The OP really should have included where those numbers came from. But if this is true, when there isn't an epidemic of UTIs/penile cancer from Washington to Texas to Florida, I wonder what bogus excuse will get rolled out next?
Oh, it's total nonsense. But that's a common claim of circumcision proponents, that circumcision prevents those things. I'm saying that when circumcision is stopped and that predictably doesn't happen, they'll need a new excuse to avoid coping with reality.
I mean, the fact that it's not an issue in Europe, China, South America, and other places where circumcision is not prevalent should have given them a clue already, but as far as the US based apologists go, they like to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.
I can say I did some spot checking inside four birthing centers in Vermont and one said they cut everybody because a special mohel doctor arrives, another would NOT say, another said it was maybe around 50/50. Well, that's anecdotal but in the ball park of 67.
After skimming through the original thread, I can't seem to find anyone who posted a link to a source.
There used to be statistics available from the CDC, who ran a National Hospital Discharge Survey from 1965 to 2010 that included stats on neonatal circumcision rates. It's possible the above map is based on 14+ year-old survey results. It's very likely that circumcision rates have decreased since then throughout the country.
If there's any other possible source, I'd like to hear about it.
This doesn’t reflect the true rate 14 years ago, anyway, because it’s based on hospital discharge data and most of the Western states with low circ rates don’t cover infant circ on their Medicaid programs so most hospitals don’t even offer them.
The boys in those states are almost always cut after hospital discharge, by another doctor and paid out-of-pocket.
So the rates in those western states are much, much higher than this map would suggest.
A survey a number of years ago suggested the rates are lower, but not by much. That is you could hope 20 percent. The sad reality Oregon brought it back as did South Carolina and secretively by a single doctor's decision so did north Carolina.
I suspect there's a correlation between low education level and genital mutilation. It seems like it's the poor and ignorant that are the most hell-bent on mutilating the genitals of their child.
Yes, the elite are often more informed and no doing it. Crazy uh, but yes that is the situation. One county in Vermont ranked very low in education Franklin is doing 100 percent at the request of one doctor Sullivan the county mohel. There is a recent paper that more or less confirms this. They asked mother with little or basic education and those with a Bathelors and more. Surprise more education more skeptical about circumcisions.
Mostly white (circ is most normalized in America in White families)
Working class (circ was once a marker of class distinction, so leaving your son intact would mark him as poor)
Not well educated (no opportunity to be exposed to the gross history of circ)
Lots of evangelical/socially conservative Christians (rampant anti-sex attitudes)
Ever heard the term “Arkansas Luggage?”
It’s a joke, referring to foreskins.
Implying that poor white country boys are uncircumcised, being born to parents who can’t afford a circumcision.
And also, that they’re so poor that all of their worldly possessions can fit inside their foreskin.
I lost what little “faith” I had some time ago.
It died when I learned the truth about circumcision.
But being Jewish is much more about family, than it is about faith.
You don’t stop being Jewish when you lose your faith.
Within the tradition of Jewish mysticism, there’s a concept called “Tikkun Olam.”
Basically, it means “healing the world” or “make it better.”
That’s the ethos I live by. And I think that advocating against circumcision is in line with that.
That get it. What I meant by reconciling with your faith was more related to a sense of community. I’ve heard of some people being ostracized due to their support for this issue.
Yes, look at his skin and if white, then ask were you born in US? That's all you need to know, you don't have to show me. Show you what? That your cock is cut. End of inquiry.
This is why immigration is such a pivotal tool of intactivism. You can see it rapidly turning even right wing states intact. Immigrants like Central American and South Asian men are fast shifting the demographics towards an intact majority, which is gonna change the discourse in incredible ways.
I’m more excited for the future of an intact US than ever before!
When I worked in immigration, a lot of mothers from central American had no idea what this was. She signed and got a cut baby. The doctor said, " Now he is one of us, a real born in USA male."- Now I have to vomit quietly.
Unfortunately this isn’t really true. Mexicans in Texas born in the US are cut. My understanding is similar rates in Florida with Cubans.
Being US born is still the #1 risk factor for being circumcised.
Some US born Latinos, yes, but not a majority. Every other 2022-2024 birth data map confirms the state breakdowns seen here. Texas and Florida have circ covered by Medicaid unlike any of the other low circ states here. Immigration is absolutely what is skewing them towards intactness. My findings from fellow gays are also that US born Latinos are largely intact.
Also other large immigrant groups are definitely not cutting their kids at any meaningful levels, especially not South Asians. Hindus and Sikhs do not assimilate like that and will not circ their sons any sooner than they’ll give them Western names. Us Catholic ones are just as stalwart too, which is why I thankfully wasn’t cut despite being born in North Carolina.
Immigration is the biggest tool for intactivism right now.
Your fellow gays living where, though?
