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.

As for health,for the umpteenth time if it was so self-evidently a health benefit why would Scandinavia,and for that matter The Netherlands, all wealthy countries with excellent health care and no difficulties about the concept of state promotion of public good not take your view?

As it is the Danish equivalent of The Royal College of Surgeons wants to ban non-medical circumcision.

sorry doh i mean circumcised

I repeat:
'It is pure misogyny to compare FGM, which eliminates all hope of ever experiencing sexual pleasure in its victims and greatly increases the chance of experiencing life threatening difficulties both during and after childbirth, to mother and baby alike, to male circumcision.

It is demeaning and insulting to the victims of FGM, women and their babies alike, to compare it with a procedure on males that has no effect on sexual functioning or pleasure and no effect except a positive one on future general health.

If posters here are going to persist in demeaning and insulting women who are victims of FGM then I will call that misogyny because that is what it is.'

I think this thread represents a new low in the shameful history of intactivism. Please feel free to comment about the presumed ethnicity of the author BaronDent.

www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2013/09/18/how-intactivists-are-ruining-the-debate-on-circumcision/

How on earth do you manage to make the huge leap that not being persuaded of the merits of circumcision makes someone an "inactivist" (whatever that means-supporter by proxy?) in relation to FGM?

did math produce any evidence of posts comparing in the way she alleges?

"Even in a population in which circumcision is rare, being uncircumcised is one of the strongest risk factors for oncogenic and nononcogenic HPV infection."

'Risk factors for genital HPV DNA in men resemble those found in women: a study of male attendees at a Danish STD clinic.'
Svare EI, Kjaer SK, Worm AM, Osterlind A, Meijer CJ, van den Brule AJ
Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Jun; 78(3):215-8.

math no one has insulted or demeaned victims of FGM. You are the one who has dragged the subject in as an attempt to silence anyone questioning your statements about the benefits of circumcision.

If it was that great a benefit the whole world would be doing it wouldn't they. They are not.

It's custom/fashion/religious practises none of which have the slightest root in medical benefits.

it's child mutilation unless performed for solid medical benefit as the child gets older.

Routine FGM and routine male circumsicion involve mutilating a child without their consent.

That's not mysogynistic it's fact.

It's a strange stance to be trying to justify mutilating boys by saying it's not as bad as mutilating girls.

brokenhearted that just sums it up really. You'd think that if evolution is working the bits essential to reproduction would be in Rolls Royce order by now.

Don't we all want that babies of either gender appear from the womb ready to go and without the need for intervention?

Of course many babies, children and adults will at some point in their lives need medical intervention; my son had to be circumcised at around 2. As the surgeon described it "he has what we call a frilly willy, it will be uncomfortable and other boys will make fun of him" ; others will be lucky enough like my husband to get to the 60 with no surgical intervention.

Is there any other body part where it is assumed from the off that our maker (if that's your thing) or evolution (if that's your thing) gets it wrong in every case and needs to be improved on.?

maths entire posting strategy is more than a little that way. Repeatedly dragging MGM into this, and then accusing others of doing it. It can only be a failed diversion from his/her failure to address anyone else's questions.

I still cannot accept that a species on earth exists that is born with a penis that requires surgical correction.

And

It's a strange stance to be trying to justify mutilating boys by saying it's not as bad as mutilating girls.

Bravo

And Math let it go. You're like a dog with a bone(r)

sorry inappropriate joke

Evolution?
Caitlin:
If we really respected evolution we wouldn't bother with vaccinations.
Apparently we do in fact believe nature can be improved on.

Routine FGM and routine male circumsicion involve mutilating a child without their consent.
No, that's direct comparison of FGM and male circumcision, and that constitutes intactivist propaganda, and is demeaning and insulting to victims of FGM and their babies, those that survive childbirth and those that don't.

I still cannot accept that a species on earth exists that is born with a penis that requires surgical correction.
The reason we surgically correct what is problematic with the human male is to protect the human female and human babies, whom we supposedly value more than females of other species.

Was that remark addressed to Caitlin, BaronDent?

math please name one other body part, male or female which is so badly designed it has, as of norm, to be removed from babies- not altered or removed because it wears out or breaks or gets infected or injured but because there is an inherent design fault from day one?

Ypur point about vaccination is wrong. It us MMR which is being targeted if there were 100% take up over a long enough period it would eventually disapper. Small pox for example.

I'm fairly sure BaronT wasn't talking to me.

Baron, you rang?