Do the British Circumcise?

As we moved on through the school, my final rugby XV was eleven cut and four uncut (still including me!). There was no particular policy on circumcision at the school but, without doubt, there was some peer pressure in the team and also one or two medical reasons for circumcision. It also seemed that circumcision was more popular among the rugby players than the school in general.

At university in the Midlands in the mid-1970s, where I was now playing squash rather than rugby, the cut/uncut ratio was now down to about 25/75. This probably reflected both geographic differences and those born in the mid/late 1950s, when routine circumcision in infancy/childhood had become much less common in the UK.

This seems to be the case at my present sports club on the South Coast, where roundheads (as I am now!) are fairly rare - about 1/8 or 1/10. In my age group (40s) the ratio is nearer 1/5, but for those in their 20s or 30s it is about 1/10.

Certainly, circumcision seems to have hit its period of least popularity in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. I wonder if perhaps the tide has now turned?

Philip

Recent web based teen survey indicates higher than anticipated circumcision rate among teen males, with UK circumcision rates in this age group at nearly 30%.

About 10 years ago a published paper gave the figure of 12.5% of UK males circumcised before age 21.  Now the government seems to be reporting infant circ rates at 14% alone!  Things are looking up!

Allowing for the many boys who will be circumcised for phimosis in later childhood or adolescence this must mean that at least 20%+ of UK males are now circumcised by the time they reach adulthood. And of course there are also those circumcised outside the NHS since private hospitals and clinics seem to be increasing in the UK these days, and the patrons of these are the social classes most likely to circumcise their sons.  When one adds in those boys circumcised for religious reasons, you end up with a large number of young men who are circumcised in the UK.

James

The Guardian newspaper contained an interesting statistic recently. It said that approximately 32,000 circumcisions took place in the UK each year "plus countless others in the Jewish and Muslim communities".  Now, leave aside the word "countless", and assume that the 'churn' in the UK population is about 0.6M a year, that suggests that the (all-age) male circumcision rate is better than 10% and that there is an average of between 80 (7-day week) and 120 (Mon-Fri) circumcisions a day, plus religious circumcisions on top.

William (UK)

OUR BRITISH HERITAGE AND THE SWORD OF ISLAM

Two hundred and twenty-six years ago young Warren Hastings was circumcised....forcibly! Twenty-four year old Warren, along with three hundred of his fellow English workers at the Old London Company offices in Cossimbazar, India, was stripped, sodomized, masturbated and publicly circumcised by the Moghul troops who overran the British outpost. Warren watched in fascination and horror as his prepuce was carried away in a bag containing all three hundred freshly severed foreskins....trophies for the Moslem Moghuls. Lanky, effeminately handsome Hastings, destined to become one of Britain's great colonial statesmen, wrote of his ordeal, "I, myself, was carved...."

Hastings' carving was not the first time an Englishman had been circumcised at the hands of Islamic warriors, and it was not to be the last time. The Arabs, Turks and Afghans as well as the Moghuls have had their turns at plucking off British prepuces. In southern India, Ma'ajoon, an intoxicating combination of herbs was employed during the forced circumcision of captives, producing stupification and causing the penis to rise; the aphrodisiac made the ceremony easier and, by being performed on an erect shaft, preserved much of the foreskin. Tippoo Sultaun, the tiger of Mysore, used this method on British troops to make certain they survived and, by incomplete circumcision, to brand them only partially cleansed; quasi-Mohammedans. At a prison in the Mysorean dungeons of Swendroog, Cl. Sir David Baird, a prominent Scottish officer, was thus mutilated along with other young subalterns. Baird and his fellow captives were seized by powerful Abyssisian slaves, stripped naked and staked to the ground, their limbs splayed wide. A white bearded old surgeon carefully pried his long, craggy fingers into each British penis, determining the extent of the doomed foreskin. Then the victims' mouths were forced open, introducing Ma'ajoon. The wily old circumciser waited patiently. Soon, the drug had taken effect, and each officer experienced masochistic stimulation; teeth gritting, fist clenching, eyes transfixed as they watched their penises rise in anticipation. When each soldier's manhood stood at full flower, the old man announced, "Praise the lord! Thou art now to receive the ordinance of El-Knutneh, creating thee all to True Believer." The razor flashed once over each penis. The rings of flesh were offered to the fire as liberation to Allah.

As the mighty British Empire expanded and Mother England sent forth soldiers, adventurers and government clerks, more and more of her Christian sons returned home with Islamized penises. Unfortunately, many did not return but instead bled to death as a result of their foreskin amputation. Phimosis, the condition of a tight or unretractable prepuce, seemingly had a high incidence among the English, making cavalier circumcisions by Moslem swordsmen risky, and as far back as 1661, the Old London Company realized that her many phimosed employees were in mortal danger.

Knowing it was impossible to protect British foreskins from zealot Moghuls, the British governor of Madras proclaimed that all applicants to the Company be "bodily examined" and if a cadet could not "strip his yard" the company surgeon was obliged to "clip ye skin entire". Thus, in 1661, the first circumcision of European Christians by European Christians was commenced, giving impetus to three hundred years of routine circumcision in the English speaking world.

