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.

Caitlin - and on the claim that they don't need to consent to their body being permanently altered.

I'm off again now. Might pop in again in a few days :)

If anyone disagrees with the survey results I have shown about the washing habits of British men, please provide figures to back up your claims. Not anecdotes.

UncleT, circumcision is in fact medically justified just as vaccination is, without consent.

Again, why are some people here insisting on teaching their DSs to wash when it is clear that about half of British men don't bother with daily washing? I am assuming if those who don't wash thought it was important then they would wash. So why is it important?

It's Groundhog Day.

Oh, is math back with her silly claim that people smell of stale urine, sweat and smegma unless they have been surgically modified?

Is she still under the impression that a normal foreskin is a container that fills up with urine?

Where does she generate this weird fallacies?

No we're back to vaccinati

No we're back to consent and vaccinations being comparable.

Math, you persistently refuse to engage with the fact that studies show that the rates of penile disease in areas where there is little or no circumcision are lower than in those areas where there is high incidence. You also fail to engage with the known risks of circumcision, including death. UncleT is absolutely correct in saying that constantly going on about British washing habits is blatantly a desperate attempt to draw attention away from inconvenient facts about circumcision. No-one is deceived.

math ok let's give you all British men are smelly (on the basis of a survey conducted by a member of an industry with a vested interest in selling cleaning products and reported in The Daily Mail, a newspaper I wouldn't trust to tell me anything) then so what?

The NHS web-site reports penile cancer presents less than 500 cases per annum. The male UK population is over 30 million.

It really isn't 'fact' that anything of the sort is justified. It's your opinion, twisted to suit your agenda. And, the procedure itself and it's physical alteration of the body form bear no comparison to having an injection. Your reasoning is, quite frankly, sick.

Thank you, Caitlin. The report was published elsewhere too fyi.

Ha! She wasn't AGREEING with you! She was saying 'let's put that aside for a second'. Yet more failure in basic English comprehension.

Oh dear math I wasn't agreeing with you about that research. Uncle T has it.

I see however you focused in on that and ignored the second part.

To be clear, if for the sake of argument one were to accept the "research" (which to be clear, I don't) the effects on a population of over 30 million men , the majority of whom are not circumcised are less than 500 cases per annum. The NHS web-site actually says smoking is likely to be a major risk factor.

Can you explain where you think I said that?
Because I didn't thank her for agreeing with me.

Maybe it didn't occur to you that 'Thank you' might refer to her reference to the sad stats on penile cancer in the UK?

www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02February/Pages/penis-cancer-cases-up-20-percent-between-1979-and-2009.aspx
Article -- '20% rise in penile cancer: are STIs to blame?'

Between 1979 and 2009 incidence of penile cancer rose by 20%.
Over the same period, the number of deaths from penile cancer fell by 19%.
'Survival rates of at least one year increased from 76.2% to 87.1%, and five-year survival increased from 61.4% to 70.2%.'
'There were 9,690 men diagnosed with penile cancer in England between 1979 and 2009.'

'Cancer of the penis is not one of the most common cancers, but this study highlights the need for greater awareness of the condition. Early diagnosis may lead to successful treatment, such as penile-preserving procedures.'
Many men do not see about their symptoms early enough.
Penile amputation remains the best option for treatment of penile cancer.

'...the most important factors known to increase the risk include:

• smoking
• human papilloma virus (which causes warts)'

Condoms do not protect against HPV.

Study on HPV and circumcision status - 'Circumcision and Human Papillomavirus Infection in Men: A Site-Specific Comparison'
I believe I posted this upthread too.
('Oncogenic' means causing development of a tumour or tumours.)

Incidentally (from the NHS link) for the DM-averse:
'The Mail Online gave an accurate reflection of the study and included advice from the male cancer charity Orchid, that men should be more “aware of the warning signs and symptoms of the disease, and that those with worrying symptoms seek medical advice as soon as possible”. It also provided a case study of a man who was embarrassed about his symptoms and even hid them from his wife for a year before seeking medical help.'

(And interestingly, the NHS page contains a link to a clip entitled 'Enjoying Sex Safely: Condom Negotiation'
The subtitle is: 'In the heat of the moment, how do you persuade your partner that safer sex can still be fun?'
Now, if it is self-evident that condom use goes hand in hand with sex, why would anyone need to negotiate about it?
Surely we live in a perfect world where nobody's well brought up DS would ever dream of having sex without a condom no matter how heated the moment might be?)

I suppose that would be the statement about the report being shown elsewhere too, immediately after the thanks. If you didn't mean that then you need to express yourself more satisfactorily.

And, obviously, that being in the context of an immediate response to her post, the main part of which was referring to the smelly slur nonsense.

PigletJohn, I don't know why you keep on bleating that it was me who said that a normal foreskin fills up with urine when it was in fact you who posted that bizarre statement.

The foreskin can fill up with urine in cases of phimosis.
www.baus.org.uk/patients/symptoms/phimosis
Article entitled 'Tight foreskin (phimosis)'

And according to the British Association of Urological Surgeons:
'Tight foreskins may encourage tumours of the penis to develop but tumours never arise in patients who have been circumcised in childhood.'

Maybe you should head to bed UncleT. It's clear this is all getting a bit confusing for you.

So you have a cancer with an incidence in the UK of less than 500 in over 30 million, some of which may have been contributed to by HPV, in circumstances where HPV can be and is contracted by circumcised men, and in a study suggesting that an increase in penile cancer is in fact caused by STI. On the other hand, you have studies showing death rates varying between two per million and 9 in 100,000, to say nothing of the further complications quoted upthread. The statistics don't exactly present a compelling health-based case in favour of circumcision.

And personal attacks also tend to betray the weakness of an argument.

Math, it appears you are telling fibs again.

Oh no! A personal attack! Waaaa! How will we survive?

On the other hand, you might want to read the sequence again - clearly I wasn't the only one who though you meant something completely different.

Thought*