Originally Posted by vachi73
Originally Posted by chaoticzenmom
My brother was intact and circ'd his son. I honestly think that it was he equated foreskin with poverty. My mother always told him that she just couldn't afford to get him done, so he was left intact. [snip]
So, remind your husband that it's not a sign of poverty (it's 50/50 now) and the care of the intact penis is much gentler now.
This is a new "reason" for circ that I think could be challenging for the intactivist movement, especially with Medicaid not covering circ ... it will translate to lower rates of circ overall, but disproportionatley in lower-income circles than in high-income circles. My sister circ'd her two sons, and gave as a reason that people in their "socioeconomic bracket" were almost 100% circ'd. Rolling eyes.
In earlier days, circ was used in the locker room to differentiate people of Jewish descent from others (this is depicted in lots of Hollywood movies set in the 1930s and 1940s) and was the basis for discriminating against circ'd boys at that time. Are we moving to a time when being circ'd will be a sign of relative wealth? Like fancy shoes or clothes? Sheesh. Please, say it ain't so!!
This is not a "new" reason. In the 1930's boys who were born in hospitals were circumcised. Families who could not afford a hospital birth and had their babies at home were looked down upon as they were lower class. Consequently circumcision was seen as class distinction between those who could afford a hospital birth and those who could not.
In 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reported that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period. After that the nationwide incidence of neonatal circumcision continued the slow decline that started in 1965.
In 1989, the AAP issued a statement that claimed that circumcision had "potential benefits". The publication of this statement temporarily arrested the decline in circumcision.
In 1999, the AAP issued yet another statement that said the data on potential benefits were insufficient to recommend the practice of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision. Shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association declared that neonatal circumcision is a non- therapeutic procedure. More parents began to opt for genital integrity and the percentage of boys circumcised once again began to decline.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.
Circumcision is covered by 33 states and is also covered by military insurance TRICARE. This medically unnecessary surgery is not covered in 17 states. It has not been covered in California since 1982. North Dakota 1986, Oregon 1994, Mississippi 1998, Nevada 1998, Washington 1998, Missouri 2002, Arizona 2002, North Carolina 2002, Montana 2003, Utah 2003, Florida 2003, Maine 2004, Louisiana 2005, Idaho 2005, Minnesota 2005, West Virginia 2010, South Carolina 2011.
Personally I don't see a class or poverty factor today. If you examine the data it looks more like a regional issue with a huge majority of boys in the west being intact. In the U.S 67.5% of boys were left intact in 2009 while 32.5% were circumcised. In 2009, 15 states federal programs did not cover circumcision, there is no way that they account for 67.5% of births. It's also silly to think that people cant afford to pay for the procedure on their own. A decline this significant has to do with awareness. Yes, people in states who's federal programs do not cover it could very well be more aware.
I am happily married to an intact man. Until we did our research we had no idea how lucky we were or what lube was used for.
Edited by JulianneW - 1/5/11 at 11:05am