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.

No. Perhaps we'll be told one day.

Well, she seemed to think that a woman only has to splash a bit of water in the general direction of her vagina and she will smell of roses

Ah, well - that sounds like an extremely solid basis for the non-consensual removal of body parts.

I think all boy children should be circumcised at birth. It look great and is obviously a better, easier way to maintain hygiene throughout life.

Also, due to increased sensitivity during childhood (no bad thing!), it decreases sensitivity in adulthood allowing the man to perform longer which then has a higher chance of him being able to stisfy his partner.

Win, win!

Is UncleT a tiny bit insecure about losing a little of his manhood? Or just losing the hood? Hate to think what will happen if he loses his hair, Major meltdown?

I'll take that as the joke it presumably was intended as. But seriously, no - I made it through childhood without having that choice taken from me, so that's cool. It just sickens me that there is such glib presumption of rights over the non-consensual, unnecessary removal of bits of people's bodies. (PS - the hair is definitely going, but nature did that, nobody took it from me, so again - I'm cool with that! ).

Mall - Looks great? Seriously? That's simply no basis on which to do this to someone without their consent, whether you think it looks better or not! Bloody hell....

Glad you can take a joke UncleT !!!
As for looking great, well that is my entirely subjective opinion. Which I thought we are allowed to express here?

The "all boy children should be" was blatantly a wind-up also!

What about my genuine medical, non-consensual post of earlier?

If I hadn't it done, could have led to major complications?

How do you stand on getting it done for cosmetic reasons?

I want to see the evidence to support your assertion that men wash enough to make hygiene a non-starter in the debate on circumcision, Caitlin et al.

It keeps on being stated, and all that is offered to back it up is statements along the lines of 'well my DP doesn't smell, so ner'.

PigletJohn, your use of the terms 'modified' and 'unmodified' is a disgusting example of attempts to equate FGM with male circumcision and minimise the mutilation girls and women suffer.

Fatlazymummy, I didn't mention smelling like roses.

Sorry you are so ignorant of what is required for female genital hygiene. I suggest you do a little research, for your own benefit.

What exactly do you mean when you use the term vagina?

Caitlin, nobody has suggested men live in urinals.
What has been stated is that since TP is not provided for men in public loos, and since there is no outcry about this, no clamour for the wherewithal to allow men to wipe after peeing, it is reasonable to assume they do not as rule do this.

Where are your figures to support your claim that men routinely wipe after peeing at home, bearing in mind that it is clear they don't mind at all not having anything to wipe with when they use a urinal..

math I don't need to do any research, because I already know.
Women that don't wash properly, with soap and water, will smell.Women with inadequate personal hygeine can smell just as bad, if not worse , than men with inadequate personal hygeine.

Math, your attempt to muddy the waters by pretending thst this is a thread about FGM is nothing but a deliberate diversion.

Meanwhile you continue to throw your multiple foolish and unsubstantisted assumtions around and complain that your guesses have not been disproved.

Where did you get the idea that a foreskin is full of stale urine? Where did you get the idea that people was only once in 24 hours? Where did you get the insane idea that a penis needs to be "wiped under the foreskin? Where did you get the idea that unwashed men stink of stale urine, smegma and sweat, and unwashed women don't? Where did you get the idea that non-consensual srgical and permanent removal of body parts from an infant somehow more acceptable than consensual temporary hair removal by an adult?

People who don't wash, smell. Who knew?

Mathanxiety -even by your questionable statistics, the "benefits" of circumcision are minimal. But you are now saying that it makes a "big difference" to sexual health. Evidence please?

And please could you confirm that you are not in any way suggesting to your sons that circumcision offers them protection from STDs, and that therefore condom use at all times is not as important for them as it is for non circumcised men.

Think this www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified
reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.is someone trolling from another post but hey.

Lady Diana chose to say no to it.

For info -

it decreases sensitivity in adulthood allowing the man to perform longer which then has a higher chance of him being able to stisfy his partner.

If you're talking about orgasm, I think it's worth remembering that most women don't reach orgasm through penetrative sex.

I think math is a regular.

"it decreases sensitivity in adulthood allowing the man to perform longer which then has a higher chance of him being able to stisfy his partner"

Yep- because that works every time. The longer the man can keep going, the more likely a woman is to have an orgasm

Actually, it's just struck me. If it's OK for a parent to decide what their son's penis is going to look like, how about deciding for them whether they will want children? I'm sure that a circumcision/vasectomy package deal would be very popular.

water - perhaps a better point might be that wanting to remove parts of a person's body without consent or need because of a perception that it will enhance sexual pleasure for others is beyond fucked-up and completely unethical.

I find it best not to try and justify child abuse and mutulation for cosmetic reasons.

There are of course some boys whose fore skin needs cutting fur medical reasons that are not visible at birth and recommended properly by a doctor as they grow. That's obviously fine.

Mutilating all male babies without their consent is definatly not fine.

It's a huge abuse of power.

And on a slighter point I can't imagine anything worse than having a partner who needs to keep going longer and thrusting harder to orgasm.

Sounds very uncomfortable.

math we don't need figures about how often men wash. The evidence is the vast majority don't smell of urine. Those who do almost certainly don't wash other parts , not just their penises.

Again, what is your response to the very low rate of circumcision in Scandinavia? If it was necessary for health purposes why would these countries ignore it?