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.

when you said

mathanxiety Mon 05-May-14 06:12:10
I think my assumptions are very reasonable. If the rest of your body, including parts that do not produce smegma, retain stale urine, and sweat

(or do you deny it?)

are you claiming that it was a joke?

Or was it just something you said and later just untruthfully denied?

Like when you introduced the idea that people only wash once in 24 hours, and then untruthfully pretended that it was my idea?
see PigletJohn Tue 06-May-14 17:08:55

Baby boys do not choose circumcision any more then they choose measles, mumps or the BCG. And yet all are prophylactic medical interventions performed with the consent of their conscientious parents. Boys older than infants are also circumcised as a way to treat many problems associated with the foreskin (which is demonstrably not the perfect piece of tissue claimed on this thread) and again, this is done with the consent of parents and not the patients themselves, just like other childhood operations. Parents get to choose for babies and young children in all matters medical (and pretty much all other mattes too which is neither here nor there but it's undeniable).

The procedure and recovery time in babies are both far quicker and there are far fewer complications than circumcision of older boys or men.

Circumcision also protects against the sort of problems shown in my British Association of Urological Surgeons link upthread and against UTIs. Baby boys under 1 yo tend to get far more UTIs than baby girls.

Well possibly rather humourless yes

PigletJohn Mon 12-May-14 20:50:37
when you said
mathanxiety Mon 05-May-14 06:12:10
I think my assumptions are very reasonable. If the rest of your body, including parts that do not produce smegma, retain stale urine, and sweat
(or do you deny it?)
are you claiming that it was a joke?

......

This is getting really, really, seriously bizarre, PigletJohn.
Let's sort out the 'joke' reference, shall we?

Here is what LittleBear said:
(LittleBear remember..)

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 20:30:29
Math
Piglet said to you in response to your repeated assertions about men's penises and their cleanliness.
I gather you [are] under the mistaken impression that the foreskin is a sealed container that fills up with urine. If you have ever come across one like that, I have to tell you that it was faulty.
It was quite obvious they were making a joke. I was going to say taking the piss but it felt too close to the matter in hand '

..............

Are you with me still PigletJohn?
Are you clear on the fact that LittleBear thinks your malicious fictionalisation of my reference to urine was a joke?

(Incidentally, what do you think of it, as jokes go?)

Malicious fictionalisation.

Math do get a bloody grip.

I see you are attempting to divert away from the fact that you untruthfully claimed
mathanxiety Mon 12-May-14 17:46:18
I assure you the idea of a foreskin filling up with urine is yours and yours alone.

when in fact you had said

mathanxiety Mon 05-May-14 06:12:10
I think my assumptions are very reasonable. If the rest of your body, including parts that do not produce smegma, retain stale urine, and sweat

Circumcision can reduce the risk of contracting HPV.

The research says it might reduce that risk but it isn't proven.

However, what is proven is that circumcision does increase the risk of little boys dying.

How funny it is to make up something patently ridiculous, attribute it to someone else

But Piglet didn't, as we can all see. S/he did not make up the fact that you said that the foreskin retains urine. S/he then, correctly, pointed out that you were thus asserting that it is a container that fills up with urine. S/he didn't make it up, or lie, or attribute it incorrectly. And, no matter how many times you aggressively deny that, we can all see the truth for ourselves.

And the idea that circumcision is the equivalent of vaccination is utterly ludicrous.

HPV is a known risk factor for penile cancer and is itself a disease one would wish to avoid by whatever means one could.

Clearly millions of parents don't agree with that proposition. Given the fact that penile cancer rates are lower in Europe than in the US despite the higher circumcision rate in the US, it's hardly a certain way of avoiding penile cancer. And how many parents, presented with, on the one hand, the bare possibility of penile cancer (which can be eliminated by proper washing) and, on the other hand, the higher chance of death, would opt for the latter?

