33% Sounds Like So Little But Also So Much

So according to this site: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html , which I'm admitting on the record is sometimes interesting and sometimes craaazy, the US circumcision rate for newborn boys was 33% last year.

I'd LIKE to believe that circ rates have gone down that far. I'd like to believe they've gone down even further. And everyone I've asked who has chosen to circumcise their son(s) has told me that the top reason they did it was in order for them to fit in, so it makes sense that once the numbers started going down they would REALLY start going down. I mean, at 33%, when they all grow up it would be the circumcised boys who would be considered "strange". Which is ironic if you think about it. It's like my poor mother who named me Courtney because she thought it was so original but then lo and behold every 4th little girl was named Courtney that year. Or rather the opposite of that.

And honestly 33% even sounds HIGH if I was to go off of my personal experience. I can only think of 3 boys I know under the age of 6 that are circumcised. And I know a lot of boys under the age of 6. But then again I live in Washington. And I know for a fact that this states rates have been under 25% for years and years. We are among the lowest circumcised in the nation.

But for some reason I'm still having a hard time believing that its 33% national. I'm not quite sure why. The medical "reasons" have all been debunked, a lot of insurance companies and most states wont pay for it anymore, it's officially classified as a cosmetic surgery at this point. All roads point to circumcision going down. But still the 56% that I read about two years ago when I decided to leave my own children intact seems more likely to be true.

So here is a question, especially for those of you living in other states, but really for anyone: Does 33% sound about right to you? Bear in mind that they are talking about NEWBORNS here, which may be the problem I'm running into. As I sift thru children in my acquaintance they are all older, when 56% WAS the current rate. Any labor and delivery nurses? Anyone around an unusual number of babies? Do you guys think only 1/3 of boys are circumcised these days? Or is Dr. Momma wishful thinking?

8 comments:

Trippleaaa said...

I can't comment on the 33%. However, Aidan is circumcised for one main reason (and I couple others not so important that are probably more then I need to discuss). The main reason not being to fit in with other kids but to look like Daddy (maybe TMI but that was the strongest deciding factor for me). Fitting in for me wasn't about his peers as at some point he will understand that some are circumcised and some are not. However, growing up being different from the males in our family (dad, uncles, cousins, etc) was a large deciding factor for me!!!

Joanna Rice said...

Matthew was circumcised because his father wanted him to be. I figured, not being a boy, I would defer that decision to Alec and he said he would have felt weird if he had not been circumcised. I repeatedly let it be known I did not want my son circumcised largely because from what I had read, the procedure was basically a cosmetic one. If we have another son, we would probably circumcise, but I will not be happy about the decision. Hearing your child scream in pain for an unnecessary procedure in another room (they wouldn't let me in and heavily suggested Alec not go in as well which we ignored) was more than unbearable. I hope the decision to circumcise has decreased to as much as 1/3, but from friends and family's decisions I would say it is closer to 1/3 not being circumcised to 1/2.

Domrese Family Blog said...

We did mass research before deciding to circumcise both boys. To each their own, right?

Kim said...

I don't think it is 33% but I do believe it is much lower than when I made the decision which I regret and I'm so glad you didn't and decided to keep my beautiful grandsons the way God made them!

coco-ono said...

Ashley, that was one of Josh's major concerns as well, the boys looking different from him. After thinking about it, however, we decided that a grown man's "package" looks decidedly different then a little boys either way. The hair, the balls having dropped, ect.

I also left the decision mostly to Josh. I was leaning fairly heavily in this direction but like Joanna figured that I didn't have a penis so he would know better.

So far, I'm still thinking the 56% percent sounds more correct.

Holly said...

In the childcare center I work in there are more boys who are not circumsized than are.

Janelle said...

I found you through Annali's blog a long time ago (Annali and I were friends growing up and our mom's are really close). I think 33% sounds low. I take my son to a mom/baby group with many boys, and I am pretty sure that my son is the only one who is not circumcised. I have had many people bug me about my decision to not circumcise, but it just didn't feel right to me. Besides, my doctor hugged me when I told her we didn't plan on circumcision. She said she hates doing them.

Kari Marchelli said...

We actually see quite a few children who come through our er who aren't circumcised with bad skin infections in that area and utis. So some of the medical reasons are correct.