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.

Male circumcision is not mutilation FourForksAche.

Ok. Why isn't infant male circumcision mutilation?. Even if you believe the health benefit claims, and whatever you say, they are questionable, there is no reason not to wait until the boy concerned is able to consent.

math, that was not my question.

you earlier claimed MGM does not exist. I want you to admit you're mistaken.

I'm not talking about circumcision in this instance. And you know it. You made it relevant by making the erroneous claim that there is no such thing as genital mutilation in both sexes.

math has repeatedly said that she has no objection to cutting off a non-defective foreskin from a male infant. She does however have an objection to pubic waxing:

mathanxiety Mon 05-May-14 22:41:25
.... common procedures such as douching, waxing of pubic hair in the name of hygiene and use of deodorant products are ridiculous and unnecessary..

She has an objection to one, but favours the other. Hence my observation that she views one as worse than the other.

Cutting off an earlobe purely for religious reasons would be mutilation.

Cutting off a foreskin purely for religious reasons when other solid reasons to do it exist, isn't mutilation. You can be right for the wrong reasons.

Just because cutting off a foreskin has been associated with certain religions, and just because that procedure has been advised in the religious text of certain religions, doesn't mean the procedure is purely done for religious reasons or that it was one that started as a result of a religious impulse or the injunction of a religious leader. It may well be that a religion incorporated customs that were already practiced to a greater or lesser degree among certain populations. The practice may have arisen initially due to local arid, hot conditions, or as a means of preventing infestation by parasites, especially waterborne flukes and others, or a way to signify puberty and readiness to shoulder the duties of a male adult.

The practice of circumcision in antiquity was not exclusive to those religious groups now primarily associated with its routine practice. This is revealed by cave drawings, mummies, phallic depictions in various media, and written sources. There is evidence to show that the timing of circumcision varied from infancy to puberty among those populations that practiced it and that some groups changed their timing over time (there is evidence of this for Jewish circumcision). Behind the move to infant circumcision instead of circumcision at puberty was the recognition that it had fewer complications and ensured faster recovery.

Behind all of it was the necessity to maintain penile health and ensure men were able to father children without jeopardising the health of the mother and children by spreading stds or parasites.

If you want to start another thread about the unrelated topic of mutilation of the penis, FourForksAche, then go ahead.

This one is about male circumcision.

math, as you know, you made it relevant.

is it so hard to admit you're wrong about something?

If you want to start another thread about the unrelated topic of female genital mutilation, math, then go ahead.

This one is about male circumcision.

Infant male circumcision isn't mutilation with or without consent, Martorana.

It is a procedure practiced routinely on infant boys with the proven effect of prevention of pain and disease later in life, from UTIs (and hazard of kidney infection and damage) to phimosis to balanitis to spreading stds such as HPV to penile cancer, among other problems. It is directly comparable to vaccination of infants in its aims and effects both short and long term.

Calling it 'mutilation' is a direct comparison to FGM, a barbaric practice that has as its only aims elimination of all possibility of sexual pleasure in women and girls, and assuring their male owners (fathers and husbands) that they do not seek sexual relations with males before marriage, or males other than their husbands afterwards, because there would be no reward for them in doing that. Calling it mutilation is grossly insulting to women and girls, who suffer terribly from the procedure and from its ill effects, which affect their health and that of their babies throughout their lives.

PigletJohn, I recommend you go back through the thread and see for yourself that I am posting in answer to the original member of the intactivist brigade who brought up the direct comparison, and to all those subsequent posters who insist on posting their offensive and misogynistic propaganda.

Breathtaking hypocrisy.

BaronDent:

jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/6/787.full?linkType=FULL&resid=197/6/787&journalCode=jinfdis

'Results
Overall, HPV DNA prevalence ranged from 6% in semen to 52% in the penile shaft. The prevalence of any HPV infection in the glans/corona was significantly higher in uncircumcised men (46%) than in circumcised men (29%) (odds ratio [OR], 1.96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.02–3.75], adjusted for demographic characteristics and sexual history). Uncircumcised men also had an increased risk of oncogenic HPV infection (adjusted OR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.11-5.69]) and infection with multiple HPV types (adjusted OR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.50–8.50]). Among uncircumcised men, HPV prevalence in the foreskin (44%) was comparable to that in the glans/corona, and type-specific positivity was observed between the 2 sites (?=0.52)

Conclusions
Uncircumcised men have an increased risk of HPV infection, including with oncogenic HPV, specifically localized to the glans/corona, possibly because of its proximity to the foreskin, which may be particularly vulnerable to infection'

I believe I also posted a reference upthread to a study in a Danish std clinic that had similar results.

Maybe you would like to provide some studies to back up your assertions?

Yes my father was and my parents had my brother snipped in the 1960s; but none of their three children have had their four grandsons mutilated - we could not see the point/logic in mutilating as a whim for no medical reason - besides what if they wanted to be Polar explorers?

the person going on and on and on and on and on about FGM is you math.

Start your own thread.

aston

does it freeze or something?????

How did I miss the polar explorer bit?

If I see a post equating FGM and male circumcision I will point out that there are vast differences and that equating the two is odious. I will do so in response to any and all posts positing equivalence either by direct assertion or by direct comparison.

I will use the best argument I find appropriate to the comment I respond to, and I will do so right here on the thread where direct comparison of FGM to male circumcision is used as an emotive and dishonest argument against male circumcision.

And whether you think that is fitting or not is not my problem, PigletJohn.

If anyone wants me to stop calling this dishonest argument what it is, then stop making the argument.

math, no one is equating FGM and circumcision.

Please could you quote posters when you make this accusation.

I take your repeated refusal to acknowledge your earlier mistake as an attempt to brush it under the carpet.

It takes strength to admit when you've made a mistake, do you have any, math?

Astonway, you should know that use of the term 'mutilated' in the context of male circumcision is grossly insulting to the millions of women who have suffered female genital mutilation and its ill effects.

You should also know that the term is offensive to those parents who have made the decision to have a son circumcised based on reliable medical advice and reliable research of their own just as they made decisions on vaccination and other medically related decisions for their children.

The term is highly subjective and emotive and not based on any fact related to circumcision (because neither function nor sensation are affected in the penis), gratuitously insulting, and serves no purpose in any discussion apart from inflaming and provoking.

Again, FourForksAche, use of the term 'mutilation' in the context of a discussion of male circumcision constitutes direct comparison with FGM.

FFA --If you want to discuss penile mutilation then start a thread, because this one is about male circumcision.

Un circumcised men vs circumcised men -- isn't that what you had in mind?

Where are the studies to back up your assertion?

And yes, that was selective quoting. Well done.