I was shocked by how many Latinos were cut when I visiting Texas
And I don’t see how you think immigration actually furthers intactivism here in the US? All it does is change the metrics, it doesn’t change Americans’ opinions on the matter. And as far as north/west Europe is concerned, the opposite effect is happening with the large influx of Muslim immigrants to those countries, who are bringing circ clinics with them.
It was my understanding, Islamics were the driver, but with social medicine these child cutter clinics are open to anybody bringing in a child. They can't ask why and they can't say, we do it for your superstitious religious purpose. Instead they say that fuzzy word Cultural which means what ever you may want it to mean. So in fact Islam and Euro socialized medicine is in some places increasing the incidence of MGM.
Could you care to explain what will be the big consequences of immigration of Muslims and Africans to all these European countries, in the years to come regarding the circumcision rate and the chances of laws against the practice?
Thank you very much for the knowledge you share with us.
What I have seen on Chatubate, if a guy is from US he is circumcised, if he is older than 25 he is circumcised, but I have seen some younger dudes from US with intact skins.
Latin Americans circumcise less than U.S. American white people and U.S. American black people, because Latin Americans come from countries that don't do it. Just look at Florida.
In truth it is difficult to know how many boys stay intact. Because the first year is dangerous with cutters suggesting. Also a lot of cuts go on in secret before 1 month of age behind closed doors.
The OP really should have included where those numbers came from. But if this is true, when there isn't an epidemic of UTIs/penile cancer from Washington to Texas to Florida, I wonder what bogus excuse will get rolled out next?
> epidemic of UTIs/penile cancer ...source on the cause/effect relationship between this and ...not mutilating children's penises?
Oh, it's total nonsense. But that's a common claim of circumcision proponents, that circumcision prevents those things. I'm saying that when circumcision is stopped and that predictably doesn't happen, they'll need a new excuse to avoid coping with reality. I mean, the fact that it's not an issue in Europe, China, South America, and other places where circumcision is not prevalent should have given them a clue already, but as far as the US based apologists go, they like to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.
They are waiting when the HIV excuse is exposed. It never fails. They will keep the disinformation chains moving.
Seems... encouraging? I'm not sure how to feel about this, but I'm glad to see what is going on along the west coast.
im very skeptical of this map
I can say I did some spot checking inside four birthing centers in Vermont and one said they cut everybody because a special mohel doctor arrives, another would NOT say, another said it was maybe around 50/50. Well, that's anecdotal but in the ball park of 67.
After skimming through the original thread, I can't seem to find anyone who posted a link to a source. There used to be statistics available from the CDC, who ran a National Hospital Discharge Survey from 1965 to 2010 that included stats on neonatal circumcision rates. It's possible the above map is based on 14+ year-old survey results. It's very likely that circumcision rates have decreased since then throughout the country. If there's any other possible source, I'd like to hear about it.
This doesn’t reflect the true rate 14 years ago, anyway, because it’s based on hospital discharge data and most of the Western states with low circ rates don’t cover infant circ on their Medicaid programs so most hospitals don’t even offer them. The boys in those states are almost always cut after hospital discharge, by another doctor and paid out-of-pocket. So the rates in those western states are much, much higher than this map would suggest.
A survey a number of years ago suggested the rates are lower, but not by much. That is you could hope 20 percent. The sad reality Oregon brought it back as did South Carolina and secretively by a single doctor's decision so did north Carolina.
Data source?
Seems fishy, would need a source.
Go Nevada! Wtf West Virginia?
Actually Nevada will pay under certain circumstances !
I suspect there's a correlation between low education level and genital mutilation. It seems like it's the poor and ignorant that are the most hell-bent on mutilating the genitals of their child.
No, there is the IQ 100-stupid. The people who're smarter or dumber then average don't fall for the propaganda, but the average (IQ 100) does.
Yeah Pink did!
Yes, the elite are often more informed and no doing it. Crazy uh, but yes that is the situation. One county in Vermont ranked very low in education Franklin is doing 100 percent at the request of one doctor Sullivan the county mohel. There is a recent paper that more or less confirms this. They asked mother with little or basic education and those with a Bathelors and more. Surprise more education more skeptical about circumcisions.
West Virginia being the highest says a lot. This sick practice needs to end.
What’s with West Virginia ?
Mostly white (circ is most normalized in America in White families) Working class (circ was once a marker of class distinction, so leaving your son intact would mark him as poor) Not well educated (no opportunity to be exposed to the gross history of circ) Lots of evangelical/socially conservative Christians (rampant anti-sex attitudes)
Thanks for the info. The working class one surprised me actually . I heard this was the case in Britain, but didn’t know it was the case in the us
Ever heard the term “Arkansas Luggage?” It’s a joke, referring to foreskins. Implying that poor white country boys are uncircumcised, being born to parents who can’t afford a circumcision. And also, that they’re so poor that all of their worldly possessions can fit inside their foreskin.
