Are boys routinely circ'd in the us??? - Page 2

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by onelilguysmommy

and if you sign their general consent form...guess what you gave them. so you have to be for dang sure you make it known youre not having your baby have surgery.

Well I haven't given birth in 20 years but I have always lived in areas with a high latin american population where intact is the norm so it's not assumed at the hospitals where I've lived that people are circing.

[Britishmum]

Yep. It's sad but true.

When I went to the birth center where I had my babies, I was shocked to the core when the nurse doing the talk to prospective parents talked about "the room where they take the baby boys to be circumcised." I almost puked, it was so horrible.

I was so shocked that my voice went all trembling (and I hated myself afterwards for being so incoherent) but I guess at least I was the lone voice who spoke out. Of course, she shot me down in flames. I said something about how it was not necessary and that there was plenty of info on the web about why. She retorted with a totally patronising laugh that there is plenty of info on the internet, but that people shouldn't believe it. Most of the poeple in the room laughed along with her.

It was totally horrible, and I still regret to this day that I was not coherent enough to lay into her on the subject. It's so frustrating to know your facts, but be so upset that you can't express them with clarity.

I also regret to this day that I did not lodge a formal complaint with the hospital. Dh was so embarrassed by the debacle (I threw the whole room into disarray) that I just shut up. Knowing what I know now about routine circumcision in this country, I'd never have shut up. I'd have taken my complaint to the highest level. This nurse was telling parents that it was essential to circ a baby if dad was circ'd, that there was evidence that to do otherwise was damaging to the child, that it was just a little snip, and all sorts of other crap.

Ack. I still want to cry thinking of it. It was so shocking to me, and I was so ineffective in my argument against her. But it just took me totally unawares - I had absolutely no idea how deep this tradition runs with people, and how resistant they are to the truth.

I just hope that maybe, just maybe, one parent there out of the hundred or so, went home and did some research before agreeing with this nurse that it is essential to do this 'minor' procedure.

[odenata]

I was happy to find out that in my neck of the woods (Pacific NW) circ rates are much lower than the U.S. average - less than 35%. It's almost never done at the hospital I'm going to give birth at soon.

[robertandenith]

unfortunately yes but we are going to end this!!!! if it means 10 or 20 years, we will end this, I can't believe UNITED STATES is allowing this to happen to baby boys!!! ::

[njeb]

It all depends on which area of the U.S. you live in. The circ. rate is much lower on the west coast, with "only" 30% of the newborns being cut. Here in the Midwest, where I live, which is what the northern middle of the country is called, over 85% of all newborn boys are cut. It makes me want to puke.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by njeb

It all depends on which area of the U.S. you live in. The circ. rate is much lower on the west coast, with "only" 30% of the newborns being cut. Here in the Midwest, where I live, which is what the northern middle of the country is called, over 85% of all newborn boys are cut. It makes me want to puke.

I think that number is lower these days, more like 70%.

[njeb]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

I think that number is lower these days, more like 70%.

Well, the circ. rate is still way too high, but it's good to know it's going in the right direction. I just hope that some day, the rate is 0%.

[1stBabyAt39]

Wow, I had no idea that so many are uncircumcised. Circumcision must be pretty common where I live, because I've honestly never seen one intact in all my life.

In regards to "retraction"...I always thought that men have to pull the foreskin back to put on a condom. : Again, having never actually seen one, this is just something I've heard. Do they??

[mimim]

Originally Posted by 1stBabyAt39

In regards to "retraction"...I always thought that men have to pull the foreskin back to put on a condom. : Again, having never actually seen one, this is just something I've heard. Do they??

Eventually it retracts on it's own. Sometimes as a preschooler, but often not until puberty. When people talk about retracting on this board, usually they mean forcibly retracting it before it does so naturally.

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by 1stBabyAt39

Wow, I had no idea that so many are uncircumcised. Circumcision must be pretty common where I live, because I've honestly never seen one intact in all my life.

