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 is very clear that PigletJohn accepted the very obvious meaning of my post initially "

that is not true

I suppose as we are now on post 929 this is now just a race to the finishing line to see who gets the last word. I'm tempted to post "Scandinavia" 71 times.

It seems clear to me low rates of penile cancer are found in countries with a high standard of living and access to sanitation and good health care; which applies to Israel and the Scandinavian countries.

Not true?

Blimey, you really do believe all the shite you post, PigletJohn.

Penile cancer is on the rise in the UK, because despite access to showers etc about half of men do not bother washing daily. Penile cancer cases have risen 20% since the late 70s.

Cervical cancer kills about 1000 British women every year. It is the second most common cancer among women in the UK.

In addition to the problem of reluctance to wash and the lack of circumcision, (reported) HPV cases are on the rise -- 'The number of new diagnoses of genital warts in GUM clinics in the UK has increased by almost 30 percent since 1999. Genital warts are the most common viral STD diagnosed in the UK: in 2008 there were 92,525 diagnoses of genital warts in UK GUM clinics. The highest rates of diagnoses were among women aged 16-19 and men aged 20-24.'
www.avert.org/stds-uk.htm#tab-2

HPV usually causes no symptoms, so it may be assumed that those who go for a sti check are those who actually get warts from the infection, or those who have another infection and tests reveal the presence of HPV, or those who find that a previous partner tested positive for HPV. Therefore, actual incidence of HPV may be higher than figures from GUM clinics show.

Again, nobody should assume condoms will protect against HOV.

Scandinavia

Israel

And I would like to refer you to my earlier link to a study of patients at a Danish STI clinic which of course went completely unnoticed because intactivist propaganda has brainwashed so many here into thinking there is something sacred about the foreskin.

Penile cancer is on the rise in the UK, because despite access to showers etc about half of men do not bother washing daily.

Another desperate and patently wrong non sequitur. If this connection were true it means that men were washing much more thoroughly previously than they are now, in spite of the general improvements in plumbing and hygiene generally.
Why don't you come clean math and admit that your only motive for mutilating little boys is the religious one? We can understand that even if we can't accept it. All these spurious excuses are pointless and do you no credit.

"the penile cancer rate is virtually the same in Scandinavia. You know what hardly anyone does in Scandinavia"

Scandinavia? Are we talking about Sweden, Denmark, and Norway?

Penile cancer incidence (per 100K people):

Sweden................ 1.4
Denmark.............. 1.0
Norway.................1.2

Israel....................0.1

Pray tell, how exactly is the penile cancer rate in Scandinavia "virtually the same" as the rate in Israel?

Do you know that 1 is 10 times 0.1?

Sallyingforth, do people who have their sons circumcised for religious reasons mutilate them?

I ask because you just asserted they do. The assertion is a slur.

A boy is more likely to die as a result of circumcision than as a result of penile cancer.

If you're going back to the argument about the meaning of the word mutilate, then this truly is a circular thread.

The Macmillan dictionary says this:

to damage someone's body permanently by cutting it or removing part of it
a.
to damage something seriously, or to spoil it completely, especially by removing part of it

Now obviously if you are Jewish or Moslem then you would not agree with the suggestion that circumcision is damaging or spoiling.

To show just how circular the thread is, I was asking my mother about circumcision in my family with relation to class. My grandpa was circumcised. Was a 'thing' in upper classes round the turn of the century until 2nd world war.

My grandmother asked about having my father circumcised as an infant, during the Second World War. The doctor refused point blank and said "why would you want to mutilate this baby?" So he wasn't. I have never (understandably) asked whether this caused him to stick out like a sore thumb at boarding school. But it ties in with the op.

While I dislike the idea of boys being circumcised as infants without medical reasons (I.e. Hypospadias), i think that might be related to my general lack of interest in religion full-stop.

I have friends in the States who would say that they are Jewish but decided not to circumcise, yet still consider their ds to be Jewish. Not knowing much about the different 'levels' of belief/Jewishness I can't say how that would sit with the reality of their faith or not. I suppose if their ds grows up to be more observant, he can make the decision to be circumcised. I do also know of another American guy who converted, and was circumcised as an adult. I know that that is believed to be a trickier op, but I'm more comfortable with the idea of an adult providing informed consent to surgery. Even when kids are circumcised through medical reasons when they're 5 or 6 or even later, they have consent and a voice and are capable of understanding the process. My nephew was 5 or 6 I think. He was involved in the discussion, and I think the problems he was having were severe enough for him to even at that age understand the benefits to him. I genuinely don't know what the parents would have done if he'd point blank refused to have the op.

'why do you care whether or not strangers on a global scale choose to snip their boys or not?'
HPV (and cervical cancer, which kills about 1000 British women per year). It affects many thousands more, and it affects their families. Very often, the disease strikes when a woman has young children.

'Why do you care whether or not boys on a global scale are snipped?'
The phrase 'survivor of penile cancer' often describes a man who has had his penis amputated.

They are reacting because they think circumcision is cruel (despite the vast majority of men saying it's absolutely fine and going on to circumcisions their own boys).

The same people also claim it has no benefits whatsoever, which is why people have pointed them in the direction of extensive proof for health benefits.

Religions don't advocate circumcision just because. They say it is for health and cleanliness, which is not false.

Fwiw, I'm not religious and DS is not circumcised.

The thing is, though, that circumcision carries its own risks, including a risk of death. Given the fact that penile cancer is rare and that (a) it has other causes and (b) the chances of getting it can be reduced yet further by ordinary cleanliness, why take the greater risk?

I didn't say penile cancer rate in Israel is zero. I said it is 0.1 in 100,000 (age-adjusted figures), which is about 1/10 - 1/15 of the incidence rate in Scandinavian countries.

And I said that in reply to your statement "the penile cancer rate is virtually the same in Scandinavia" as in Israel. You were wrong.

HTH.

"They say it's fine as they dont know the difference. They have no experience of being uncut."

Except that there are extensive studies with men circumcised as adults. Here, read and learn:

Study after study after study has proven that circumcision doesn't reduce penis sensitivity & sexual pleasure. Some men circumcised as adults actually report an increase in sensitivity, while many report no appreciable difference; virtually none noted any notable decrease. Men circumcised as adults also almost universally report no adverse effect in overall sexual satisfaction following the procedure. (That fits with Slate's findings when it asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) And genital sensitivity in response to erotic stimulation is identical in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Don’t trust individual studies? A systematic review of all available data on circumcision came to the same conclusion.

I don't expect reality this information to change your prejudices or those of the others who have parroted "Scandinavia" to rather hilarious effect earlier, but thought you might like to have some knowledge on this subject.

"if you were all truly comfortable with your decision, I doubt all the overzealous justification would be needed here."

And if you actually read my posts before replying to them with preconceived ideas, you would know that my decision was NOT to circumcise.