The Old London Company records still exist giving explicit details about who among her illustrious empire builders were "clipcocks" and who were "pillcocks" (or, peelcocks; uncircumcised). These terms gave rise to generations of English schoolboy humor and playful contention, not to mention curiosity, between possessors or the two styles of "cocks". For many generations the "clipcocks", in the minority, suffered great indignation. Robert Clive, the hero in the British takeover of India, was angered when his phimosed penis was circumcised by the company surgeon; "By God, had I known I was to come out here to be clipped I'd have forsaken pork and procured me a scullcap!"

When taunted by the pillcock cadets in his own company Clive "...did menace ye offending cadets with his pen-knife, asking who should be the first in ye loss of his precious skin.''

By the early nineteenth century, however, the clipcock became fashion among the British aristocracy, who wore it as a badge of honor--proof of serving Throne and Empire in foreign service. Richard Burton, the illustrious anthropologist, had himself circumcised as part of the masquerade in his daring entry into forbidden Mecca. His associate, Speke, became a hero to his adventure-loving countrymen when, during an expedition searching for the source of the Nile, his camp was overrun by hostile Somalis screaming, "Circumcision or death, you Christian Dog!", and he was left on the battlefield stunned and Islamized. Many a young pillcock squire, observing how many of his peers at the all-boy English public schools sported their acorns (glans) unmuzzled, chose to be circumcised to better represent his privileged class. British royalty circumcised its male heirs using the finest Mohel (Jewish circumciser) to be found in all of London. Yes, the rich and the famous were shedding their foreskins in the most romantic of ways. The huge English working class, however, remained resolutely uncircumcised. Then came Queen Victoria!

Suddenly, masturbation became the number one enemy of God, Her Majesty' s throne and, certainly, it replaced the Moslem as the prime enemy of the foreskin. Alex Comfort wrote about the "masturbation hysteria" in England between 1850 and 1900. "Over this period there was truly a remarkable upsurge in what can be termed comic-book sadism. The advocacy of bizarre anti-masturbation therapies was not confined to eccentrics. By about 1880 the individual who might wish for unconscious reason to tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children,...to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them...masturbation insanity was now real enough...it was affecting the medical profession." Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., ("The Manufacture of Madness", Dell Publishing 1970) wrote that the masturbator became the social scapegoat during this period just as witches had been in previous periods and physicians took the place of clergy as the "inquisitors". One such "inquisitor", Dr. James Hutchinson, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, wrote a paper titled, "On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation", and the floodgates were opened for routine neonatal circumcision. Even English working class penises began to succumb to the Queen's surgeons.

Routine circumcision of English boys remained rampant until the start of World War I when, according to British author Dr. Douglas Baker, M.D., 85% of the upper class males were circumcised as were nearly 50% of their working class peers. During the first decade of this century anti-masturbation was excuse enough for the mass destruction of British prepuces. During the second decade the medical "inquisitors" came under some question and the circumcisers began looking for other "excuses" which, after all provided them with a financial bonus. Among the new "excuses" was the theory that circumcision helped to prevent VD. And, with British boys now mired in the trenches and back-alleys of France, VD replaced masturbation as the favored reason to cut off foreskins. Military doctors went to work! That was WWI...then came WWII, the blitz, loss of empire and the coming of socialized medicine. After a debate in which a surprisingly large number of medical professionals (said to be the most highly circumcised group in the Isles) spoke out against routine circumcision, it was decided that the National Health Plan would not include payments for routine neonatal circumcision. The curtains came down on the British clipcock. Today, England once again has a generation of mostly pillcocks.

Mother England, benevolently sharing her high civilization with her colonies, exported circumcision along with jurisprudence, etc. The English-speaking nations became the only Christian nations (besides the Philippines and the Christian Coasts of East Africa) ever to practice routine circumcision. Today, the hearty Australian is reportedly 80% shorn of foreskin while his New Zealand neighbor, heavily clipped until the advent of his own national health program, still skins the penises of about 40% of his sons. The Canadians of Ontario are supposedly up to 80% trimmed, while western Canadians are less so and the French Canadians have largely resisted altering their penises. The South Africans of British ancestry have remained almost entirely intact to match their Boer fellow-countrymen. But, the Americans--that is a different story!

Good news from the UK on circ rates!

Since the eastwards expansion of the EU in May 2004, UK boarding schools have been busy recruiting school matrons from new EU accession member countries, including Poland, etc. These matrons have a number of child care duties, including supervising boys’ bathing and showering.

A recent get-together of some of these matrons was held in a UK city. I was lucky to be invited to attend and, with the help of generous quantities of alcohol, these young women began to reveal more and more.

Without saying too much so as to jeopardise their positions, the conversation swung around to the "strange" ways of the British. One that eventually cropped up was the practice of circumcising boys, almost unheard of back home.

Percentages got bandied about. One school, which caters for the sons of military personnel from non-commissioned ranks, reported that about 40% of white British boys were circumcised. Another school, which caters for the sons from posh families, reported 55-60% and another school for commissioned officers sons, around 50%. The current UK average is c.20%, including members of ethnic minorities.

