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.

If your main concern is HPV then surely the much more sensible and proportionate option is to get your sons vaccinated?

The evidence that circumcision is a good and sensible thing to do for your sons with many benefits is pretty slim. Useful perhaps on a population level especially where risky sexual behaviour is high and access to medical care is low, rather less so in the UK where sexual education is widely available and health care free and easily accessible. Likewise if you feel that your sons are at a higher risk for penile cancer then removal of the foreskin makes sense, in the same way that mastectomy may be an option where there is high risk of breast cancer.

Given that there is a relatively comparable generation of men in Europe who were largely uncircumcised and the US where circumcision was routine you would expect to see very different health outcomes and therefore a very strong case for circumcision if there really are significant benefits yet this doesn't appear to be the case. It's interesting that in general health care systems reliant on public funding are generally against circumcision and those that work mainly on a private practice model are are pro. If the public health benefits are so strong you'd expect to see that trend reversed. I suspect that cultural factors are still the strongest determinants.

mistress you might not have met any, but there are men who do wish they hadn't been circumcised as a baby. I was talking to one on another forum a few weeks ago.He was actually rather sad and bitter about it.
It's not a chance I would have ever taken on behalf of another human being.
"Mathanxiety*do you have medical training or experience in sexual health? Because you appear to be talking crap.

I've also never been with an uncircumcised man, and don't want to
How prejudiced is that?

It's pretty clear to me that those searching for a medical reason for circumcision are using it to excuse religious or social motives - and in the US, for the doctors' financial benefit.

Fortunately, here in Europe the great majority of parents are more enlightened.

"...more enlightened" ???

Based on WHAT???

More enlightened as in not thinking that you have to remove
a piece of your newborn in order to make him
Acceptable to the god
Who made him..........

Amazonia
I refer you to your own original post:
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

Having got an audience for this rather odd statement (which you failed to justify with any fact or reference), you then changed the subject entirely to an argument in favour of this nasty practice - something that has already been discussed many times on MN.

Although this is in AIBU, you didn't ask what you might BU about. I suggest you are BU in expecting to persuade anyone to have bits cut off their healthy and non-consenting child.

But I expect you will continue.

In the US some states cover circumcision on Medicaid and some don't. With the American Academy of Pediatrics recently coming out in favour of circumcision of babies in the wake of studies that establish there is a public health interest served by infant circumcision, it is likely that states will think about reinstating coverage for circumcision.

In the meantime it is likely that insurance companies, who do not tend to just hand money out for no good reason, will continue to cover circumcision.

'You appear to be talking crap' is based on exactly what?

So are we now starting to bash religion too?

The fine example of European enlightenment that Pedro posted has been removed by MN, I see, so I advise those wishing to pile in to avoid anti-Semitic remarks.

which post is religion bashing?

What were the reasons for routine circumcision 20 years ago?

Martorana my thoughts are exactly as posted

fatlazymummy I have never met a man who's told me 'I regret being circumcised' so can only speak of my own life experience on that, really

Sallyingforth it isn't prejudice actually, its my choice. Unless Im out there harassing and threatening non-circumcised men or making them feel 'lesser' in any way (possibly due to upbringing/circles I move in I would't expect to meet an uncircumcised man on a relationship level anyway) I can't even begin to think what actual harm Im doing to anybody.

The reasons for routine circumcision 21 years ago were avoidance of penile cancer and phimosis (and the possible necessity of getting it done when it wouldn't be a very minor procedure) and ease of hygiene.

The religion bashing is very plain to see.

21 years ago, what did you know about the rates of penile cancer in different countries? I am assuming that, at the time, you did not live in a place where running water, soap, and other aids to hygene were unavailable?

Looks like religion bashing to me, too. Albeit in a not so open & definetely patronising way. How many times is this subject going to rear its head agai on MN, anyway? Its 'old' now

I suppose non-western religions are 'unenlightened', then.

Haven't read the whole thread, but can imagine the content having read previous similar ones.

I know a lot of circumcised men (including my son and most of the males in my family) and they really can't see what the fuss is all about. None appear to be remotely traumatised or disadvantaged by it.

I was present at my son's circumcision and have to say he suffered more distress during his vaccinations.

You are right about the soap, running water, etc. Too bad there are so many teenage boys and young men who don't seem to understand what those conveniences are for. You can take a horse to water, etc..

Assuming a man takes a shower or bath every 24 hours because the rest of him needs washing, and assuming there is a good deal of peeing, sweating and production of smegma in the course of those 24 hours, the part under the foreskin is actually going to need soap and water long before the rest of the body shows signs of needing to be washed.

21 years ago I knew from my research and questions to several doctors enough about penile cancer to conclude circumcision was a good idea. It was at the top of their lists of reasons to circumcise. Other reasons were phimosis and paraphimosis, balanitis and balanoposthitis

I had at the back of my head the experience of a neighbour who was rendered sterile by treatment for this disease. The most common and effective treatment of penile cancer is amputation of the penis. Also in mind was the experience of SIL and BIL who were at that time trying to adopt a child.

21 years ago, did you find out how common breast cancer and testicular cancer were?

What made you decide against precautionary amputation for them?

Precautionary amputation of an organ or body part is not the same thing at all as removal of the foreskin, which leaves the penis attached and functional in every respect, while increasing its chance of remaining attached and fully functional.

The object being to prevent eventual amputation of the penis.

but think of the high number of fatal cancers that could be removed. Far more than from penile cancer. Is that not important to you?

And the foreskin is a 'bodypart'.It is part of the body and it has a function.

So does body hair, and so do eyebrows. But we can get along perfectly well without leaving all of that au naturel. And the penis functions perfectly well without the foreskin.

We could remove lungs while we were at it, PigletJohn. Or livers. Great idea there.

Just to go back to the statistics you provided much, much earlier baggins, the first was not statistically significant (CI straddled 1), and some of the other studies seemed to suggest that circumcision increased the risk of STDs (RR >1). Unless I have misunderstood it doesn't seem particularly clear from that evidence that circumcision prevents STDs.

Who cares? I think circumcision is pointless unless it's for medical reasons, but what the hell. I really don't care.

The current statistics show that you would have to remove about 900 foreskins to prevent one case of penile cancer. That's just not good enough. It doesn't provide enough of a reason to perform the operation. Statistics like that would not be acceptable in any other area of medicine.

There's been some attempt to find equivalent 'cosmetic' procedures to support the practice of mutilating babies genitals such as tooth removal. Firstly, you don't remove teeth from babies. Secondly, I wouldn't condone the removal of children's teeth unless there was an existing or threatening medical reason to do so. Foreskin removal is entirely justifiable if there is a medical problem. Doing it as a matter of course is disgusting.

Math, you do realise that 21 years ago is an eternity in medical science right? Just because we thought something then doesn't mean it is still our best understanding of the biology.