Is the Circ Rate really only 32%? - Page 2

[Sarah]

Night Nurse- I had a big problem with the way these statistics were forced out into the public eye.  I also have a lot of trouble believing them, and because they do not count outpatient circumcision- which currently does make up a large portion of circumcisions. But the fact remains, little is known about true circumcision statistics...at least not in one easy to understand database. Statistics on circumcision, the complications and the deaths should be compiled. There is no excuse for a situation like in the AAP policy on circumcision, that for the past 13 years has said, "The incidence of complications is unknown"

I have seen in the year since these Vienna stats were forced out to the public, that many people on parenting boards who are not activists, say, "I have heard the rate is well under 50% now so the locker room argument just doesn't hold true anymore." Because so much of circumcision was driven by peer pressure (of parents) to conform, this statistic has done a lot of good in opening the door for parents to question circumcision, when they used to feel obligated to do it and could not even consider the alternative. I see more parents than ever before on mainstream boards saying they will not circumcise....and the ones who say they will do it to conform, are being corrected that their son, if circumcised, may be in the minority. 

[sanity rules]

In my experience as an intactivist in 2011 America, 32% is (sadly) an unrealistically low number to quote.

Although it's not the only reason I say this about the rate not being so low, I often read blogs of expectant parents and cruise through sites with pregnancy related message boards. I do this sort of as a sociological overview of the views of the era on circumcision, and I'd have to say that among those American parents who do not come from a culture that already has intact males as a norm, most are still circumcising. (For instance, I read four blogs this afternoon, selected at random, and two couples mentioned their sons' circumcisions, with one other posting a picture of a first bath where the baby was undeniably cut...probably with a plastibell, IMHO THEE worst option for the procedure. My guess is, based on attitudes and location, the fourth couple probably circed as well.)

My best estimate is that nationwide we're very likely still around 65%-70% circumcised. I know some may disagree and say I'm way off and that's high, but....I seriously don't think it is.

HOWEVER, what I am also seeing is that we are scooting ever closer to the tipping point. In the 26 years I've been active to some extent in fighting circumcision, I've seen things change from a few lone voices in a hostile wilderness, to now where even those who circumcise their little boys at least have an awareness that there is another option in the matter. It's also an ever-rarer event for someone in America not to know someone first-hand who left their son intact, and that by itself is contributing to undermining circumcision as the automatic norm. So, while 32% isn't  a statistic I can get behind (although I'd love to be proven wrong) I do have a huge amount of optimism about the future of intact-ness in 21st century America.

That's why I always say:

Keep up the good fight because we're winning!!!!!

[CatholicBFMama]

Originally Posted by sanity rules 

My best estimate is that nationwide we're very likely still around 65%-70% circumcised. I know some may disagree and say I'm way off and that's high, but....I seriously don't think it is.

That's probably a low number in my area. I don't know anyone else in my extended circle of friends and family that kept their son intact, sadly.