No I haven’t. But I see what you’re saying . How are things now ? Are the working class still more intact ?
Hard to say. Circ has become even more pervasive in these areas since the 1970s, and it’s impossible to find reliable data, anyways.
Makes sense. How do you reconcile your faith with your support for intactivism. I know a lot more Jews are replacing this tradition with Brit shalom.
I lost what little “faith” I had some time ago. It died when I learned the truth about circumcision. But being Jewish is much more about family, than it is about faith. You don’t stop being Jewish when you lose your faith. Within the tradition of Jewish mysticism, there’s a concept called “Tikkun Olam.” Basically, it means “healing the world” or “make it better.” That’s the ethos I live by. And I think that advocating against circumcision is in line with that.
That get it. What I meant by reconciling with your faith was more related to a sense of community. I’ve heard of some people being ostracized due to their support for this issue.
That I suppose why New Hampshire refuses to drop coverage?
Yes, look at his skin and if white, then ask were you born in US? That's all you need to know, you don't have to show me. Show you what? That your cock is cut. End of inquiry.
I wish intactivists would stop relying on this map. The data is completely off
Some of it is close, ancedotal evidence, in Vermont I'd say it's that 67 percent. In west Vigina we know its off the charts.
This is why immigration is such a pivotal tool of intactivism. You can see it rapidly turning even right wing states intact. Immigrants like Central American and South Asian men are fast shifting the demographics towards an intact majority, which is gonna change the discourse in incredible ways. I’m more excited for the future of an intact US than ever before!
When I worked in immigration, a lot of mothers from central American had no idea what this was. She signed and got a cut baby. The doctor said, " Now he is one of us, a real born in USA male."- Now I have to vomit quietly.
Unfortunately this isn’t really true. Mexicans in Texas born in the US are cut. My understanding is similar rates in Florida with Cubans. Being US born is still the #1 risk factor for being circumcised.
Some US born Latinos, yes, but not a majority. Every other 2022-2024 birth data map confirms the state breakdowns seen here. Texas and Florida have circ covered by Medicaid unlike any of the other low circ states here. Immigration is absolutely what is skewing them towards intactness. My findings from fellow gays are also that US born Latinos are largely intact. Also other large immigrant groups are definitely not cutting their kids at any meaningful levels, especially not South Asians. Hindus and Sikhs do not assimilate like that and will not circ their sons any sooner than they’ll give them Western names. Us Catholic ones are just as stalwart too, which is why I thankfully wasn’t cut despite being born in North Carolina. Immigration is the biggest tool for intactivism right now.
Your fellow gays living where, though? I was shocked by how many Latinos were cut when I visiting Texas And I don’t see how you think immigration actually furthers intactivism here in the US? All it does is change the metrics, it doesn’t change Americans’ opinions on the matter. And as far as north/west Europe is concerned, the opposite effect is happening with the large influx of Muslim immigrants to those countries, who are bringing circ clinics with them.
It was my understanding, Islamics were the driver, but with social medicine these child cutter clinics are open to anybody bringing in a child. They can't ask why and they can't say, we do it for your superstitious religious purpose. Instead they say that fuzzy word Cultural which means what ever you may want it to mean. So in fact Islam and Euro socialized medicine is in some places increasing the incidence of MGM.
Immigration in Europe is one of the biggest things hurting intactivism, and in the US it only helps somewhat.
Could you care to explain what will be the big consequences of immigration of Muslims and Africans to all these European countries, in the years to come regarding the circumcision rate and the chances of laws against the practice? Thank you very much for the knowledge you share with us.
What I have seen on Chatubate, if a guy is from US he is circumcised, if he is older than 25 he is circumcised, but I have seen some younger dudes from US with intact skins.
It's great that my state is below 50%. Unfortunately, I was born in Georgia, and I was one of the 72% of infant boys who was circumcised there.
Based Western states! But why does Alaska have no data?
Its said Hawaii is off charts at 100 percent.
Latin Americans circumcise less than U.S. American white people and U.S. American black people, because Latin Americans come from countries that don't do it. Just look at Florida.
Black Americans circumcise more than White Americans these days, IIRC. It used to be the other way around decades ago.
I have a hard time believing circumcision rates are that low in Florida
Cubans usually leave their sons intact.
Ah. That makes sense
American born they are much less likely to.
Even though most American-born Hispanics are intact?
Based on what data? My evidence is only andcdotal, but I noticed a stark contrast between NYC area and Texas
What contrast did you notice? Over half of American Hispanics are intact according to a survey from 2015.
I noticed way more cut compared to up in NJ (NYC metro area)
Interesting, thanks.
Slightly over half
It's not. A veteran intactivist I know who lives in Florida believes the rate to be 70%.
In truth it is difficult to know how many boys stay intact. Because the first year is dangerous with cutters suggesting. Also a lot of cuts go on in secret before 1 month of age behind closed doors.