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.

Can any of the pro circumcision lobby give me actual figures about the protection that circumcision provides against syphillis and HIV specifically, and against other STDs generally? Can they be from a reputable source, with references, please.

Martians. There has been a very recent thread about this. Have a browse.

Baggins. You choose your name for cutting off part of a healthy baby's body, and I'll use mine.

Sallyingforth- I know. I just want the facts on this thread too- just in case anyone is influenced by the somewhat hysterical pro- lobby.

Sallyingforth: "Very little protection. "

It varies between infection types and different studies have found different levels of difference, however across the studies it would seem that there is around a 20% less chance of getting an STD. Certainly not as good as condom use but never-the-less it would mean that where 100 uncircumcised men get a disease, only 80 circumcised one's would. And enough to be called a benefit of circumcision.

"So little that the NHS doesn't recommend it, and neither do the health services in any other EU country."

Strictly speaking true, but misleading at the same time. The NHS has recently updated its advice and does now recognise the potential benefits of circumcision. Although far from an endorsement it is a step in the right direction. You also ignore the views of the CDC and AAP who, after reviewing the evidence, now say that funding should be available for all parents who choose circumcision for their child.

Baggins- some actual figures, please? "It seems" "across studies" doesn't count.

Sallyingforth: "Baggins. You choose your name for cutting off part of a healthy baby's body, and I'll use mine."

Call it what you like, but understand the consequences. It does make your anti-circumcision argument seem rather desperate that you are willing to belittle the harm suffered by victims of FGM to make a point.

Martorana: "Baggins- some actual figures, please? "It seems" "across studies" doesn't count."

Yes, yes. Give me a minute. I don't bookmark this stuff you know!

Martorana - sorry about your name last time - usual autocorrection failure!

Baggins - more nonsense. This has nothing to do with FGM which is of course an entirely different matter. You're the one that brought it in, not me.

This discussion has drifted far away from the original post, so I'm out now.

Sallyingforth: "This has nothing to do with FGM which is of course an entirely different matter."

It is no coincidence that FGM and MGM are similar. Quite the opposite: it is a deliberate ploy designed to make male circumcision look far worse than it is. But it is a ploy that unashamedly dismisses the serious harm caused by female genital mutilation in order to score points. Those who use it should learn about the horror of FGM. Perhaps then they will stop trying to equate it with male circumcision.

Martorana: "Baggins- some actual figures, please? "It seems" "across studies" doesn't count."

The figures you requested...

From the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
sti.bmj.com/content/82/2/101.full

"This first systematic review of male circumcision and ulcerative STI strongly indicates that circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis."

"26 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most syphilis studies reported a substantially reduced risk among circumcised men (summary RR?=?0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.83), although there was significant between study heterogeneity (p?=?0.01). The reduced risk of HSV-2 infection was of borderline statistical significance (summary RR?=?0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01). Circumcised men were at lower risk of chancroid in six of seven studies (individual study RRs: 0.12 to 1.11)."

Relative Risk (RR) is the risk of a circumcised man contracting the disease compared to an uncircumcised man, not the absolute risk of getting the disease.

An RR of 0.67 means 100 uncircumcised men would get syphilis while only 67 circumcised men would.

You can also check the CDC website for more information on the risks.

The zone between the glans and the foreskin is perfect for all sorts of bacterial development, from cheese to HIV. It is moist, it has the right temperature for microbial growth. Of course, one can wash, but does one wast constantly all day long? Assuming a man takes a shower at 7:00 a.m; I guess you have an idea how it looks and smells down there at 9:00 p.m if you ever decide to peel his forskin back?

HIV is a virus love. HTH.

Amazonia said: "The zone between the glans and the foreskin is perfect for all sorts of bacterial development, from cheese to HIV. It is moist, it has the right temperature for microbial growth. Of course, one can wash, but does one wast constantly all day long? Assuming a man takes a shower at 7:00 a.m; I guess you have an idea how it looks and smells down there at 9:00 p.m if you ever decide to peel his forskin back?"

Moe than that, because the urethra isn't straight it retains a few drips of urine after urination which is why all men loose a drip or two some minutes after urinating. As a result, even if the man retracts his foreskin when he goes to the toilet, his glans will still be damp with stale urine soon afterwards.

