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.

math, all the cosmetic procedures you cite have one big difference. consent

They are also reversible. So leg hair can grow again, make up cleaned off etc. Not the case with circumcision, though Monica and Joey had a good try in Friends.

"They are also reversible. So leg hair can grow again, make up cleaned off etc. Not the case with circumcision"

How about those blokes indulging into foreskin restoration? Are they wasting their time?

Is anyone saying they're wasting their time, amazonia?

Do men do that? Seriously!

I was joking about Monica and Joey!

So you can put teeth back? Children can consent to having teeth pulled so braces can do their work?

Pedro, nice anti-Semitic smear there.

Smegma and phimosis are associated with exactly what part of the body?
It really is the case that circumcision of babies and boys reduces the chance of developing penile cancer, which is devastating to men who get it.

Sure, we operate, and we administer chemotherapy and radiation, and still we bury lots of cancer victims every year, the reason being that detection isn't always automatic and sometimes doctors are thicker than short planks. My cousin buried her husband just after Christmas, three years after he first went to his doctor suffering from lower back pain that turned out to be colon cancer. The doctor sent him for physiotherapy.

A lot of vaccines come with aluminium adjuvants which remain permanently in the system. Are you absolutely sure these do no harm?

The pontification about mutilation is highly ironic coming from women who probably try to alter their appearance in some significant way daily.

The pontification about mutilation is highly ironic coming from women who probably try to alter their appearance in some significant way daily.

• consensually, to their own bodies!

How 'consensual' is the waxing of one's private parts, when it's all boiled down?

How would any woman get the idea to do this?

It's painful, it usually involves baring your rear end to some stranger, it exposes you to infection including staph because the skin can be broken, and regrowth sometimes involves horrible ingrown hair, pustules, and then another trip to get it all peeled off again.

You can argue Math that societal norms can impose certain expectations as to appearance on women etc but those still have a choice not to do so. A tiny baby has no choice.

And you can replace teeth with an artificial version. But those teenagers at the orthodontist understand what is happening to them too. A tiny baby doesn't.

So your comparisons are false.

I would be happy to go on a thread and argue that a woman waxing her pubic hair is a profoundly anti feminist act driven by a pornographic sensibility.

However, this thread is about performing unnecessary permanent body changing surgery for spurious medical or archaic religious reasons on a person to young to consent.

Theoretically, that is true. However, ask a lot of young women about waxing and they will tell you they do not feel they have any choice if they don't want to be called lesbians, and shunned from the world of dating.

How did women get the idea to do this?

And back to the choice or 'consent' of tiny babies. Do they just have to put up with aluminium adjuvants in their bodies because their parents think vaccination is medically necessary?

Children younger than 12 have permanent teeth removed, never to be replaced, to straighten their smile. Children younger than the magical 12 may or may not be concerned about how they look, but their parents march them to the orthodontist nevertheless, in droves.

I agree that a woman waxing her pubic hair is a profoundly anti feminist act driven by a pornographic sensibility. It still doesn't alter the fact that women do not feel they have a choice or that tens of thousands of women do it either to get a male partner or to keep him once they get him (and in effect, a permanent modification). It doesn't alter the fact that 'consent' is a muddy concept.

No. You are muddying it because you are on shaky ground about infant circumcision. I agree that women feel pressurised into removing body hair and may feel they have no choice. But the fact that they have body hair means that they are de facto adults, and are making a "choice" on their own behalf.

Now, back to the matter in hand. This thread is about performing unnecessary permanent body changing surgery for spurious medical or archaic religious reasons on a person to young to consent.

They are not making a choice if they feel they have no choice.

Circumcision is about performing a medically advisable operation on a baby that he will thank his parents for later in life when he manages to get through childhood and into adulthood without phimosis, and with a lowered risk of penile cancer and HPV and contracting HIV from heterosexual sex.

It is no "medically advisable"

The penile cancer stats are questionable. Most boys do not get phimosis. And sexually transmitted diseases are avoided by using condoms. Boys need to use condoms in order to take responsibility for their own fertility. Fortunately for them, this also protects them from sexually transmitted diseased. Frankly, the suggestion that circumcision means condoms are not needed is positively shocking.

mathanxiety somehow I don't think my sons would have thanked me if I'd had them circumcised as babies. Neither of them have ever said 'hey mum, wish you'd had me circumcised'.

Oh and they have both 'managed' to get into adulthood without phimosis.They are responsible for protecting their own sexual health. Of course ,if they really wanted to then they could arrange to be circumcised, but funnily enough, neither of them have. I guess they must be happy with their penis just the way it is.

Certainly wouldn't have thanked my parents for re

...removing part of my body to slightly reduce the extremely low chances of contracting an sti. Circumcision provides a mild protection against these things. Very odd idea.

.....and. when you still have to use a condom anyway.........

Very odd.

The penile cancer stats are not half as 'questionable' as you insist they are. A recent study found that half of uncircumcised males will experience at least one adverse medical condition related to the foreskin over the course of their lifetime. You are free to dismiss this and other studies of course. But don't pretend that your opinion of medical problems caused by the foreskin is a fact.

Those boys who do suffer from phimosis have to face treatment at a time of their lives when treatment is painful and something they can anticipate with dread. Those men who do end up with penile cancer face sterility if they survive.

Condoms do not protect against HPV.

Unless all circumcised males are growing into adulthood traumatised and deranged, I can't see why its such a recurring topic. All males in my family are circumcised. I've also never been with an uncircumcised man, and don't want to. Im against female circumcision as its done solely to prevent sexual stimulation and satisfaction in girls. Thats not the case for men, at all. I've never known of a circumcised man who bemoans the fact he is circumcised and wishes it hadn't been done when he was a baby, actually

"I've also never been with an uncircumcised man, and don't want to"

Why on earth not? Why would it be a deal breaker? "You are perfect for me in every respect, but sorry, you have a foreskin, so goodbye"

And what are your thoughts on the consent issue?