Circumcision

[BmorePat87]

(01-19-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It may not be necessary; however, as the saying goes "When it Rome...."

Yea, a lot of arguments from my friends are "well, I guess if I had it then my boy should have it". The  "look like his father" thing.

[BmorePat87]

As Benton pointed out, rates have decreased. Where it was once in the 80-70%, it is now down to 54%. As it continues to decrease, uncircumcised will now be the norm. Will girls be grossed out if it's normal?

[Au165]

(01-19-2016, 03:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As Benton pointed out, rates have decreased. Where it was once in the 80-70%, it is now down to 54%. As it continues to decrease, uncircumcised will now be the norm. Will girls be grossed out if it's normal?

Maybe, maybe not. What is aesthetically pleasing is hard to predict sometimes, as even "normal" isn't always accepted as pleasing. If it becomes the overwhelming norm, then that is probably the way I'd go with my child. I look at it more as the not trying to make my kids life any tougher as he grows up theory.

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2016, 03:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As Benton pointed out, rates have decreased. Where it was once in the 80-70%, it is now down to 54%. As it continues to decrease, uncircumcised will now be the norm. Will girls be grossed out if it's normal?

Tha numbers Benton pasted have a little truth behind them, but many of them ar gross exaggerations.  The circumcision rate in the United States is still close to 80%.

But you are correct that it will become more and more accepted.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-19-2016, 04:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tha numbers Benton pasted have a little truth behind them, but many of them ar gross exaggerations.  The circumcision rate in the United States is still close to 80%.

But you are correct that it will become more and more accepted.  

rate or prevalence? 

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2016, 05:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: rate or prevalence? 

That is the current rate.

Prevalence would be higher because the rate was higher in the past.

[Benton]

(01-19-2016, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you are looking to support your position you can find about anything on the web. For instance the American Academy of Periatrics states:
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

I'd be interested to know if the lower numbers are because the lopping of phallus's is normally in western culture (where cancer and STD infection rates are typically better) or because floppy dongs actually cause cancer. 

I don't know of a lot of "real" numbers as it's — probably — going to boil down more to culture/location/healthcare access issues. And not the fact that someone thought God needs your help you fix someone's schlong.

[Benton]

(01-19-2016, 04:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tha numbers Benton pasted have a little truth behind them, but many of them ar gross exaggerations.  The circumcision rate in the United States is still close to 80%.

But you are correct that it will become more and more accepted.  

Like I said, I won't attest to the validity of that site as I've never spent much time looking up the numbers. But...

Quote: The percentage of newborns who are circumcised in the United States has been on the decline in recent decades, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).



Between 1979 and 2010, the rate of newborn circumcision among males declined from 64.5 percent to 58.3 percent, the report found.

The rate was highest in 1981, at 64.9 percent, then declined during the 1980s, rose again in the 90s, and fell again in the 2000s, reaching a low of 55.4 percent in 2007, the report said.

The biggest overall decline was seen in the West, where the rate dropped from 63.9 percent in 1979 to 40.2 percent in 2010. At its lowest point in 2003, the circumcision rate of male newborns in the West was just 31.4 percent

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-rate-drops_n_5107637.html

Quote:Boys born in the West are more likely to skip circumcision than they are to have the once common procedure.

It's a dramatic change over the past 32 years. Back in 1979, about two-thirds of boys out West got circumcised in the hospital soon after they were born. By 2010, only 40 percent were.
Overall, rates of circumcision performed in U.S. hospitals have dropped about a 10th over the past three decades. Fifty-eight percent of newborn boys got circumcised in the hospital in 2010, compared with around 65 percent in 1979. The rate has fluctuated, with the modern national low of 55 percent coming in 2007.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/08/22/214406903/popularity-of-circumcision-falls-in-u-s-especially-out-west

The stats seem to be coming from a CDC report, which is linked in both articles.

[Benton]

(01-19-2016, 03:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As Benton pointed out, rates have decreased. Where it was once in the 80-70%, it is now down to 54%. As it continues to decrease, uncircumcised will now be the norm. Will girls be grossed out if it's normal?

Any more than they aren't or aren't grossed out by a "normal" looking penis?

Come on, the things look funny with or without a turtleneck. 

[Bengalzona]

(01-19-2016, 04:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tha numbers Benton pasted have a little truth behind them, but many of them ar gross exaggerations.  The circumcision rate in the United States is still close to 80%.

But you are correct that it will become more and more accepted.  

The current high rate of circumcision in the U.S. is just a continuation of a post-World War II "fad". Prior to WWII, I've read that very few non-Jewish people were circumcised. This was true for many places in Europe as well (especially Germany where checking to see if a person was circumcised was one way of 'discovering' if they were a Jew).

I'm not sure what exactly happened in WWII to change peoples thinking. I read one story about the U.S. Army forcing 150,000 men, particularly black soldiers, to get circumcisions because they were unhygienic and to 'avoid disease'. As much history as I've read, I have never found anything that confirms or even supports that story. That said, though, a lot of soldiers came back from the war with the notion that being circumcised was more hygienic than not being circumcised. As a result, the practice took off with the baby boom.

Personally, I suspect that some unhygienic, nastyass soldiers from backwoods all over the country were exposed to other people from other places for the first time and came to realize that some of the Jewish guys never suffered from cold sores and 1/2 inch thick mold dripping off their schlong all of the time (having also never been exposed to the practice of washing the darn thing off after uses). I'm sure their wives and girlfriends might have thought that was a good practice too.