'Drop in Circumcision Rate Is Bad News for Baby Boys'

Submitted by Mastodon on Fri, 2013-08-23 18:20

Article here. Excerpt:

'According to newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics, circumcision rates for newborn boys have dropped by six percentage points over the past three decades. Annual hospital discharge data of between 7,000 and 12,000 baby boys was examined, and interestingly enough, the biggest dip in circumcisions occurred in western states in the U.S. as opposed to other areas of the country.
...
First and foremost, we knew we wanted it done for hygiene reasons. It's so much harder to keep that area clean if the procedure isn't performed -- and we believed it would leave him more prone to infection if he was not circumcised.
...
Lastly, we worried about how being uncircumcised might affect his sex life down the road. What kind of parents would we have been to put a damper on things in that department? We feared that it wouldn't be as pleasurable for him, or that it might be a turn off for a lot of women, which could be pretty humiliating. (I know I'd want to hop out of bed and run if I saw all that extra skin staring back at me.)'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"Hygiene"? "Sex life"?

Good God. The sheer level of ignorance is breathtaking. But really, is it *any surprise*??

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2013-08-23 21:13

this article is getting slammed in the comments (good!). people hate to question their own attitudes and beliefs, and they hate to concede in public. but I am sure some people will go to bed and think about the anti-cir and human rights side. Some also may be learning for the first time that the foreskin has a function and a purpose. Sometimes it takes awhile to sink in.

...and of course some people are just shallow, ignorant idiots.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sat, 2013-08-24 21:21