Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Circumcision: A Social Status in the UK ?

999 replies

Amazonia · 25/04/2014 09:06

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.

OP posts:
Martorana · 09/05/2014 20:31

"Infancy is the optimal age to do it for many reasons -- ease of procedure, speed of recovery, far fewer postop complications." .........no silly concerns about consent...............

BaronDent · 09/05/2014 20:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mathanxiety · 09/05/2014 20:39

Well we can agree to disagree then.
You think your studies exist.
I have posted links to some of mine.

But the idea of studies with the sort of cohort you have in mind is risible.

mathanxiety · 09/05/2014 20:41

No concerns about consent because circumcision falls into the same category of medical procedure as infant vaccination, which is done without consent.

PigletJohn · 09/05/2014 21:22

math has no concerns about lopping off an infant foreskin because she considers it equivalent to cutting toenails.

She cannot conceive of the idea that permanent bodily modification of a foreskin can be a mutilation (unlike cutting off earlobes, she thinks)

Therefore in maths mind consent is irrelevant.

Primafacie · 10/05/2014 00:43

Well I can't speak for Math, but I agree with her that there is absolutely no way that anyone who has even a vague understanding of science, would say that the evidence pro- and against circumcision is as strong as the other. There is now a massive body of evidence which shows that circumcision has overwhelming health benefits. Whoever is trying to argue that the foreskin protects against diseases - that's complete rubbish.

The consent argument - Martorana, I am looking at you- is equally as easy to dispose of. Babies can never consent to anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't shove them into a car seat against their will, or, more to the point, have their tongue tie snipped, or make them have the BCG vaccine (which most of the time leaves a nasty and very visible scar). As parents, we have a right and duty to decide in the best interest of our children. Consent is a straw man argument.

Caitlin17 · 10/05/2014 01:24

If there is such overwhelming evidence of health benefits why are there no campaigns in any European country to promote it? UK promotes anti- smoking, vaccination, cancer screening, breastfeeding, 5 or now 7 a day to mention just a few.

Martorana · 10/05/2014 01:58

"There is now a massive body of evidence which shows that circumcision has overwhelming health benefits. "

No there isn't. There is some evidence that it provides some protection against some STDs. But as sexually active men should always use condoms anyway to control their fertility, this point is irrelevant.
Penile cancer? It's an incredibly rare disease anyway- and if circumcision protected completely against it, it would not exist in Israel. But it does.

mathanxiety · 10/05/2014 04:18

It could be because Europe is not as enlightened as previously believed, Caitlin?

As I have shown, Martorana, condoms are unreliable.
And there really is a huge amount of evidence showing that circumcision has lifelong health benefits. You choose to cast aspersions on it, and that is your right. But the studies are there and they are convincing. Above all, studies have shown that circumcision reduces rates of transmission of HPV, which is not prevented by condom use. This is of course a huge benefit to women if their partners are circumcised men. Cervical cancer tends to strike women in their prime (between 15 and 49) and so we may perhaps assume their children are also beneficiaries of the decision to circumcise.

A circumcised baby, boy or man is not mutilated, PigletJohn. He is circumcised. You can choose to call it mutilation if you like, but I don't know why you would do this when you know how offensive it is to millions of women and girls who have suffered mutilation, and millions of parents who have in all good conscience and with solid scientific research behind them, made the decision to circumcise their babies. What your purpose in continuing to use the term mutilation for circumcision could possibly be I have absolutely no idea.

PigletJohn · 10/05/2014 07:56

Don't be silly, math.

You cannot redefine the word "mutilation" to exclude cutting off certain non-faulty parts of the body just because you like to use it to include certain other non-faulty parts of the body.

You are being grossly offensive to all people who have suffered physical damage.

Martorana · 10/05/2014 08:04

"Condoms are unreliable"

Not sure where to start with this. What do you tell your children about condom use?