Even allowing for some over-reporting due to naturally short foreskins, etc. this is a remarkably high percentage, in these days of the anti-circ "victims" of NOCIRC, etc. I last heard around 50% in the 1980s and I had a personal experience of visiting one boarding school where I was joined at the trough urinal by four junior boys. All appeared to be Roundheads (circumcised). At another school, two boys showering after swimming were circumcised. These are observations, rather than scientific studies but it is interesting to note that in 2005, the percentages are as "hard" as ever.

I am preparing a paper on circumcision practises, etc. at UK boarding schools and I would appreciate any info and comments from members here. I will post the paper here when it is complete.

I don't think you have to be circumcised to be a British Prime Minister or hold office as a Cabinet minister, though it is a fair bet that until recent times, the majority will have been. This arises from their emerging from the upper middle classes and minor aristocracy with public school and Oxbridge backgrounds. As mentioned earlier, these aspiring strands of Society took their lead from Queen Victoria who had all her sons circumcised and set the tradition for subsequent royalty until the enigma of Harry and William. Their status has been the subject of so much speculation that I'm still out with the jury on it. Perhaps one of these days one of their school or university or army chums will enlighten us. Even then we will have no real proof, just say so.

A similar speculation arises concerning Tony and Cherie Blair's youngest son, Leo, born whilst his father was in office as PM. Way back, I read an account on a message board from a guy on the nursing staff at the hospital where young Leo was delivered (It think it was 'The Portland'). he claims the little boy Blair was circumcised soon after birth.

His circumcision would accord with the likelihood that Tony Blair is himself circumcised; coming from upper middle class Scottish family, but not with Cherie's lower class left wing origins. However, she may have been suitably impressed with Tony's circumcision that she readily agreed her son(s) should be cut to match. This goes along with her abandoning her roots when it suits her; opting for private hospital care, private education, and yes, lifestyle choices like circumcision, not available to the rest of us poor sods on the NHS. I suspect too, that some of the rich and famous and trendy lifestyle trendsetters with whom the Blairs surround themselves, are currently having their boys circumcised and Cherie would be influenced by them. One imagines the remark over cocktail conversation, (no apologies for the pun!), at No.10, when young Leo was on his way; "Oh Cherie my dear, you really must have him 'done'!"

It's worth noting that when young Leo was eligible for the MMR vaccine, there was a huge furor over the government's insistence on the multiple jab and the public's concern over the safety of it, having been denied the option of separate vaccinations. Tony Blair withstood a long period of blistering questions in the House of Commons over a long period of time on this. The attack was personalised by asking if young Leo had received the MMR. It would have been quite easy for Tony Blair to have said 'yes', he had, and thus endorse government policy. But, he steadfastly refused to say whether or not his son had been vaccinated.

This created the suspicion that the Blairs had opted out. I think it's likely the media and opposition probably probed a great deal to try and unearth the truth from medical records via some compliant mole, but the secret was well kept. It's not hard to imagine the Blair's embarrassment if a leak had occurred along with the detail that Leo had also lost his foreskin. As always, it's do as I say, not what I do.

Anonymous (UK)

Excerpts of Transcript of BBC Health Matters, 8:15 GMT 21 Aug. 1996

Presenter: ...question: to cut or not to cut. Is it kinder to leave the foreskin of the penis well alone, or is it nobler for reasons of religion or health to lose it? We follow one man as he undergoes the operation, and we meet another who would like to have his circumcision reversed to restore the lost foreskin.

Dr. Warren: In Britain, where circumcision is not usual, they may feel uncomfortable about it psychologically if they're in a crowd of men in a changing room or something like this they may feel very self-conscious about it. So that there is the appearance and the cosmetic issue. But then more serious than that is that they may complain of loss of sensation in the penis. And there have been recent studies which show that the inner foreskin is very specialized. Men who still have their foreskin will say that the inner foreskin is rather more sensitive than the glans. It's possible that this loss of sensation may also be contributed to by changes in the glans. Nobody's really researched sensation in the glans with or without a foreskin, but men who have been circumcised as adults say that the feeling in their glans changes afterwards.

I was cut as a child in the forties when circumcision was probably at its zenith in the UK - reaching an incidence of over 50% in some areas. A study of the statistics might reveal some interesting regional social geography. Then came Gairdner with his deafening report and the advent of the NHS which suddenly required doctors to do the job for free. The up and coming generation of doctors held up the Gairdner flag and found plenty of reasons not to and the cash starved NHS, (it was ever thus), put the operation 'off limits' - except where medically necessary. Advocates often fudged this in their diagnosis to obtain a circumcision for the children of persuasive parents. Meanwhile the older generation of doctors, true to their creed, continued to carry out home circumcisions and even suggested it to many parents who wouldn't have asked. However the practice was doomed to decline.

