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.

oh the irony!

FourForksAche said: "The number of women using the pill is roughly the same as the number relying on condoms (25% usage each) according to this research www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifestyles/contraception-and-sexual-health/2008-09/2008-09.pdf"

Hoping no-one would actually read your link, eh? Or perhaps you didn't read it yourself?

From your own link (Check page 20):

54% of women under the age of 24 use the pill as contraception and 65% use a condom (they are not mutually exclusive)

It is a majority as I claimed even with these figures, but of course even these figures are a significant underestimate since they include ALL women under 24, not just the sexually active ones.

Always check your facts before posting.

see page 15.

FourForksAche said: "oh the irony! grin"

Do you have anything constructive to add to this debate, ForeSkinAche? Or are you just here to throw in worthless comments in an effort to slow down the demise of the anti-circumcision argument?

FourForksAche said: "see page 15."

Thank you. I will be sure to tell my son that older women are less likely to be on the pill if he ever starts shagging a 50 year old.

yet you accused me of hurling insults earlier, baggins. How amusing.

Thank you. I will be sure to tell my son that older women are less likely to be on the pill if he ever starts shagging a 50 year old.

Actually, condom use was much higher than contraceptive pill use in the age 16-19 band.

Baggins, I have read and reread your post attempting to interpret the stats on contraceptive usage. You make no sense whatsoever.

Brokenhearted, have you seen many ancient phallic depictions? In cave drawings or representations in rock, I think you will find an awful lot of circumcision.

Also, the idea that people in the US who have medical insurance are 'rich' is stretching reality quite a bit. Trying to make some class issue out of the choice to circumcise or not in the US, ditto.

Simple and basic question : Do mothers generally teach their uncircumcised kids to retract their foreskin when they need to pee? Even so, as many of kids cannot retract until 7 or 8 years old (or even later), how do they manage under those circumstances??

Actually I had better things to do, unlike you it would appear Baggins. If you are so happy with your new state why do you have to justify the supposed benefits so stridently? Most people couldn't care less.

I think it's very obvious from this thread that there are many people who are doing the opposite of caring less, despite not having a foreskin themselves. Why not take on board the comments of someone who actually has first hand experience of life with and then without one?

Why not take on board the comments of someone who actually has first hand experience of life with and then without one?"

Because for me this is not about foreskins, it's about consent. As I have said with boring repetitiveness throughout this thread.

FourForksAche said: "Baggins, I have read and reread your post attempting to interpret the stats on contraceptive usage. You make no sense whatsoever."

The only contraception stats I posted were lifted straight from the link you posted: 54% of women under the age of 24 use the pill as contraception and 65% use a condom (they are not mutually exclusive). Clearly some women use the pill AND a condom, which is very wise.

However this contraception thing is a diversion, regardless of the percentages, if the woman is on the pill, the couple are more likely to still have sex even though they do not have a condom to hand.

Please do not ask for a link for evidence of this, I am simply making an assumption based on my knowledge of human nature, particularly with young people after a few drinks.

baggins, you seem to have adjusted your name

FFS. Genital mutilation of either sex is DESPICABLE. If it's medically required then we have a different conversation.

"Genital mutilation of either sex is DESPICABLE. If it's medically required then we have a different conversation."

So if it is medically required, it is not more a mutilation???? This means that "mutilation" is more a morale thing rather than a physical status?

I think surgery becomes mutilation when there is a) no medical necessity AND b) no consent is gained.

What is 'necessity'? Are all childhood vaccinations necessary? How come I survived with only a BCG, polio and smallpox vax, iirc, while the DCs need DTaP, MMR, polio, Hib, Hep B, varicella, invasive pneumococcal disease, and meningitis, and also HPV though this is not required.

Vaccinations can hardly be considered in the same camp as removal of part of the body.

Circumcision of babies for the sake of circumcision is mutilation. There is no discernable health benefit and no concent from the patient.

If you had your earlobes removed at birth because your parents' religion dictated it or they thought it reduced the chances of ear infection, how would you view that?

math, obviously everything is open to interpretation but I view "medical necessity" as meaning something a person cannot live without.

You don't want to believe it because you think it's mutilation, end of, Pedro, but there really are discernible health benefits.

Women lop off breasts to try to avoid breast cancer. We get our children immunised against HPV to try to prevent cervical cancer. Here is a means of avoiding penile cancer, and we are objecting to circumcision on grounds that babies can't consent to it? Nobody consents to cancer.

We object to it on grounds that it makes someone look unnatural? Meanwhile we shave legs and pubic hair and armpit hair, dye and pluck, shellac our fingernails and daub makeup on. We wear high heels that twist our bodies out of shape and cause our feet to be contorted.

There is a lot that we can live without. We can live without pierced ears and with body hair, and eyebrows au natural. Most children are not going to be hurt by a case of measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, and a host of other illnesses. Some will experience adverse effects. Most children are not going to die from ear infections but we administer antibiotics. Most children are not going to die from crooked teeth but we get them braces all the same and maybe we pull a tooth or two from the back so we can move the front teeth and make them look better.

But unless caught early and treated right, most people who get it are going to die from cancer.