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 really important in the context of a discussion of circumcision to understand that condoms do not protect against HPV and that HPV can cause both penile and cervical cancer.

Right- so this is now about HPV alone. There is effective vaccination against HPV.

Why not use your energy in promoting the proper use of condoms? It seems bizarre to be promoting circumcision when the protection it offers is minimal, rather than education about something which offers excellent protection when used properly,,,,,,

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

This. And it increases the risk of death in baby boys.

"circumcision only reduces the likelihood of getting an STI by a minuscule amount"

I see it's time for this table again: Comprehensive Risk-Benefit Analysis of Infant Male Circumcision.

Note that the figures are fold increase (as in 3-fold, 10-fold etc) and not %.

Studies from which those numbers come are cited to the right of each figure.

Risk of heterosexual HIV infection is 2.4-fold higher for the uncircumcised.
Risk of UTI for babies is 10-fold higher in the uncircumcised.
Risk of sphylis is almost 2-fold higher in the uncircumcised.
etc...

And it sounds like <a class="break-all" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=www.researchgate.net/publication/12592127_Circumcision_and_genital_dermatoses/file/5046352a0c167b0552.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2bg9a_XMrm6haOMeT2UkuASfz-SQ&oi=scholarr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this study about skin conditions (non-contagious) is also forgotten:

Table 2:

Men with Psoriasis.........72% are uncircumcised
Lichen Sclerosus...........98% are uncircumcised
Lichen Planus...............69% are uncircumcised
Seborrheic dermatitis....72% are uncircumcised
Zoon balanitis..............100% are uncircumcised
etc.

... all of which is to prove (yet again) to those in denial that there are indeed health benefits to circumcision.

Whether or not those benefits are large enough to circumcise is an individual decision. We didn't circumcise DS because we didn't think so. Others may have thought differently.

And none of those statistics assess the relevant rates by reference to those taught to wash properly.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Are you saying men in London, UK are not taught to wash their penises properly? (that is the second study I posted and which you clearly haven't read)

Well if they were men from Yorkshire they wouldn't have been as Math asserted earlier. She didn't mention London men.

It's "supposed" to mean that all the "health benefits" of circumcision can be achieved by proper hygiene, condom use and HPV vaccination.

And it is laughable that anyone would promote circumcision over condom use. And it shows a worrying, but quite common, opinion that men are not responsible for their own fertility.

Martorana - You are a clever woman. You know very well the absurdity of dismissing a study on disease rates of men in London, UK and saying "Well, this doesn't mean anything because we don't know how many of them were taught to wash their penises properly".

We would assume that most if not all men in the capital city of the UK to know exactly how to wash their penises properly. It is not rocket science. Whether or not they do is a different story, of course.

Most if not all men in London also should know the proper way to protect themselves is to use a condom. Do you think they all wear a condom, every time they have sex? No, they don't.

"And it is laughable that anyone would promote circumcision over condom use"

Straw Man argument.

LittleBear - No idea what you mean by that.

Reading the studies I posted might help you understand what we are talking about.

It's not a straw man argument. That's just a way for you to dismiss mantoranas point.

Nobody promoted circumcision over condom use, therefore Martorana's "it is laughable that anyone would promote circumcision over condom use" is a Straw Man because it argues against something nobody said. QED.

Côte- have you read any of Maths' posts on condoms? They can be summed up as "condoms are unreliable- so circumcise."

You should read the thread then unless Maths fairly unpleasant posts about English people and particularly those from Yorkshire were deleted.

She has also asserted numerous times that condoms are ineffective

"Condoms are unreliable, so circumcise" is advocating an additional safety measure, not saying nobody should use condoms.

Drive under the speed limit and don't be drunk at the wheel and have your safety belt on.

LittleBear - I am unable to read deleted posts, for some reason

Your last couple of posts make no sense to me so maybe you should go talk to someone else for a bit.

There's no need to be rude. I didn't know they'd been deleted, or if indeed they have.

It's an unnecessary additional safely measure. Get vaccinated for HPV and there's no need to circumcise.

There's no need to be rude. I didn't know they'd been deleted, or if indeed they have.

It's an unnecessary additional safely measure. Get vaccinated for HPV and there's no need to circumcise.

Not that there's overwhelming evidence for it anyway but this is the reason Math keeps harping on about.

Well this thread is about to close, but there will be another one along soon trying to persuade us to cut bits off little boys.
Fortunately the majority here are following their natural safe instincts rather than excuses for outdated religious dogma.

Yes, you did know that you were referring to deleted posts:

LittleBearPad Fri 16-May-14 09:13:04
You should read the thread then unless Maths fairly unpleasant posts about English people and particularly those from Yorkshire were deleted.

It is not for the sake of rudeness that I'm pointing out your posts make no sense. It is because they don't. Read your post above and tell me if that makes sense, and not just the part where you are telling me to go read deleted posts.

Sad to see that you learned nothing from this thread and surely will learn nothing from the next, either. Sigh.

Can you read the word 'unless'

Obviously not.