When my wife and I became parents in the late sixties we were appreciative of all the benefits of my circumcision; easy maintenance, good hygiene, health promoting, appealing appearance and longer and better stimulation in lovemaking (IOHO!). Naturally we wanted our sons cut to conform and enjoy these advantages too. It proved impossible at the hospital and our doctors (a man & wife practice) were gently but firmly opposed and unwilling to refer us to a practitioner 'who did'. It was hard for us to come into conflict with these otherwise excellent pair of GPs. By the time we realised we could have paid or found a religious operator the boys were at an age when they would probably have found the procedure more painful and difficult for them to understand. So much to our frustration, they've remained intact. We did our best to teach the necessary cleaning procedure at bathtime but neither had achieved more than a third retraction by the time we ceased to to be involved in that part of their personal hygiene. Earlier visits to check this out with the doctor had only resulted in a 'wait and see' policy.  They never reported any more problems. (However, now that they are grown we have found that both have undergone an adult circ.)

Nevertheless a few parents around us were having no difficulty in having their wishes carried out. One mother of my acquaintance in the same town had all her three sons done in quick succession with excellent results. I asked who her GP was and discovered it was a Jewish lady who circumcised most of her young male patients on request. Other parents of our generation where the father was cut were of our mind but experienced the same obstacle with their doctor. Interestingly my SIL had her son, my nephew, cut soon after birth by a doctor known to oppose the practice. It turned out this was because they were in a low socio-economic group and lived in a nineteenth century back to back terrace with no bathroom. Washing privately was difficult and I gather he cut all his young patients in this situation for this reason. He did it without asking, right until such properties were demolished in the early seventies. Anyone in the comfortable middle classes with modern plumbing he meanwhile refused.

It would be interesting to hear from other parents in the UK and elsewhere in the world where the cloud of NOCIRC has descended. Have you wanted your son's done as a result of your own experience? If so please tell us how you have fared. Have you had a battle with the medical authorities and have you overcome this and if so how?

Some years ago BBC 'Women's Hour' programme did a piece on circumcision revealing that many parents wanting their sons done and finding it was no longer available on NHS were opting for a 'home circumcision' carried out by a friendly nurse or a mohel. There were even were reports of keen mothers undertaking it themselves. Some resulting complications (about 100 per year) found the way into the hospitals A&E departments. In particular those in Asian areas where boys were being done by Muslim uncles and barbers. This has caused a rethink in some areas and in mine, the NHS Trust runs a weekly circumcision clinic where parents can have their sons done up to the age of nine weeks for around £60 for 'religious or cultural reasons'. How far one has to substantiate one's claim to have 'cultural reasons' is not clear as yet but a friend of mine is investigating.

Statistics tell us the circumcision rate in UK is around 15%. I think it may be well above this because a lot of parents who can afford to, by-pass the NHS and go privately. These numbers are not then officially recorded. I have heard of several in my own circle of parents and younger (in higher income groups) who are doing this. In the early nineties a BUPA report declared that an increasing number of parents were choosing to have their boys circumcised because of the perceived health benefits for both partners. Private maternity hospitals sometimes offer the option for a fee and an increasing awareness of the expertise of Jewish mohels is making gentile parents seek them out to circumcise their sons.

Given free and easy choice, I'm sure circumcision in the UK could approach US levels. Unfortunately the combined attitude of the NHS and anti-circ lobbyists in the media are countering to a considerable extent.

Tony (UK)

---

Royalty

Now that Diana is gone, can we assume William (15) and Harry (12) will be going to live with Dad (Prince Charles) and the Queen? If so, perhaps a couple of teen circumcisions are in the boy's future! I'd bet the boys would be wondering about their nippled skins when most all of the other Royals and upper class friends have clean, bared glans... maybe they will even ask if they can be circumcised. While I know it will never happen, can you imagine how the circumcision rate would increase in England if William and Harry announced they were going to be circumcised at their own request?? There wouldn't be enough teen sized Gomco's in the country to handle the requests that would flood in and teen girls would never want anything but a cleanly circumcised boy (like the new young Princes) ever again!

---

The tabloid press recently reported that Prince William was circumcised at his request at a private surgical clinic in London. No doubt he felt different than his peers and wanted to be circumcised like them and the other men in his family.  Decide for yourself by watching this video clip of Prince William urinating outdoors. (To save the video to your computer, just 'right mouse click' and select 'save target as'.)

---

A relatively good and obviously genuine picture of Britain's Prince William has appeared recently.   The young prince is pictured is pictured in tennis gear, next to his mother in very loose fitting shorts, with one leg up. Without a doubt, Prince William is indeed circumcised. It seems that earlier reports of his circumcision are true.

---

Apparently Queen Victoria introduced circumcision into the royal family and this tradition has been carried on ever since. The jury is still out on whether or not Prince William has subsequently had the op at his own request. Perhaps one day the definitive answer will be known. Coming from a cut family and having access to the best surgeons without any worries about cost etc, plus a Father who would, no doubt, support his choice, it is difficult to imagine that he hasn't taken advantage of this situation already.

I think circumcision in the UK has always been something chosen by upper class families although not necessarily a class issue. Many families in the 30's and 40's from whatever background saw circumcision as a symbol of a gentlemen that they wished to pass onto their sons.

