See this page for more information on circumcision damage.
Note that this doesn’t include circumcisions performed outside of the hospital (i.e. by a pediatrician, or as part of the Jewish bris ceremony), so the overall circumcision rates are a little higher than what’s shown here. But it still paints a pretty accurate portrait of how common (or in a few states, uncommon) circumcision is in the US. You’ll also notice that the states where it’s no longer Medicaid funded are also the ones where the procedure is less common.
I’m ashamed that it’s 80% in my state.
Does anyone have the link to the gallery in question?
That’s always a great point. More people need to realize that the clitoral hood is the direct equivalent to the foreskin (hell, there’s even a sex-neutral term for both of them, “prepuce”), yet we have the common sense not to cut that off.
|—||Martin Novoa, Bioethics Advisor, Doctors Opposing Circumcision|
It originally caught on in the US in the 1800s as a practice to stop boys from masturbating (we see that didn’t work!), and then later on it was promoted as having health benefits. Which it doesn’t, of course, but it’s a medical myth that has yet to die out. Originally it was touted as being a cure for all sorts of unrelated diseases; these days it’s touted as cutting down on HIV rates (which it doesn’t; studies that have claimed that have been debunked) and being overall more hygienic… as if it’s difficult to simply clean it in the shower for 5 seconds.
It also persists because a) It’s very profitable, so the medical industry doesn’t want it to end, and b) Not many fathers want to take the step to say “Okay, this shouldn’t have happened to me, so I won’t let it happen to my son.”
It actually used to be popular in the UK in the early 1900s (due to the medical/hygienic myths), but the rates there declined starting in the 1940s once the NHS decided to no longer cover it.
I was told that circumcision became so prevalent in the United States because the United States Army circumcised servicemen, so to stop infections of the foreskin, particularly by sand, to gain an edge over the Axis in North Africa during WWII. Naturally, I am skeptical of any claim of the human foreskin being anything but a deleterious organ and that the fear of losing soldiers to the specter of foreskin infections sounds pretty absurd, anyway. So, I decided to do some research, and, while I was researching, I found this page from The New Zealand Medical Journal:
The riddle of the sands: circumcision, history, and myth
I thought that it would be a great idea to share this to your blog.
Thanks! This was a really interesting read. Just further goes to show how ridiculous it is to think of circumcision as beneficial to health.
Super interesting AMA yesterday on Reddit with a guy who has TWO (intact) penises, aka diphallia! You’d love it. Here you go:
Sorry if someone has already sent this to you, but you HAVE to see it!
Thanks to both of you for sending me these! This is really fascinating. And it’s great to see how comfortable he is with himself.
It happened right in Pittsburgh.
Yikes, that’s terrible. According to this link that another follower sent me, the lawyer stated that the average pediatric urologist spends about 20% of their time dealing with children who have suffered botched circumcisions. I wish more people would realize this, that botched circumcisions are EXTREMELY common, whether performed by a mohel or a doctor.
I’m especially sad that this happened in my state. Which already has one of the highest circumcision rates in the country…
Yeah, definitely. We don’t describe people who haven’t had their tonsils removed as “untonsilectomized.” Nor do we describe people who haven’t had their appendix removed as “unappendectomized.” Yet circumcision has become so common, you need an adjective to describe you if haven’t had your foreskin removed.