Circumcision: A Social Status in the UK ?

[Amazonia]

Curiously in the UK, circumcision is now a matter of social class. While the "ordinary" folks rarely circumcise, circumcision is prevalent in the upper class as well as in the Royal family.

"Circumcision also reduces the risk of prostate cancer- which is the most common cancer in men."

This is not, as far as I know, widely thought to be correct. But even if it is, it is not a reason for infant circumcision. Before first sexual contact means my "consent" argument applies.

crescentmoon said: (Studies re circumcision and prostate cancer)

You can add an observational study fro India: it was found that the Muslim men in the community was significantly less likely to contract prostate cancer than Hindu men in the same community. I think it reported on the BBC news website. I will look it up later.

This is not surprising since a significant proportion of cancers are the result of infection (both viral and bacterial) and there is a direct tube from the glans to the prostate.

I have one word for you all. Condom.

Martorana: "Before first sexual contact means my "consent" argument applies."

Hang on... your "consent argument" is made up by you!

And while I am willing to accept that you believe in the magic number 12, it does require you to accept some strange inconsistencies.

That there is nothing wrong with Muslim circumcision, which is usually done in late childhood;

That 12 year olds should be able to consent to a tattoo;

And that a whole range of purely cosmetic procedures (like Dumbo Ears or birth marks) cannot be treated in early childhood without stretching the definition of "medical" to breaking point... and negating the whole point of your new rule since you conveniently place the procedures YOU approve of in this "pseudo-medical" list!

Martorana said: I have one word for you all. Condom.

I have three words for you: Human nature. And alcohol.

What provides better protection than condoms?

Condoms AND circumcision.

"Hang on... your "consent argument" is made up by you! "

Yes. Hence my use of the word "my".

I notice you are avoiding the whole condom issue. Are you saying that you want your child circumcised to give him protection from sexually transmitted diseases so that it doesn't matter so much if he for some reason doesn't use a condom? You may find it matters quite a lot to his sexual partner, particularly if she is female.......

Martorama,

No-one here is telling parents they MUST circumcise their boys.

A whole load of people ARE telling parents they must not circumcise their boys.

We do not need to prove circumcision is essential, just that it is a valid choice for a parent to make.

Martorana said: "I notice you are avoiding the whole condom issue. Are you saying that you want your child circumcised to give him protection from sexually transmitted diseases so that it doesn't matter so much if he for some reason doesn't use a condom? You may find it matters quite a lot to his sexual partner, particularly if she is female......."

That is ONE of the benefits of circumcision, certainly. And I will teach my son to use condoms. But human nature being as it is, and since most women are on the pill which eliminates the pregnancy issue, a small amount of "built in" protection is better than none.

The young are not known as sticklers for health and safety and better that there is some protection than none when willpower fails.

"Most women are on the pill....."

Wow. I do so hope you are not teaching your son that. Particularly as he will grow up thinking he is already protected from STDs to some extent.....

Bagging you're taking shite. And clearly your own circumcision has left you desperately trying to justify your position. Let it go.

LittleBearPad said: "Bagging you're taking shite. And clearly your own circumcision has left you desperately trying to justify your position. Let it go."

Perhaps you would like to expand on your argument rather than simply hurling insults?

Or perhaps you have no rational argument to make so insults is the best you can do?

Martorana said: "
Wow. I do so hope you are not teaching your son that. Particularly as he will grow up thinking he is already protected from STDs to some extent....."

I hope my son will be mathematically literate enough to understand what "a 20% less chance" means.

""Most women are on the pill....."

Wow. I do so hope you are not teaching your son that. Particularly as he will grow up thinking he is already protected from STDs to some extent.....

Sorry- C&P fail.

I am no officially baffled. You are going to tell your son that he has a 20% less chance of getting an STD because he is circumcised so unprotected sex is slightly less risky for him, and most women are on the pill, so pregnancy isn't an issue......

I do find the idea of circumcision as protection against STD's perplexing. A smaller chance of catching HIV due to the absence of certain cells that are contained in the foreskin still leaves plenty of chance of catching HIV and other STD's.

If STD's are the only reason to circumcise, it doesn't seem that valid to me.

I am somewhat sickened by the class aspect of this thread.

In my opinion, the STD thing only gained currency because people who circumcised for other reasons wanted to find justifications apart from "god says to do it". And among people who were not religious who circumcised, the unspoken reason was often that it prevented masturbation. (Obviously it doesn't!)

She's deluding herself. Men don't need marriage to get plenty of vaginal sex. And I have known circumcised men who preferred to masturbate.

Mortarana,

Perhaps I wasn't clear. That most sexually active women are on the pill is just a reality, but a reality which means there is less incentive to use condoms since pregnancy is no longer an issue. As a result, the chance that a couple will risk unprotected sex is higher than it would be if a screaming baby might come of it.

But even the prospect of a screaming baby didn't stop young people having sex int he heat of the moment, did it. So at least circumcision will mean he has a reduced chance of getting an STD.

I will tell my son he must always use a condom to protect himself from STD's. I will tell him that circumcision gives only a small amount of protection and he will still have 80% of the risk an uncircumcised guy has whereas a condom, used correctly, gives almost complete protection.

And I will know that, should passion result in unprotected sex, at least he has a reduced chance of catching a disease.

Of course, on a national scale this would mean only 80 cases of STD's would present against 100 that present with uncircumcised men.

Enough to recommend universal circumcision? No. But certainly a benefit of circumcision to add to the other benefits of circumcision.

Martorana said: "In my opinion, the STD thing only gained currency because people who circumcised for other reasons wanted to find justifications apart from "god says to do it". And among people who were not religious who circumcised, the unspoken reason was often that it prevented masturbation. (Obviously it doesn't!)"

That is an opinion. Not one that has any evidence to back it up, but on opinion none-the-less.

The masturbation is sinful / makes you blind / etc thing died long ago and does nothing to explain the prevalence of circumcision in the late 20th century or now.

I am sure the religious are delighted to have some justification for their practice - it is so rare that religious mumbo jumbo proves correct... but it does happen occasionally!

"That most sexually active women are on the pill is just a reality, but a reality which means there is less incentive to use condoms since pregnancy is no longer an issue."

This is such a dangerous way of thinking. Please teach your son that he has sole responsibility for not fathering a child. If he is in a committed relationship, then the responsibility is shared. But otherwise, your son is responsible for his own fertility.

FourForksAche said: "I do find the idea of circumcision as protection against STD's perplexing. A smaller chance of catching HIV due to the absence of certain cells that are contained in the foreskin still leaves plenty of chance of catching HIV and other STD's.

If STD's are the only reason to circumcise, it doesn't seem that valid to me."

Well, it's a good job STD's aren't the only reason to circumcise then, isn't it! So am I to presume you support circumcision since there are several other benefits from it?

I am somewhat sickened by the class aspect of this thread.

Ummm... can't say I've noticed much mention of class in the last 9 pages...

Martorana said: This is such a dangerous way of thinking. Please teach your son that he has sole responsibility for not fathering a child. If he is in a committed relationship, then the responsibility is shared. But otherwise, your son is responsible for his own fertility.

It takes two to tango. Both are responsible for ensuring they are safe, not just the guy.