Whilst RIC has never been practiced here, circumcision in the UK, during the first half of the 20th century, was freely available if requested and often recommended if your family Doctor was pro circ. This lead to local variations, including a low or high cut rate at your local school, depending on the local Doctors views.

With the introduction of our free health service in 1948 the variations in circ continued, but perhaps as a money saving exercise during the 50's and 60's, circumcision was considered unnecessary surgery and went into decline. It is ironic to think that at these times, that if a boy had been born in any English speaking country, around the world, except the UK, it is unlikely that he would have left the hospital intact.

Whether or not it is just the Doctors here in the UK who continue to circumcise their sons or not, I don't know, but they are likely to have private medical insurance along with many other similar professionals suggesting that since the introduction of private health insurance circ is available again here for those who are prepared to pay for it.

Mark (UK)

---

 

It is documented in one of the biographies of Prince Charles (I don't now know which) that he was circumcised by Dr Snowman - a leading mohel of his time. A Jewish friend of mine confirmed this one day when he said that his own younger brother was also circumcised by Dr Snowman.

Pictures of Prince Andrew, and reports from his fellow pupils at Gordonstoun school, confirm that he is circumcised. Prince Edward is widely held to also be circumcised.

Princess Diana for some reason best known to herself was opposed to circumcision and refused to allow either William or Harry to be done. There were reports at the time which suggested that both the Queen and Prince Philip were very annoyed at this (which would back up the suggestion that Edward was done).

---

Believe it or not circumcision of the Royals is actually one of the questions in the game Trivial Pursuit! According to the answers there - and what I have read elsewhere - Edward and Andrew are indeed cut, as of course is Charles.

As regards the claim that the princes were circumcised by a mohel, my understanding is that the gentleman in question is a leading urologist (in fact, the urologist who circumcised me insists that he learnt his technique from the doctor who circumcised the princes) but I believe he is Jewish, (as was the doctor who cut me) so he may have some formal recognition as a mohel as well. I believe his name is Dr. Snowman.

---

Prince Charles was circumcised by Dr Snowman, as were his two brothers Andrew and Edward. When Charles was born the Queen, naturally, wanted him circumcised. She decided though that rather than using one of the appointed Royal doctors she would ask a Mohel to do it as "they have more experience".

The full truth about Prince William and Prince Harry may never come out - or we might get to know when they are at university and not protected quite so much from publicity. All reasonable commentators indicate that the boys were not circumcised at birth because Diana objected, much to the annoyance of the Queen and Queen Mother.

Prince William had a ‘hernia’ operation as a young boy. This probably was exactly what was reported, or it could just possibly have been a ‘red herring’ to disguise a need for a circumcision - we will almost certainly never know on that one.

More recently there was one suggestion (made on the alt.circumcision newsgroup) from a previously unknown writer that Charles had taken the two boys to be circumcised almost immediately after their mother’s death. A variant of this story is that William alone chose to get himself circumcised at about the same time (ie shortly after his mother’s death).

These stories have never been substantiated. All attempts to get the originator to quote the actual chapter and verse of the claimed reports in the press have failed. It is most unlikely that there is any truth at all in them. Certainly it is almost inconceivable that Charles would have forced circumcision on his teenage sons. There is a small possibility that William developed phimosis whilst going through puberty and something had to be done. However, I don’t think anything is gained by wild speculation as to his current state. Let’s just wait and see if a newspaper somewhere publishes a nude picture of him on holiday somewhere when he is older (as they did when Andrew was caught skinny dipping - and thus proved his cut status!)

Vernon  (England)

---

Has circumcision has fallen out of favour here in the UK?

I believe that about 12% of kids (including for ethnic and religious reasons) end up cut by their teens here in the UK at present ... medical intervention is required far more than the anti- lobby would have you believe. Clear and obvious medical necessity has resulted in circs both in my own family and to several neighbour's kids.

So there's certainly a constant dribble of boys getting done - with either infection or tight foreskins as the main reasons - and noone seems to be worried that it needs to be done. Very much an "Oh! so what" response - followed oddly enough by someone usually adding "... I wish we'd had our little Willie done..." (or whatever their kid's called!)

Certainly the GP's response does seem to correlate with their age, and some specialists advocate circumcision against stretching the foreskin (yoweechaaaah!) which can leave even less elastic scar tissue. The prevailing mood seems to be "Let's wait and see what happens ..." The line of least resistance - if the condition becomes chronic or suddenly acute we might do something ... typical bloody British wait and see! The sin's one of omission not commission!

I was visiting some friends recently and I can't think why the subject came up, but it did; and the wife/mother not only seriously suggested getting her two kids cut at 5 and 6 - she patently regretted not having had them both done at birth -she also and quite seriously suggested her husband would be better off cut too and, knowing I was cut, didn't I agree ? ... so she'd obviously had experience of both!

His respose needless to say was typically Freudian and based on a school friend's experience of being circ'd at 16 - which he claimed was very painful! I'm ashamed to say I didn't tell 'em I was cut as an adult and it wasn't painful at all - I just let them assume I was done as a kid ...

