Uncut Southern Guys

hung

Expert Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,624
Media
11
Likes
212
Points
283
Location
USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Born way back when with a Mid-Wife in attendance. I was not cut then and still remain uncut.

I suspect that financial considerations prevented my being cut because there was a family doctor who visited me as an infant. I was told that when I was older. He did sign my birth certificate.
 

Uncutsouthernboy

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Posts
1,695
Media
7
Likes
6,565
Points
418
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
I was hospital born and am not circumcised. My parents did ask the Dr. about it and he said that it was "not necessary, I did not circumcise my own sons." One of them is a state senator now. Where I was born is not very rural nor remote. I first saw a cut dick when I went to college.
 

prepstudinsc

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
17,036
Media
440
Likes
21,656
Points
468
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I was born in California and I am cut. However, I live in the south and all my friends are cut. One of my friends told me that when his son was born, there was no question about it. He was cut within a few hours of his birth.

At the gym I used to go to, there were only a few uncut guys I ever saw, the overwhelming majority were cut. Growing up, I never saw an uncut dick, and that was in the Bay Area of California.
 

CURVEDANDTHICKK

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Posts
288
Media
0
Likes
219
Points
263
In the south socioeconomic issues factor heavily on the cut uncut issues. Babies born in to poorer families (which is more predominant in the south) are less likely to be circumcised because they are usually born in state run or public hospitals. Because it is not medically necessary the issue is not addressed unless the parents request the procedure is done to keep costs down. And because poor kids are born to poor parents the father is probably not circumcised so it is a non issue to the parents.
 

D_Pubert Stabbingpain

Account Disabled
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Posts
2,116
Media
0
Likes
96
Points
183
I'd say it's a genuine statistical truth if you're combining the midwest and northeast into one area. It appears that you're doing that.

The chart below is derived from the National Hospital Discharge Survey, and therefore, reflects only hospital data. The midwest and northeast are separate in the chart.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/circ_rate_region_1995-2006.png

The cut rate is the highest in the midwest, lower in the northeast. The south is slightly lower than the northeast and more so in recent years. It isn't a stretch to say the cut rate is lower in the south verses north; that's certainly the case if only hospital data is used.

One factor not yet mentioned: immigrants. They're less lilkely to cut than the general pop. but I think that they've only had an effect on the most recent years.

My first thought was economic reasons.
I find that chart real hard to believe. Where were the samples taken, L.A.?
I attended H.S. in a real redneck part of Northern, Northern CA with students bussed in from the "boonies" (real rural areas with the nearest neighbors miles apart) and many of them very poor. After gym showers revealed that maybe 10% were uncut and that is a stretch.

However, I was born in a bay (east) area hospital (parents moved up north before I started school) and I think it was routine for parents who basically had no clue as to what to do (like mine, doctors were thought of as "Gods.") regardless of cost. Ignorance, not economics or religion, prevailed. :frown1:
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, if you're more than 15 years old that chart wouldn't apply to you anyway. And no, LA has at least as high a cut rate, at least among whites, as NoCal. But West also includes Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, NM, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana -- many of the states that never had or have dropped Medicaid coverage for newborn circ. And Medicaid circs are something like 25% of all done in the US.

The US has always had an interesting demographic picture of circumcision -- the poor with Medicaid have tended to have cut kids (docs just do it), poor without don't. Most of the middle class with insurance goes with circ. The very upper echelon doesn't bother -- one, because they've spent time outside the US and know circ isn't necessary, and two, they're so bloody wealthy they self-insure. Anecdotally I've heard many guys who attended NE prep schools mention a high intact rate there. So circ in America is something of a circ-sandwich.

In the end, all non-religious circumcision of children is very strongly correlated with health-care delivery economics. If insurance (or a state's/country's single-payer system) covers it in full, it's widely done. If not, it isn't. For this very reason, we saw circ rise and then drop away in the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada. It's fairly inevitable that with health-care reform in the United States, circ will assume its rightful place as a procedure of extremely low priority -- the the battle for vital health-care dollars -- and continue to drop off in popularity. It's only still in health insurance plans and HMOs at the moment because no one plan wants to be the first to drop it for reasons of competitiveness of services.

As for the regions of the US, again this correlates most strongly with health-care coverage and whether a birth occurs in hospital or at home. The West has the lowest rate of health-care coverage for circumcision and the South traditionally has had more home births. The data will all converge in the coming years, however. Canada and Australia provide the model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCbear

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I find that chart real hard to believe. Where were the samples taken, L.A.?
As I mentioned earlier, data is from the National Hospital Discharge Survey. NHDS is compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a CDC agency. The circumcision survey [and I think the entire survey] began in 1994, so it reflects rather recent data. It's the only long-running [relatively] national survey that I know of that has a regional breakdown.

