U.S. Circumcision Rate Drops

Good statistics and a good trend. The female author of the article cannot hide well her disappointment with these figures.

--------------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck

Women have reproductive rights, which include the right to uninterrupted sexual development. Men don't even have that. I guess they enjoy having shorter penises.

I once analyzed the data from the National Health and Social Life Survey of Edward O. Laumann, et al, which included data on circumcision. I found that circumcised men were more likely to avoid sex than intact men, and that the effect increased with age. The difference between the means of the two groups was almost 1/2 a standard deviation for men over 50. Also, circumcised men were more likely to masturbate than intact men. The difference between the means of the two groups was .4 standard deviations, no matter what reason the men gave for masturbating.

Laumann observed that circumcised men engaged in a wider variety of sexual behaviors than intact men, but because he and his group were circumcision advocates, they did not offer the obvious hypothesis: that such men were less satisfied with sexual intercourse than intact men, and needed to find alternatives. His and my findings agree to the same level of significance. So at least Laumann and I agree that circumcision results in statistically significant changes in sexual behavior. I contend the cause is neuro-physiological--circumcision changes the mechanics of intercourse. Laumann does not entertain this possibility.

Laumann does not mention my findings above, but my findings, which come from the same data Laumann used, undermine his pro-circumcision stance. In fairness, many studies are possible with the same dataset, and had Laumann looked, he might have changed his opinion on circumcision.

In my view, men have a right to decide for themselves whether they want a glans with 12% less volume on erection, whether they want thousands of specialized nerve receptors cut, and whether they want to undergo an unnecessary surgery that you can bet women wouldn't undergo. One of the buried facts of the circumcision controversy is that circumcised women have lower HIV transmission rates. But no one advocates that they have their clitoral hoods trimmed. The double standard is too deeply ingrained for the possibility to be entertained.

The lesson that men are disposable has to be taught at a young age, beginning with the disposal of "unnecessary" parts. That's more important. Then it's your wallet and your life.

But I'm not counting on mens rights activists to do anything about it. Too many of them think that no one has a right to tell them not to circumcise their kids, morality be damned.

But until they stand up for just the merest fraction of the reproductive rights that women currently enjoy, they won't get another dime from me in support.

If you believe there is a place for "alternative bris" practices within Judaism, please stand up and be counted for it, and MAKE A DIFFERENCE:

A petition, directed to the leadership of the Union for Reform Judaism and its rabbinic association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, has been organized to seek the acceptance of alternative Brit Milah (Bris) practices.

Reform Judaism, progressive in many other ways, has yet to re-evaluate this practice, in spite of clearly compelling evidence of its medical and ethical shortcomings.

While the leadership of the URJ and CCAR are autonomous, participants seek to send the message that these shortcomings make the practice inconsistent with American Reform Judaism themes, which include human rights and social justice.

The petition may be read and joined electronically at: http://petition.nomorebris.org

. . .because that's not the WHOLE article.

The original AP article concludes with this:

"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God—the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, perusing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this. It's inappropriate to make this a moral issue—both approaches are legitimate, and you need to make your own choice."

And of course we all know how dear little Krazy Katz would spew the same multiculti-tranzi-proggy CRAP if it were routine and ritual female genital amputation under discussion. . .right?

Yeah. . .SUUUUUURRRRRRRE she would.

Jamie and Paul Russell couldn't decide what to do. Jamie didn't want to circumcise, Paul did. The Oakland couple decided not to circumcise only weeks before the birth of Jonah, now a month old.

"It was the one sticking point throughout the pregnancy," said Jamie, 26, a massage therapist. They decided against circumcision based partly on advice from their midwife and peers. Out of seven couples in their birthing class, six had boys. None were circumcised.

Yep, the editors absolutely HAD to cut this out for whatever reasons. Never mind how the majority of their readers might very well LIKEWISE want to use exactly that information for their own comprehension of and decision-making about this issue.

None of the four boys in Michele Quiroga's 2005 birthing class in San Francisco were circumcised. Quiroga—the first person in her Jewish family to not circumcise a male offspring—prefers to say that 23-month-old Ryder is "intact," not "uncircumcised."

"With the vocabulary comes a politicization," Quiroga, 39, said. "'Intact' is a much stronger viewpoint. 'Uncircumcised' implies that we're not doing the normal thing. 'Intact' implies we're leaving him natural."

And with the censorship of this fair opportunity for a telling and persuasive intactivist point to be presented to the public is a politicization DEMONSTRATED, as well. God forbid the little people of the lower classes should have to read something so rational and persuasive! Whatever on earth might come of it!?

I don't know about anybody else, but I consider myself having been deliberately and maliciously LIED to by having those brief extra paragraphs 'editorially' omitted.

Anyways -- thanks & kudos to MountainGirl3 over at the MDC Case Against Circumcision for the heads-up on this -- http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=696297

Kudos OpEd!

Fine writing illustrating excellent logic and MRA polemics!

You are a potential rhetorical bomb-thrower!

(That's not a criticism....)

I would advise all MRA's to take up the theme of MALE DISPOSABILITY AS SOCIALLY ACCEPTIBLE.

It cuts across so many issues --- war casualties, the draft, feminist hegemony in laws, media depictions of men as stupid and incompetent, the DV Industry, the anti-family courts, divorce racketeering, lack of federal funding for men's health, 98% of workplace deaths are men, men die younger by 7 years than women on average ....

Please post to add your own examples to my trivial off-the-top-of-my-head inventory of ---

shitstemic MISANDRY!

(Only 1% of America's democratically inclined citizens have ever heard this WORD.)

Wonder ....

why?

This is a significant paradigm shift IMO.

A shift from the early 1960's when it was thought that as many male infants as possible should have their genitals mutilated right after birth for their own and society's good to now only
57%. This is good but there seems to be a movement underway to stop and even reverse this positive trend since the medical community has seemingly gone gah gah on a dubious report about African males being somehow virtually immune from contracting AIDS if they are circumcised. Sounds like the old turn of the 20th century argument about how circumcision prevented spinal collapse and insanity. Also that males where somehow more "hygienic" if they were genially mutilated soon after birth.