My friend wouldn't have minded the boys being cut at birth - but didn't think it a good idea now. But like most British parents they hadn't thought about it at the time, and though they might well prefer their kids cut, seemed too ashamed to ask for it - its not something the hospital will discuss, and we British are too embarrassed to raise the delicate subject with doctors. If you do these days, you're met with the anti-circ stuff about mutilation - but this is quite recent!

I think the turning point was in the early sixties - everyone wanted to leave things natural and noone really bothered. Like let it all hang out man ... Unlike the US being circ'd or not was no big deal one way or the other! For my generation it was literally a 50-50 thing, and as a kid I never thought why one was or one wasn't - you just were or weren't, and there wasn't the psychological overlay here of having to be like everyone else - the "regular guy" argument just doesn't apply.

Unlike the US, medics here didn't use it as "a nice little earner", 'cos under an NHS contract it didn't profit the doc at all. No tip if its a boy! Now certainly with cut backs finance IS the reason - even it consumes valuable resources - and is backed up with dogmatic garbage from the US anti-circ lobby. Anything that might prolong hospitalization by a second is really bad news.

An aside here: when I lived in the US the melting pot was the key social theme - now, the US is splitting into a myriad of sub-groups along ethnic, class and religious lines. Are the statistics showing circumcision to be dropping more in sociologically marginal areas, against, say, the mid-west heartland where I lived and where 99.99999% were cut as a sign of being a good, true little mom n'apple pie American !

In the UK, there was the perception that being circ'd was a thing of the privileged classes - only they could afford it! You've all seen the cut Royal and cut public (private) school stuff ... well post war the social structure changed too, and thousands of cut Americans also entertained many British girls left behind during the war ... so post war with the "declassification" of Britain in the mid '50s the custom hit the bufferes in a kind of inverted-snobbery reaction. Kenneth Williams (Carry on Films) who came from a poor family says in his biography how he was taken to be circumcised as a child in the 30's 'cos his mum wanted the best for him, and she had saved up for it ... and invited all the neighbours in to have a good look afterwards! The social structure and class systems are different now.

I'm certain that if parents pushed enough today, it would be done no problem - on the NHS, but this is just my feeling - maybe someone will put me right ... so its not that we're "so cheap as to deny boys" here - its just British apathy.

Friends who've the cash or insurance to have their kids delivered in private hospitals get their sons cut without any question being asked - if that's the family's wish. There's a surprise! But my guess is that as private medicine regains more and more of a hold, and the American corporations move in, as they are, and take even more of a hold on British medicine, the routine circ will enjoy a come back but possibly not to the former level. Its a race between the anti- lobby and natural wishes of those parents who bother to think about it! And as much as I'm in favour of boys being circumcised I don't think the death of the NHS a fair price to pay !

---

UK Observations Confirm the Class Link with Circumcision.

Pre school in the forties it was the boys from the posh semis across the road who were circed rather than those playmate neighbours in my terrace house row. I wasn't done at birth either.

At a rural primary school where the intake spanned a larger than average slice of lower socio-economic groups the circ rate was about 25% - 30% cut. Again those who were, with one or two exceptions, came from semi-detached homes (US=duplex).

At eleven years of age, in the fifties, when I went to the town grammar school, the proportion of roundheads rose to 50% plus. Noticeably it correlated to the higher income parents in most cases.

My sons born in the sixties, would have been circumcised at birth but for the opposition of the medical professionals at hospital and in the community. I then discovered that the operation was no longer available free on our otherwise splendid National Health Service but could and would have paid a professional or religious circumciser to do it if I'd known how to contact one.

In the seventies, my sons went on, a notch higher than me, to a fee-paying independent grammar school where the intake was mostly further up the social ladder. When my youngest was twelve we came to know the parents of his best friend quite well. To my surprise one day, the mother suddenly confided to us that her son was going into hospital for a circumcision. This opened a welcome conversation on the subject in which it was disclosed that the father had been done shortly after the marriage and like us they wanted their son done at birth but met similar opposition. The determined mom had been hawking her boy around doctors for years hoping to find compliance but it was always met with refusal. Then suddenly when her husband changed jobs and picked up a family health insurance package they were able to wave money at the problem.

As if by magic, this generated instant co-operation. Now; 'of course he needed a circumcision!' So the boy was booked in conveniently during the school holidays and cut as a private patient.

This provided an opportunity for me to discuss the prospect with my son and offer to pay for him to accompany his friend if he wished. He declined which he was perfectly entitled to do but he did disclose that 'quite a few boys in his year were done' All privately I guess.

Infrequent passing accounts in the eighties have leaked to me suggesting that this practice continues among the better off. They (or their health insurance) pay(s) and their sons are docked at birth or if it's the slightest bit troublesome during childhood. One well-heeled relative of a friend of mine on hearing of their son's foreskin infection said; 'Oh my (name) had that! I didn't mess around, I just had him in hospital and got it whipped off - he's quite happy with it now!'

(That's good to know!)

In the early nineties one of the big health insurers published a pamphlet of telephone numbers which their policy holders could call to hear recorded advice on hundreds of conditions and operations. In several recordings (related to different age groups) on circumcision they positively encouraged the impression that this was the thing to do. One said that many parents these days are choosing to circumcise their sons because of the health benefits not only for the boy but for any of his future partners.