Nor I, but I am 30 years old, and you 39. For the babies that are born now, only half of them in the US are circumcised. No baby born now will ever be having sex with a member of our generation!

I followed both my sons to the nursery to make sure they weren't circumcised. And wrote all over their diapers and onesies.

[Juvysen]

Originally Posted by Galatea

Nor I, but I am 30 years old, and you 39. For the babies that are born now, only half of them in the US are circumcised. No baby born now will ever be having sex with a member of our generation!

Not true... my BIL is dating a woman who is 30-some years older than he is... They've been together since he was 23-ish? He's 33-ish now...

There's all sorts of relationships out there

[Fyrestorm]

I know I've mentioned this here before...

MGM is so common in the US that during autopsy, if a man in intact the report of autopsy states "uncircumcised" If the deceased is mutilated it either has no notation or says "normal genitals"

How freaking sick is that?

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by Juvysen

Not true... my BIL is dating a woman who is 30-some years older than he is... They've been together since he was 23-ish? He's 33-ish now...

There's all sorts of relationships out there

Okay, fine, unusual but possible, but my point is that the aesthetic tastes of a generation that will be considered old should not be taken into account. Just as our kids will not wear the same clothes, or hairstyles, or listen to the same music as us, they will not likely think the same way about circumcision as we do. And in a generation where half of the men are intact, and anti-circumcision info is everywhere, these kids will DEFINITELY know the difference.

[Microsoap]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

I know I've mentioned this here before...

MGM is so common in the US that during autopsy, if a man in intact the report of autopsy states "uncircumcised" If the deceased is mutilated it either has no notation or says "normal genitals"

How freaking sick is that?

The Columbine autopsy reports indicated that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were circumcised and their male victims indicate that they were circumcsied (the victims were). It states on Elvis Pressley's, that he's intact. But on Bruce Springsteen's birth certificate, it indicates that he's circ'd.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by Microsoap

The Columbine autopsy reports indicated that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were circumcised and their male victims indicate that they were circumcsied (the victims were). It states on Elvis Pressley's, that he's intact. But on Bruce Springsteen's birth certificate, it indicates that he's circ'd.

Lol, how do you know the autopsy reports of the Columbine accident? Given that these involved minors, I would not think they would be public knowledge.

[odenata]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

Lol, how do you know the autopsy reports of the Columbine accident? Given that these involved minors, I would not think they would be public knowledge.

They're online.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by odenata

They're online.

Oh, ok. But the info. here is limited with no mention of circ. status of many of the victims, at least according to what you showed me. I am actually surprised that a lot of this is public record, given that many of the victims were underage. Not that this is of any importance.

[AstridS]

Originally Posted by 1stBabyAt39

In regards to "retraction"...I always thought that men have to pull the foreskin back to put on a condom. : Again, having never actually seen one, this is just something I've heard. Do they??

No, they don't. The foreskin retracts on its own when a man is having sex. So assuming that the condom is only put on when a man is aroused, the foreskin has already retracted.

[calpurnia]

it was from mdc that i found this out too - so surprising! my dad was circed (it was common in his country at that time) & my brothers weren't, so i always learnt that it was a useless procedure that used to be fashionable... so surprised to find out it was so current in the states.

off-topic - lilabet, you're due on my duedate of a year ago! see sig for when she did come though i am also in london...

[hakunangovi]

Gabe's Mummy, Don't forget that circumcision became popular in the U.K. during the Victorian era and reached a peak of about 50% by the late '40s, especialy among the "upper classes". In 1949 Dr Douglas Gairdner's paper "The fate of the foreskin" was published. Shortly after that the NHS stopped paying for the circumcision of newborn boys and the custom rapidly declined. My guess is that you would find a fairly high proportion of the older generation males in the U.K. have been circumcised.

From reading some of the papers that have been published (available at www.cirp.org) it would seem that, like the Drs in the U.S. British Drs also employed circumcision as a "cure" for any and all foreskin problems. At least until fairly recently, as there is evidence that they are now encouraged to utilise less invasive procedures.