Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

Circumcision Rates Cut

Dec 07, 2005 3:37 PM
Tags:

"[O]verall circumcision rates in the U.S. have fallen to the lowest level in more than half a century, from 63.5% in 1993 to 55.9% in 2003, the last year for which federal data are available."

Oddly enough, the article doesn't mention immigration as a factor. I would suspect that when people immigrate from regions where circumcision isn't practiced, it's pretty unlikely they'll have the procedure done to their sons.


Comments: Circumcision Rates Cut

Well, there's also the part about it being barbaric infant genital mutilation....

Posted by: Keesey on December 7, 2005 6:22 PM | permalink

It's the foreskin, not the glans (head) of the penis that's removed. Is it barbaric? Perhaps. But if so, it's more along the lines of a little snip of the labia, versus an entire clitorectomy.

There might be some pleasure difference, but sex feels feels fine for me with my cut pee-pee so I'm not sure I need the extra pleasure a foreskin allegedy provides. Plus, I'd be terrified of getting some infection or something if I didn't keep my man tool clean enough. Not to mention the increased risk of penile cancer with a non-cut member.

On a related note, the websites documenting botched circumcisions are incredibly disturbing, as are the letters in Savage Love from people who lost their glans in botched circumcisions. I feel bad for those folks.

Finally, I'm not sure immigration has much to do with it. Were similar phenomena observed with prior waves of immigration from non-circumcising cultures?

Posted by: on December 7, 2005 6:52 PM | permalink

What I mean by the immigration part is that, for non-Jews and non-Muslims, the decision to circumcize is probably a result of cultural norms.

So if the dad was born in Mexico or China or India or Russia, it's that much less likely he'll have his kid circumcized.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on December 7, 2005 8:35 PM | permalink

Or Europe, for that matter... :-}

Posted by: Hans on December 7, 2005 8:59 PM | permalink

Obviously, the newborn or 8 day old can't make an conscious decision to get cut or not. So, regardless of the outcome, does it matter that it's a non-consensual medical procedure? What if the child was ritually scarred in some other way?

Posted by: on December 8, 2005 2:13 PM | permalink

Well, yeah, I think it matters.

I mean would you OK a parent cutting off his kid's ears simply because they consent in lieu of the child?

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on December 8, 2005 2:22 PM | permalink

I just wanted to say that the title of the post is really what's great about it.

Posted by: ChuckJerry on December 9, 2005 7:57 AM | permalink

Jerry:

I feel I should have done better. I spent a good 15 minutes trying to come up with something witty.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on December 9, 2005 9:40 AM | permalink

Infant circumcision is barbaric.Hopefully the rates will continue to go down.A lot of americans are pretty ignorant on the subject but i think they're getting wiser.The law stepped in to stop female mutilation,where's the law for males.The law is unconstitutional it's biased for females.What parent out there would cut off the clitoral hood off her baby daughter, because it's the same identical thing.(it's a foreskin).Kinda sounds a little more barbaric now doesn't it? I'm an american guy but this should stop.Let the boy decide.How do u know if the kid would rather have his foreskin when he grows up.Can't ask him,then ask him when he gets older.It's his and only his decision.If for medical reasons it needs to be done then thats when u as a parent become involved.

Posted by: on December 9, 2005 10:13 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.