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.

It appears that math considers the daily mail to be a reliable source of scientific data. this might be because she lives overseas.

she has not told us if she has any personal knowledge of such matters.

'Phimosis – the foreskin is abnormally tight, which prevents it from retracting. This can cause recurrent balanitis because good hygiene is difficult or impossible. An erection may cause the foreskin to split and bleed. The tight foreskin can also hinder urination – in some cases, the foreskin fills up with urine like a little balloon. Phimosis is the most common reason for circumcision after infancy.'

HTH Icimoi.

what does "abnormally" mean, math?

It appears PigletJohn is reluctant to concede that he has been very wrong in his idea of how frequently British men wash.

I know I saw somewhere that the worst offenders are from Yorkshire.

Um Math. None of those are problems for women because we don't have penises. Sorry to point out the obvious...

Ah the Daily Fail. An excellent source of shite

I was under the impression that generally when men pee they retract the foreskin slightly so the end result in terms of pee coverage on glans is not much different to that with circumcised penis. This is certainly what dh does (he tells me) and what ds aged 9 does.

It isn't ballooning under foreskin. That can happen with youngsters while the foreskin is still fused or if foreskin too tight (which may in relatively rare circs indicate for medically required circumcision once other avenues exhausted), but that predates smegma issues and as mothers/fathers there is greater parental input into hygiene.

*I don't see how alleging that people wash every 24 hours can possibly be offensive.

As it turns out, I was being charitable when it comes to British people anyway*

Math The above comment and your later comments about British people would be offensive and racist if they weren't so obviously laughable.

Health risks from circumcision:
Infection
Haemorrhage
Scarring
Difficulty urinating
Meatitis
Irritation of the glans
Loss of sensation
Loss of part or all of the penis
Death.

Paediatric hospitals in countries which perform a significant number of circumcisions see boys with complications arising directly from circumcision on a very regular basis.

Circumcision after infancy I.e. Medically required. Still pretty rare to be required. The after infancy bit refers to non-medical circumcision as a cultural or religious practice (which is what the argument here is against).

Why have the foreskin removed at infancy when in the vast majority of cases it will not be medically required at a later stage?

Thank you LittleBear. Indeed we do not.

Maybe you could address your comment to Pooka, who made the point that 'I would imagine the same applies for those women who don't wash frequently, wipe properly, wear synthetic knickers.'

I mean the circumcisions performed at infancy bit of your quote = not medically required.

The comments on washing are not laughable or racist or offensive.
They are based on a survey of the washing habits of British people of all ages.

Sure, phimosis can, in a few cases, cause the foreskin to retain urine. That will be for a few days at most until medical assistance can be obtained. However, math, you seem to be suggesting that it happens for every circumcised boy, which is manifestly untrue.

HTH.

Infant circumcision is infinitely preferable to circumcision later in life, when it becomes a far more complex operation that can require a six week recovery period. Not to mention the suffering that happens before the operation while a boy or man goes through all the pain and infections and attempts at treatment that can precede the decision to operate.

I have suggested nothing of the sort Icimoi.

It was PigletJohn who first posted that gross misrepresentation of my posts.

So, math, is it your position that all British males should be circumcised because some of them may not be taught to wash? How does that make sense?

And you have ignored those statistics about the favourable penile cancer statistics in Scandinavia as opposed to the US, despite the much greater incidence of circumcision in the US.

And what incredibly scientific survey was this? As others have said something you read in The Daily Mail ?

Actually I take back laughable- your comments are just racist and offensive.

Talk about deliberate misunderstanding!

My point was that you state that British uncircumcised men probably smell of offensive, of urine, smegma and sweat.

I don't agree with you. I argued that if you think this is the case for men as a result of the existence of their foreskin combined with national poor hygiene that you refer to why aren't you equally concerned about women potentially smelling of pee/sweat/smegma if they have similar poor hygiene? The stats you were quoting weren't looking great for women in terms of hand washing either.

Of course women unlikely (ha) to get balanitis, penile cancer or other diseases relating to the penis. Given that they don't have penises.

Math, what on earth do you know about the pain that an infant boy suffers on being circumcised? All those complications that I have listed relate to infant circumcisions. Why subject every male child to that sort of risk just on the offchance that they might have to undergo circumcision for medical reasons in later life?

And what incredibly scientific survey was this? As others have said something you read in The Daily Mail ?

Actually I take back laughable- your comments are just racist and offensive.

I have suggested nothing of the sort Icimoi.

It was PigletJohn who first posted that gross misrepresentation of my posts

No, math, it is the only explanation of your oft-repeated but unevidenced contention that uncircumcised men smell of urine, sweat and smegma. And it was you, and only you, who chose specifically to cite the rare incidence of phimosis leading to urine being unable to escape as some sort of justification of what you are saying.

But the vast majority of older boys do not need to have their foreskin removed. So why mess with the infant's foreskin "just in case" when there's a list of potential complications resulting from the procedure itself as well as impacts later on?

As I said, my cousin had a circumcision as a result of hypospadias when he was 4. It was medically required. No argument with that.

Caitlin, the survey was reported elsewhere too. If you don't like the DM I'm sure you can find it somewhere else.

You can scoff as much as you like, but people don't wash as frequently as PigletJohn seems to think they do, and men are worse offenders than women by a wide margin.

What on earth do you know about the pain of an infant boy upon being circumcised, Icimoi?

Pooka, this is not a matter merely of hygiene and how the lack of it causes an unpleasant odour. It is a matter of poor hygiene leading to health issues that are completely avoidable if a baby is circumcised. Poor hygiene is widespread.

From a 2013 survey on American handwashing hygiene after using the toilet:

"70% admit to just rinsing without actually using soap.

Americans witnessing someone else leave a public restroom without washing is on the rise too. This year, 81% saw a non-washing event compared to 74% last year."