Now the wheel has come full circle in our area where the local NHS hospital caters for the large muslim population by offering a dedicated weekly clinic to Plastibell boys up to the age of a few weeks old. This is free as a medical necessity but for cultural or personal reasons they charge a reasonable £60 ($100?) It doesn't seem to be widely advertised but I gather a few parents in the know from outside these groupings avail themselves of the service too. I guess the authority could hardly refuse in these days of 'equality'.

It would be good if anyone else in UK could confirm that circ is alive and well and give evidence from their hearsay or experience

Tony CC/UK

---

Well as a recently 18yo Brit I can say that In my experience I think the circ rate is not so low as is made out. When at school (an independent school, but certainly not a very famous one) the circ\uncirc ratio in the changing rooms appeared to be 50:50. In some cases it was above in favor of circs, sometimes just below.

Matt (UK)

---

The following may be of interest - I read it in last Friday's (UK) Daily Mail newspaper. It is a book review of the autobiography of Tenniel Evans, a British actor, who is describing his childhood in Kenya.

  "Throughout most of his childhood adventures in Kenya, he was accompanied by his rather older African friend Simiu who, when he was 12, had to undergo a ritual circumcision ceremony involving the witch doctor, sharp knives and specially grown thumbnails. Tenniel, the outsider, was allowed to watch on the grounds that he had been 'made a man' already many years before by his parents."  The reference to "made a man" obviously refers to his own infant circumcision, which was common in the UK at the time.

---

On 15 June, 1999 there was an ad in the Evening Standard (London UK evening paper) for a clinic called Emergency Plus at 89-93 High Road, Byfleet, Surrey KT14 7QS Telephone 01932 334 999. They advertise minor surgery and they give a list of example local anesthetic surgery. Top of the list is Circumcision for which they charge £195. It says that it is fixed fee, no hidden extras, appointments at your convenience including evenings and weekends. This is one of the lowest charges that I have seen for circumcision. Since I'm already tightly cut, I shan't be needing their services (-: But if anyone else gets to use them, it would be interesting to know. The other interesting thing is that after the word circumcision they have got (>12 months) I don't know whether that means that they don't circ babies but it does look as though they circ young children, which may be a useful contact for any parents who want their sons cut but can't find a doctor to do it.

Cheers Ivan

[Editorial note: Regrettably the clinic has now closed down.]

---

As one of the UK members perhaps I can do a bit towards putting the record straight regarding circumcision in the UK.

Prior to the introduction of the National Health Service after World War 2 (ie the late 1940s) people had to pay for all their medical needs including the birth of a baby and any circumcision chosen if it was a boy. Charges for such a simple operation were not, however, very high but these did go some way towards deterring the working classes (and hence the less well off) from having their sons circumcised.

Ever since it became particularly popular in Victorian times, circumcision was always enjoined more by the middle and upper classes. This was partly because they could afford it; partly because they were more educated and hence knew better of the benefits; and partly because of peer pressure following from the previous reasons.

A well defined pattern developed with circumcision being more likely the higher up the social scale one's parents were at the time of birth and also with position in the family - eldest sons being more likely to be done than younger ones.

The decline in circumcision started during WW2 when there was a shortage of local doctors - many doctors being involved with the armed forces - and hence a desire amongst doctors to reduce the amount of work they did to the essentials. Now nobody can argue that the routine circumcision of baby boys is essential - highly desirable maybe, but hardly essential as a routine practice. Hence doctors started advising parents that cicumcision was not necessary and some even refused point blank to circumcise. It was nothing to do initially with any change of demand from parents - I know because mine asked when I was born in 1943 and were told it "wasn't necessary" and "not done now". (I had to be circumcised at 3 months because of severe phimosis - which I would have been spared had I been done at birth as desired by my middle class parents.)

In those days one didn't argue with one's doctor - they were almost like gods.

Then Gairdner wrote a paper in The Lancet, one of the two major British medical journals. He attacked the routine performance of circumcision on the grounds that (a) the foreskin was still naturally fused to the glans until about 3 years of age and hence inability to retract it was no grounds for removal before the age of 5; and (b) a small number of boys died from the procedure each year. However, what he failed to point out (and was thus less than honest about) was that (1) not all circumcisions were recorded in any sort of official statistics and hence the proportion of boys who suffered complications was only a fraction of what his paper implied; and (2) all the deaths had been from the use of general anesthetics - which are normally contra-indicated for newborn babies - and were, anyway, mostly of old fashioned types.

When the National Health Service was formed, ALL surgery became free of charge. There was no refusal of the NHS to pay for circumcision, but such a minor operation performed as part of the birth process didn't attract extra fees for the doctors who were now on a form of salary from the NHS. Some lazy doctors thus decided to do no more than was necessary by way of work and discouraged circumcisions - many spurred on by Gairdner's less than honest paper.  The photo at right is what I would refer to as a "typical British Circumcision" when performed by the NHS.  It is generally loose, with frenulum intact, but usually fully exposes the glans, with excess skin bunched up behind the glans in the coronal sulcus.

