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.

"Why do you care about complete strangers developing penile cancer or not? "

I don't.

What I care about is fellow MNers spreading disinformation.

"Unless the constant hand wringing about it is to justify your own decision to circumcise your own children. "

Do you have problems with English comprehension?

I Have Not Circumcised My Children.

No worries, I can say it again and again, as many times as it takes for you to understand.

Yes math cutting bits off a baby's body is MUTILATION.
If you are ashamed of following your religion's dictates and need to find other excuses, that's your problem not ours.
Don't expect the world to bend it's way just to salve your conscience.

Sorry about the apostrophe.

Just give me a sign that you understand how and why your earlier remark "They say it's fine as they dont know the difference. They have no experience of being uncut" was wrong.

Assuming you read the studies I linked to in my earlier post, of course.

You know, the one that starts with "Study after study after study has proven that circumcision doesn't reduce penis sensitivity & sexual pleasure..."

I haven't asked for your anecdotes.

I have asked if you have understood the studies I linked to.

Pooka

"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

If you're born Jewish, that's it. There's not much you can do about it. But in terms of practice, not having a brit for your son is a marker that you're not interested. Yes, there are probably one or two barely tolerated outliers in liberal communities, but no more than that. I have a relative at a very liberal Jewish school, and he scoffed at the idea that any of his classmates might not have had it done. Yes, I know there are websites offering a brit without the blood, but in the UK at least these are generally confined to the virtual world.

brokenhearted55a

cote has no comment on "rougher and took a lot longer"

Erm no, Cote will not comment on the penis of some poor bloke who brokenhearted has bedded in the past and her recollection of the time it took him to orgasm. Cote would rather talk about the studies she has posted on thousands of men circumcised as adults, who know what sex is like with and without foreskin. If any of you can be bothered to actually read those studies I linked to, that is

Then again, Piglet has a rather sad track record of having a tough time understanding even the simplest study so Cote is fully prepared to continue battling his prejudices and misunderstandings rather than the findings of such studies, as she would like to do.

Are we done with personal snipes? I assure you that is not a battle you are likely to win.

"If it was such a magic bullet for penile cancer, stds, etc and had no draw backs, the whole world would be doing it "

It is recommended and carried out for large parts of the population in areas of the world where dangerous STDs are prevalent, like in Africa.

WHO recommends circumcision as effective intervention for HIV prevention. From the WHO website:

Male circumcision for HIV prevention

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

That report comes round every few hundred posts. It is dealing with regions where HIV is endemic and condom use minimal. It's a poor substitute for safe sex.

Sallyingforth, how is a 60% reduction in risk a poor substitute for safe sex?
Are you claiming that condoms are foolproof or work 100% every single time?
Are you claiming they can protect against all STDs?
Are you claiming that the imagined sexual side effects of circumcision should be more important to a man and his partners than a 60% reduction in risk?

Did you see the NHS clip on 'negotiating condom use' that I pointed out earlier?
It seems there are men out there (or perhaps women) in Britain for whom condom use is not actually a given. It seems there are enough of them to warrant the creation of a video encouraging negotiation of condom use. Apparently the message that condom use every single time constitutes safe sex and safe sex is a Good Thing is not sufficient for some.

I wouldn't have to post the same studies and reports at every circumcision thread if you some people actually bothered to read and understand them.

If condoms were used every time and never failed, we wouldn't need birth control pills, HPV vaccination, or smear tests. Cervical cancer would be eradicated.

You are living in a dream world.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11072853 - 2009 report.

Experts at the Health Protection Agency (HPA) say young people are most affected.
And one in 10 of 15-24 year olds with an STI become infected again within a year.
Health ministers said they would look at what more could be done to increase young people's awareness of risks.
The 482,696 new cases represent a 3% rise from the 2008 figures, continuing a "steady upward trend" that the HPA said had been seen over the past decade...

...Dr Gwenda Hughes, an STI expert at the HPA, said: "These figures highlight the vulnerability of young women.
"Many studies have shown that young adults are more likely to have unsafe sex. Often they lack the skills and confidence to negotiate safer sex.
"Re-infection is also a worrying issue. Teenagers are repeatedly putting their own and others' long-term health at risk."...

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a consultant physician in sexual health, told BBC Radio 5 live, that the safe sex message was still not getting through to young people.
"In general, most STIs occur in young people because they lack the knowledge and self-esteem to actually avoid getting sexually transmitted infections - and that's what we've been shouting about for years," he said...

Sexual health charities described the figures as "alarming" and joined the HPA in urging people to use condoms, and to have a health check if they have had unsafe sex.
Natika Halil, from the FPA, said: "Young men don't wear condoms and it appears it's young women who end up with the infection.'

The myth that any interference whatsoever with the penis au natural will result in sexual dissatisfaction on the part of men is really, really hazardous to the health and welfare of women.

Be very, very careful what myths you spout therefore.

When posters here repeat the untruth that men who are circumcised have diminished sexual pleasure compared with uncircumcised men, apart altogether from the fact that studies have proved this wrong, what they are stating is the principle that the sexual satisfaction of men is the be all and end all of sex, and the health and welfare of their partners does not matter.

'Math if someone develops penile cancer it ain't your problem.'

But if someone has their foreskin removed a few days after birth that warrants hysterical bleating about mutilation?

You do realise that the best cure available for penile cancer is amputation of the penis, right?

If you are trying to suggest that any rise in STIs could be prevented by circumcision, that is a very dangerous path to tread.

It can only encourage young people to be even less careful in their sexual relationships if they are lead to believe that a man without a foreskin is 'safer'.

If you want to help stop the spread of STIs, use your efforts to promote the use of condoms, which are extremely effective.

Keep the mutilation for your own religious observances instead of pushing it onto others.

You do realize that even if you use your statistics, circumcision only reduces the likelihood of getting an STI by a minuscule amount?

Oh, and circumcision does absolutely nothing to reduce the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. Or are you not bothered about the women your sons might impregnate?

I am not 'trying' to suggest anything of the sort. The link between incidence of HPV and penile cancer (and cervical cancer) has been demonstrated. The link between circumcision and lowered risk of HPV has been demonstrated.

OTOH, the fact that condoms do not protect against HPV has also been demonstrated. So too have the myriad problems associated with condom use, if and when they are used -- and they are not used anywhere near 100% of the time. So I do not know why anyone on this thread keeps on saying condoms are the answer.

I do not know why anyone on this thread keeps on saying condoms are the answer

If you cannot understand why health care professionals around the world advise the use of condoms as the primary protection against sexually transmitted diseases, you really should not be taking part in a discussion like this.