It doesn't reflect YOUR age group. :biggrin1:
 

NakedAlien

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Posts
66
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
93
Location
BC Canada
Growing up, I never saw an uncut dick, and that was in the Bay Area of California.

Things seem to have changed a bit in the last 25 years or so. I recently spent a semester at a large university in the Bay Area and there were a reasonable number of foreskins to be found amongst the white middle class students. Based on what I saw, I suspect that boys in the region started to be increasing left intact in the early 80s.
 

Flashlight

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Posts
82
Media
11
Likes
923
Points
403
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think in general circumcision is going out of style just because of cost and the realization that there isn't a point on doing it. I was partially circumcised I guess when I was a baby. They said my skin was too tight so they cut it somewhere I guess. My skin isn't that tight and isn't that long. Sometimes I wish they would have just takin it all off but when I shower after working out I often see lots of younger guys that are uncut these days. Its really not that big of a deal. Most of the guys I see uncut are in there 20s so that would make sense with the 80s being the time when people just decided to stop doing it as often to baby boys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCbear

D_but wait you also get

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Posts
412
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Things seem to have changed a bit in the last 25 years or so. I recently spent a semester at a large university in the Bay Area and there were a reasonable number of foreskins to be found amongst the white middle class students. Based on what I saw, I suspect that boys in the region started to be increasing left intact in the early 80s.

Right around the time insurance companies started refusing to pay for it calling it elective surgery, which it in fact is.
 

yurkon

1st Like
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Posts
269
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Location
Florida
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Flash,

I think you nailed it with the word "style". There was a trend that advocated circumcision up to the 80's. I think it's hard to see a trend in north vs south because I was raised in north and live in the south.

I think cost is a big factor as others have said and I also think the number of single moms is another factor. There are more single mom's, so more than likely have less money or health coverage and women care way less about dick issues than men do. So cut or uncut isn't as important to them.

I think there is an upward trend that started maybe a decade ago (just a guess) back to uncut because of immigrants, changes in health care coverage, single moms and no need to because it's easy to keep it clean.

It's hard to characterize north and south because many people from the north have moved to the south or out west in the past 15 years.

I grew up in NY, graduated from a very large school system that was virtually all white and 80% catholic. We had to shower every day we had PE in school in 6th grade, it was optional after that. Back then there was a greater stigma if you didn't shower. So in a PE class of just over a hundred, 99% of us did shower and I never saw or knew of anyone that was uncut.
 

D_fitnesswitness

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Posts
221
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Dunno if I add to your theory, however, I'm uncut...and live in the south for about 19 years of 22 years on Earth, lol.

However..........my parents and family is all from the midwest.

Guess that kinda cancels out, lol.
 

willty

1st Like
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Posts
4
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
86
Location
Southern U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
I grew up in Mississippi, never saw an uncut dick until I went to college. Only one guy in the fraternity was uncut, also happened to have an obscenely large soft dick and enjoyed parading around in the nude. Got my attention, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCbear

Clayton Bigsby

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Posts
45
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
93
Location
New York
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I only know of one person who's uncut, but like others have said, in the rural areas there are more uncut people because there is less money and fewer doctors who are qualified to perform circumcisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCbear

MattBrick

Expert Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
917
Media
15
Likes
146
Points
263
Location
NJ
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Gym Fresh's post on page 2 was very intelligent. Reread it.

As for the rest, if it were permissable, I would just like to clear up a few issues.

1) Circumcision is a feature of Judaism and Islam, but not Christianity.

2) The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the historical Christian tradition. That is to say it is not Scripture, and it is not considered authroritative to any Christian group today. All forms of Christianity which are extent today developed without this text as part of their tradition. It is a document that was discovered in 1945. It was produced by a group called the Gnostics,who practiced a religion that appears to be an extreme hellenisation of the Christianity we are familiar with. Gnosticism was a minority, and was branded heresy by the majority who would come to be called orthodox. It was a later developement than orthodox Christianity, and the texts assosiated with it are later productions as well. Additionally, it is not a "Gospel" in the sense of the four cannonical gospels, a biography or philosophical narrative, but rather a listing of sayings. So.....it's not reasonable to say that "Jesus is against circumcision - it says so right here in the Gospel of Thomas" -flaps bible like Jimmy Swaggart. We are not necesarily talking about the same Jesus, certainly not the same corpus of Jesus teachings, although they overlap to a certain degree, and in otherwords, comparing apples and oranges. We ultimately don't know what Jesus thought about circumcision from the cannoical narratives, but we do know he was circumcised himself according to Jewish ritual.

