo; I've had to deal with it all of my life....

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

What can a baptism even mean to an infant? Even the book would say, Nothing. Fucking mumbo jumbo; I've had to deal with it all of my life....

I was baptized when I was a baby. I don't remember what it meant to me then. It does not mean much to me now.

[Jazzzoline]

Didn't they find out how to renew it, using the stem cells technique?

[Gary Sisco]

Now, there's an idea likely worth millions. I have a friend who's a genius-level bioengineer. I'll have her get right on it. So to speak...

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'd still rather be circumsized without my consent or knowledge than baptized without it.

This is hard for me to figure out. If you're circumcised without your consent, you have been physically changed in an irreversible way. If you're baptized without your consent, you can simply ignore it in later life and it will be as if it never happened. Baptizing a baby is (from the point of view of us infidels) a bunch of mumbo-jumbo grown-ups do with the baby as a prop, nothing more.

Now if by "baptism" you mean not just that ceremony but everything that goes into inculcating a child with religious beliefs, I can understand what you're saying. A strong religious upbringing, if it proves problematic for the child, can cause a lot of problems, whereas circumcision generally does not (aside from possible chafing while riding a bike).

[Chris D]

Soon, there will be an anti-smegma backlash against the uncut. Just say no to smegma!

[jesus marion joseph]

Like Tom, I don't think I saw an uncircumcised penis until I was in high school. I also didn't know (as a kid) about foreskins, and thought all penises looked just like mine (except smaller).

[clinthopson]

So the guys says "Why do you have clocks and watches in your window?"

The moyel replies "What do you want me to put there?"

And then there's -

When rubbed, a purse made out of an elephant's foreskin becomes a steamer trunk.

[Gary Sisco]

Damn. Just had a post disappear so I hope I'm not inadvertently repeating myself.

Tom -- Having been circumsized just isn't an issue in my life. It's the way my body's always been for as long as my memory goes back. I have no resentment about it. I was also born with my feet pigeon-toed. In those days, doctors broke kids bones and then set them in plaster casts to correct them. I don't remember that, either, or hold any resentment about it. I'm rather glad I didn't come up pigeontoed, frankly.

On the other hand, being a stone atheist, and having had a mother who's a real Christian and tried to inculcate my mind with those notions, I just find it objectionable that I was baptized into the christian fold without consent, and without belief.

Different strokes for different folks.

I'd not tell anyone else what to do with their kids' dicks. Circumsize or not as they see fit. Makes no difference to me, either way.

[Vince Kargatis]

I'll third Uli and Tom's bewilderment. Gary, can you name any substantive effect from being baptized? There is none, its meaning is purely in the eyes of the baptizers - as baptizee, it means nothing more than someone giving you the evil eye in a grocery store behind your back. That is, zero.

Are there any physical alterations that you'd object a parent doing to their children? Cutting off pinky toes? Decorative scarification? Electrolysis of body hair? There are a million things one could grow up with without "minding" - it's all ok to do nonconsensually?

[Gary Sisco]

No, I can't. As I said, only an intellectual resentment, that's all.

I don't have any resentment or really any feelings at all about having been circumsized. The act itself is not in my memory, nor my original body, which was in its "natural" state deformed. I have no resentment for having had my bones corrected, either.

Is it now a requirement of some kind that I feel resentment about the state of my dick? I'm not arguing with anyone about what to do with theirs or with their kids. Cut it or not. It doesn't matter to me.

I'm just saying I have no resentment about my having been circumsized. That's all. And I don't. It's not an issue for me one way or another, at all. Never has been. I very much doubt it ever will be. It's the same dick I've always had, only bigger, at least somewhat ....

[clinthopson]

Baptism saves you from burning in the fires of Hell.

Everyone knows that.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, there's that.

What would materially change in my life if I decided to take on a resentment about having been circumsized? Would I get a new foreskin out of it? (I mean, aside from the stem cell notion above, which is a good one; apparently some people here ought to look into it ....)

Should my parents have left my deformed legs and feet as they were "naturally"? I'm pretty sure it must have hurt quite a lot when they cracked my bones and slammed them into different places. It must've been damned uncomfortable having them in casts for six months. At least circumcision's over with a lot faster than that.

But the truth is I have no memory of either event or of my body as it was before either event. So I have zero issues about either event.

Some people do, apparently. I'm not one of them. That's all.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'm not arguing with anyone about what to do with theirs or with their kids. Cut it or not. It doesn't matter to me.

Yes, I'm just asking what sort of actions you would object to parents doing to their kids, such as my examples above.

I don't think anyone here cares at all about your own comfort level with your body.

[Gary Sisco]

That's nice to know.

I think parents should parent the way they think they should. It's not for me to tell them. I have no objections to circumcision and I have no objection to not circumcizing.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

I'll third Uli and Tom's bewilderment. Gary, can you name any substantive effect from being baptized?

Isn't it evident that he's water-damaged?

[walto]

I agree with what I think Tom S. was saying here. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there's some marginal health harm to circumcision (and that the procedure is painful and also constitutes wasteful expense). In spite of all that, I'd still want it done to me (and would do it to my kid) if everybody else was doing it. The emotional harm in looking like a creature from another planet down there would completely swamp those kinds of (assumed) marginal harms produced by having the procedure.

Now, if it caused you to die younger or get AIDs or have bad orgasms or something more serious, that would be different, but sometimes it pays to just go along....