With an accumulation of urine and smegma as baggins101 describes it, there cannot be any better incubator for all those microbes to plentifully enjoy life.

And... indeed, there is surely a lot of difference between a bacteria and a virus, WilsonFrickett, but does it help a lot figuring out the differences when you've caught a desease?

More than 80% of men in the UK aren't circumcised.
Mumsnet is a very popular UK site largely frequented by people who, artificial insemination aside, by definition will have encountered a penis.
People tend to be quite open with each other about a number of things including sex and the effects of childbirth on your lady bits.

However, there is a distinct lack of people complaining about putrid penises.

I think I will draw my own conclusions.

Assuming a man takes a shower at 7:00 a.m; I guess you have an idea how it looks and smells down there at 9:00 p.m if you ever decide to peel his forskin back?

Probably the same as your vagina? Should we start cutting off the lips for the sake of stopping bacterial growth in moist places?

I do not understand your point merrymouse

Of course most adults have encountered a penis. If we hadn't, we would not be talking, right?

"80% of men in the UK aren't circumcised". If you say so, fine with me. Does that mean we should therefore refrain to talk about circumcision?

If I can use this analogy: 100% of the folks here regularly go to the toilets. It sometimes happen that you visit clean toilets and sometimes dirty toilets. Such is life. What's wrong when talking about it?

The point is that dirty penises don't seem to be an issue. Or if they are, they are attached to a dirty person.

Amazonia, what would you suggest we do about all the urine and discharge that must, by your reasoning, be hanging around a girl's vagina?

PrincessBabyCat: "Probably the same as your vagina? Should we start cutting off the lips for the sake of stopping bacterial growth in moist places?"

So your argument is that since we cannot keep everything clean we shouldn't bother to keep anything clean? Not a very persuasive argument.

I'm not saying people shouldn't talk about it.

My point is that women of childbearing age are probably the demographic that has most intimate contact with somebody else's penis on a regular basis. There are plenty of threads where women complain about men for all sorts of things, but not generally the state of their uncircumcised penis.

This isn't because they don't want to talk about it. It is because it isn't a problem.

I know someone who saw Prince Edward's willy and there was no mention of it being circumcised. Not proof, I realise, but adds to the body of evidence.

baggins101 You misread my post. I was pointing out that no one's bits are sparkly at the end of the day. Uncircumcised penises aren't anymore gross or smelly at the end of the day than a vagina, which really if you showered that morning isn't that bad. If it's really a problem, just freshen up before having sex. It's not a reason to circumcise.

"Should we start cutting off the lips for the sake of stopping bacterial growth in moist places?"

You mean if we cannot find a rational answer for women, we should not seek any solution for men either?

No, I think the point is that despite what the makers of vagisil would like you to believe, women's vagina's aren't unclean either.

My boys are circumcised, as is my husband. We chose to do it for hygiene reasons...they will never have to worry about keeping foreskins clean or deal with hygiene-related infections (two of our uncircumcised nephews had to be hospitalized with issues, one later requiring circumcision as a teenager). It is SO not a big issue here in Canada, like it is in the UK and I've never heard of any link to class. Doctors here are very experienced and well trained when it comes to the procedure (and it's done in the surgery, with a local, and takes about two minutes). It was honestly far less distressing for them than their baby vaccines and I wish people would stop trotting out the line of 'chopping bits off' and 'mutilation'...um, it doesn't work like that. It's more analogous to pushing back your cuticles than lopping off an ear. I read recently that the American academy of paediatrics has recently revised their neutral stance on circumcision to a pro- one and that Canada is expected to follow suit shortly. The way I see it, nature isn't perfect...some of us are born with health issues that we can elect to have fixed or body parts that give us trouble, any of us can contract any number of infections/diseases. I chose to get my kids vaccinated, I chose to get one of my little boys glasses and have his tongue-tie snipped...my other little boy was a poor sleeper as a baby and snored/drooled and we were advised to have his tonsils out. We went ahead and did it (even though it wasn't strictly medically necessary) and it fixed the problem. All without their consent. Will they feel mutilated when they are older? Will they resent the decisions we made for them, do you think? I've asked my (Canadian-born) husband about this before...about whether he feels 'mutilated' or wishes he had been able to give his consent as a baby. He laughed .