LittleBearPad · 10/05/2014 08:37

Math I'm guessing that 21 years ago you made the decision to circumcise your son. You are now reading what other people think about such a decision and you don't like it hence are desperately and in some instances comically trying to support what you did.

If you think you did the right thing then that's up to you. Others will disagree.

And if you have in any way suggested to your sons that they don't need to yes condones because they are circumcised you have been silly.

LittleBearPad · 10/05/2014 08:39

Condones should be condoms.

mathanxiety · 10/05/2014 08:50

I tell them exactly that Mortorana. And I am right to. Apparently you have a disagreement with the study I linked to earlier showing the problems with condom use, and their frequency. In a perfect world, everyone would use condoms properly and nobody would ever get pregnant or pick up an std. In a perfect world, condoms would protect against HPV. Sadly it is not a perfect world.
It is your right to disregard solid evidence, but it seems to me you are over-invested in your pov here to a degree that is making you blind to reality.

I tell them no such thing LittleBearPad.
If you have been telling your children that condoms are all that is needed, then I hope you have shown them exactly how to use them properly. I also hope you have told your children that condoms are not effective against HPV.

You continue to offend, with no obvious aim to your tedious posts except to gratuitously offend, PigletJohn.

PigletJohn · 10/05/2014 09:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

UncleT · 10/05/2014 09:14

How can one be 'over-invested' in the concept of choosing what happens to your own body? I suspect bear has it sussed.

Martorana · 10/05/2014 09:14

So you tell them that condoms are unreliable, but they are OK because they have been circumcised? Seriously??

How about the risk of pregnancy? Or is that not their problem because they are boys?

LittleBearPad · 10/05/2014 09:17

Well she's 2 so it hasn't come up yet.

However she will have the hpv jab when at school and I will tell her about safe condom use I doubt I will have to tell her to interrogate future boyfriends about their Roundhead or Cavalier status.

Caitlin17 · 10/05/2014 09:32

Math no, not buying Europe is unenlightened. I know your response will be to call me something like colonialist or offensively Eurocentric but given that European countries particularly health Scandinavia and The Netherlands tend to come top on assessments of countries on health, wealth, standards of living, life expectancy can live with that.

Martorana · 10/05/2014 09:43

Math- is the rate of penile cancer significantly lower in, say, Israel, which by definition will have a very high % of circumcised men and,say, Scandanavia, which doesn't?

Nennypops · 10/05/2014 09:57

a benign procedure on males that has no ill effects on sexual function and sexual pleasure and that confers lifelong health benefits

I wonder whether the parents of those little boys who have died as a result of circumcision feel that it is a benign procedure?

Martorana · 10/05/2014 09:59

Right. I have just, on your behalf,ploughed through a whole lot of stuff about penile cancer. The risk factors appear to be smoking, the HPV virus, the HIV virus, UVA light treatment and smegma. So, if you want to protect your sons from this incredibly rare cancer, get them innoculated against HPV, help them not to smoke, hope they don't get psoriasis, make sure they know about condoms and that they must use one every time (which obviously you would do anyway, because we are all, aren't we? bringing up men who take responsibility for their own fertility) and teach them how to keep their genitals clean.

Sorted.

Nennypops · 10/05/2014 10:01

Risk of penile cancer in the US: 1 in 1437
Risk of penile cancer in Denmark: 1 in 1964

The risk is in any event extremely small. But guess which of those countries has the higher circumcision rate?

PigletJohn · 10/05/2014 10:10

thanks, nenny.

How do the rates for breast cancer compare?

Martorana · 10/05/2014 10:10

The papers I read said that the differences evened out once you took smegma out of the equation (can't believe I'm taking about smegma on a public forum). Circumcision certainly "solves" that problem. But so does proper hygiene. I can see how the slight difference between the States and Denmark could be explained by that? If you don't wash and you are circumcised you are not going to get penile cancer. If you don't wash and arn't- there is a minute possibility you will. So wash. Washing's good. Lots of health benefits to washing.