3) It is not any of the 4 Gospels you can find in the Bible that speak out against circumcision. It is the Pauline Epistles that do. Christianity began as a movement among Jews. As Gentile converts were embraced, it was considered unnecesary that they be circumcised and obey Jewish ceremonial law - in other words, convert to Judaism before being able to convert to Christianty. This was decided at what is called the Jerusalem conference, discussed in Bible itself. It was an early defining moment of the new religion. It made it possible to be Christian, but not Jewish, and set the course for the divergent path of the two religions developing in the same region of the world at the same time. Paul wrote against judaisers, who dissagreed with him on the procedure for gentile conversion. He speaks out because he does not believe gentiles should be made to observe jewish customs. He says in short, that if certain people need to make such a big deal about circumcision, why stop there, they may as well castrate themselves outright. (Here, perhaps he as a Jew is displaying a certain amount of cultural sensitivy towards gentiles, among whom circumcision was a stigma, and pointing toward the (perhaps by the infant circumcised Jewish Christians unperceived) pain and risk involved in adult circumcision in the first century) We have no idea what Paul thought of infant circumcision as a procedure, apart from the ideological issue. We have no grounds for saying he would be for or against circumcision today, where the circumstances are entirely different, and circumcision is practiced/and or recomended for entirely different reasons.

4) The reason "red-neck" families tend to be uncircumcised is because they were traditionally born at home. Circumcision became common practice in the USA in the 19th century as hospital births became more common. The practices grew up in some senses together. Even if the younger generations of these uncircumcising southern families were born in hospitals, it may have already been a family tradition, with the fathers exclaiming against having there sons circumcised in the modern facilities.

Got it?
 

MattBrick

Expert Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
917
Media
15
Likes
146
Points
263
Location
NJ
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
To add just something to my above post, after reflection, while it is nevertheless still remarkably ignorant, I believe I see why some younger posters may have mistakenly identified Christianity with cirumcision. If their fathers and granfathers, were "God fearing" and they were circumcised, that may very well have been.
These are meerly two distinct sets of circumstances though. There is no causal relationship in either direction. As I mentioned, circumcision developed only recently as a cultural practice, with Christianity in its various forms and religiosity in general extending much farther back in our history - the increase in routine circumcision and of hospital births simply taking place in a Christian culture, not necesarily because of it. The error is in equating one with the other. In other words it is not the case that people were God fearing, and therefore they circumcised.
 

MattBrick

Expert Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
917
Media
15
Likes
146
Points
263
Location
NJ
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
To add just something to my above post, after reflection, while it is nevertheless still remarkably ignorant, I believe I see why some younger posters may have mistakenly identified Christianity with cirumcision. If their fathers and granfathers, were "God fearing" and they were circumcised, that may very well have been.
These are meerly two distinct sets of circumstances though. There is no causal relationship in either direction. As I mentioned, circumcision developed only recently as a cultural practice, with Christianity in its various forms and religiosity in general extending much farther back in our history - the increase in routine circumcision and of hospital births simply taking place in a Christian culture, not necesarily because of it. The error is in equating one with the other. In other words it is not the case that people were God fearing, and therefore they circumcised.
Notwithstanding, there is indeed a correlation, only not in the way one might be led to suppose. Circumcision was common place in the US during the 20th century. Religion was an important part of life at all levels of society as well for the vast majority of the 20th century. Today however, the prevalance of circumcision is on somewhat of a decline. Christianity, is less universal in American culture today as well, and is perhaps practiced in different ways - much of the strict piety of former times no longer mainstream. This is evidenced in the fact of some young people's not even knowing what Christianty teaches or is silent about, as the case were, on the subject. (It is however never to be considered acceptable for individuals to be spouting inane speculations about a religious tradition they do not understand. While they may not practice the given faith, or any themselves, it is not out the range of possibilities for them to educate themselves about religions foreign to them. It is a keystone to tolerance and of modern learning)
What this means is that, those not in the know may rightly equate firm Christian faith with tradition and the older generations, and rightly equate circumcison with tradition and the older generations. Then their only blunder had been linking it all together in a way that had no basis in reality. Of course, circumcision has never been a dinner table topic, and religion is talked of increasingly less frequently in families. Meanwhile neither subject- penises or faith, and certainly not how the two relate - are discussed at any length in a public school setting. And then, how should they have known any of this. Very understandable really