For the sake of my mental health I am withdrawing from this thread. I'm going to leave it by saying simply that permanent body modifications should be consensual, unless medically essential. Obviously some posters (well, all of roughly one, really) think that vaccines are the same as operations, also that somehow calling circumcision without consent what it is somehow means we don't take FGM seriously. It's all complete crap, and would be funny if it wasn't all so downright offensive. The arguments about male hygiene are deeply offensive and no justification. The medical 'evidence' is laughable in comparison to the right to choose what happens to one's body. That's it. Thanks to the vast majority of you who see this all for what it is - you're utterly superb. Goodnight. See you in other threads perhaps.

No, he was making a huge joke, apparently.

Or alternatively using some definition of 'retains stale urine' that only a practitioner of the baboon house style of internet discussion would consider appropriate.

no joke required.

just an observation of math's untruthfulness in pretending not to have said "retain stale urine"

Ok, maybe not a joke but drawing your absurd suggestion to its extreme. However you choose not to see this.

Well, math, apparently you have a definition of "retains stale urine" which is unknown to the English language.

And, again, still avoiding the inconvenient facts whilst pursuing this weird obsession with claiming other people said things that you said.

Someone needs to tell PigletJohn
(1) that jokes don't get funnier the more you tell them,
(2) that constant flinging of monkey shite isn't civil or acceptable except in the baboon house,
and
(3) that the commonly accepted definition of many words he has ascribed his own personal meaning to and used on this thread can be found in dictionaries.

is this the same math who pretends other people have said things which in fact she said herself?

and the same math who invents her own definition of words such as "altered" so that she can untruthfully accuse people of misogyny?

Sorry, math, it's just not working. We can all see for ourselves that it is you who are making up word definitions and accusing other people of saying things you said yourself. Do you not understand that the evidence is very easlly available?

And you're still avoiding inconvenient facts whilst whittering on about jokes, monkeys and goodness knows what else.

LittleBear -- 'drawing your absurd suggestion to its extreme'

Transforming a reasonable assumption based on the fact that there are no toilet paper dispensers located near urinals into another statement entirely, from sheer malice, is a long, long way from 'drawing your absurd suggestion to its extreme'.

It is absurd stretching of the the boundaries of credulity to suggest there is any relation between what I posted and the malicious post PigletJohn posted and continues to shamelessly assert I posted.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what exactly PigletJohn thinks he is contributing to this topic of discussion.

But your own contribution is well-reasoned?

You are making very little sense.

Still unable to admit you made up a malicious misrepresentation of my words and attributed it to me several times in the course of the thread, and that you are still trying to tell me I posted something I patently did not, PigletJohn?

Or have I misinterpreted you completely?

Should I cut you some slack? Maybe you learned your internet manners somewhere other than MN..

I assert that you said

"I think my assumptions are very reasonable. If the rest of your body, including parts that do not produce smegma, retain stale urine, and sweat"

and also

"I assure you the idea of a foreskin filling up with urine is yours and yours alone."

Do you seek to deny it?

But math, we can all see that PigletJohn made up nothing: you posted a clear statement that foreskins retain urine, and he simply joined issue with that statement. The only circumstances when a foreskin will retain urine is in the event of a specific and unusual medical problem, and retained urine in that eventuality has nothing to do with penile cancer. Loads of people with direct experience have pointed out that uncircumcised men don't smell of urine unless they are unhygienic in all sorts of other ways, but that's one of the many facts you choose not to engage with.

And before you start saying that the possibility of that medical problem justifies cutting off the foreskin, no, it doesn't.

PigletJohn, are you continuing to deny that you maliciously fictionalised my post?

I think even a baboon would be tired of the shite-tossing by now.

Math, before you continue this absurd argument, how about addressing Piglet's post of 22.56.18?

Don't be silly, math, with your monkey-throwing jibes.

As you know full well, I have, for the second time in this thread, pointed out that you have lied.

You are simply making yourself increasingly ridiculous.