Over the years circumcisions have dropped in availability from the 1940s to the late 1980s. During this time it has become more and more apparent that the costs of the NHS greatly exceed the monies that government wishes to invest in it. We have seen cut after cut (no pun intended) in the services offered by the NHS - and charges added for several others which were originally intended to be free. I don't want to indulge in politics here, but the method of centrally funding a massive health care service automatically leads to overburdening bureaucracy and lack of any incentive to trim costs whilst increasing patient care and choice. One of the inevitable results of the cuts has been a reduction in 'preventative' type medicine in favour of spending only when needed on 'cures'. This is short sighted, but almost inevitable.

Circumcision has been one of the things to suffer severely at the hands of the administrators (note these are not doctors but clerks whose sole job is to try to save spending money on medical matters whilst keeping up the army of administrators). Very few boys are now circumcised in the hospital after birth. The Jewish and Moslem communities still demand circumcision as a religious need, but this is satisfied privately by Jewish and Moslem doctors (Jewish mohelim often also circumcising Moslem babies since they are more experienced and Moslems require no specific prayers during the circumcision).

There has been a considerable increase in the last decade (especially) in demand from parents for their sons to be circumcised and from adults - often in their late teens and early twenties - for their own circumcision. That this is the case is borne out by the number of clinics now advertising circumcision amongst their services both in magazines like "Forum" and on local commercial radio. Prices are very high because demand greatly outstrips supply.

Whilst it is very unlikely that minor surgery like circumcision will ever again be freely available on demand on the NHS, it seems to me that private medicine will rapidly step in to fill the vacuum and we will see an explosion in both demand and facilities for circumcision (both infant and adult) before the end of the century.

Vernon

---

According to the Healthcheck survey 26% of those who have been circumcised were not done for medical or religious purposes.

Circumcision is the most commonly performed operation in Britain. Last year 33,000 males had the operation on the NHS and tens of thousands more had it done privately. It is a major operation with permanent consequences for the boys and men concerned, yet, anyone can carry-out a circumcision, without training, and there is little legal redress if things go wrong.

Circumcision is probably the oldest operation in the world, carried out in most cultures throughout history. Since it is most usually done to infants few give their consent.  Circumcision is seen as modern and progressive and is thought to help cleanliness. Some doctors even think that it prevents unseemly self-abuse amongst teenage boys and, more recently, some enthusiasts have claimed that it prevents various forms of cancer.

Dr Nigel Zolti says says he has performed many circumcisions and that it is a cosmetic procedure, like body piercing or ear piercing, with a very low risk of complications.

The majority of circumcisions in this country are justified on cultural or religious grounds.

---

British School Circumcision Practices

Whilst I don't doubt that there are few, if any, schools in Britain that actually REQUIRE circumcision for entry, I have no doubt there are some which put some degree of pressure on parents to have their sons circumcised when they join the school.

A friend of mine sent his son to a Prep school near Brighton and told me that a letter was sent to his parents (and all parents of uncircumcised boys) suggesting that circumcision be performed on their 8-year old sons when they entered the school.

Another contact told me that this was also the case for Clifton, in Bristol. Again parents were asked to sign a consent for their sons to be circumcised on entry - either to the Prep school at 8 or the main school at 13.

In both cases the parents refused the circumcision for their sons, but many others were done.

---

Round Heads vs. Cavaliers

The terms certainly derive from the two sides in the English Civil War, i.e. the Royalists (Cavaliers) and the Parliamentarians (Roundheads). English schoolboys were - and probably still are - as familiar with these terms as they are with "Cowboys and Indians". When I was at school in the 1960s, "Roundheads" and "Cavaliers" were almost the only terms used amongst us for the circumcised and uncircumcised, respectively - and like the Civil War, it was about a 50/50 split!

I am pretty sure that the shape of Cromwell's Army's helmets with their smooth round top and prominent neck guard would bring to mind in any schoolboy the prominent shape of the glans and corona of the circumcised penis. The opposite (i.e. the uncircumcised state) would, of course, have been the Cavaliers.  Also, the Cavaliers' dress - at least that of their officers - often included floppy hats and frilly collars (see Van Dyk's portraits of Charles I and his familiy), the perfect counterpart for the long floppy foreskins with their frilly openings of the uncircumcised!

Philip CA/UK (ex-Cavalier!)

---

Considering a NHS Circ?  Read this first!

Cutguyz (27th Dec) advises Nick to think carefully about going though the British NHS. The real point, surely, is not that there aren't enough surgeons with the experience to do a good job, but that these surgeons aren't the ones that do everyday routine circs. There's quite a lot of evidence from both inside and outside the profession that NHS circs are usually handed over to the newly qualified. There have been several threads on this topic in this list - most recently only earlier this month. I re-post below one contribution, and my own answer:

<<Now a surgeon cousin of mine had already told me "Don't go to the local urologist. Circs are routine and non life threatening, We give them to the junior trainees. You'll get a hack job".>>

In my own case, I remember that years ago, before I was cut, I spent a few months in a care hostel. We had routine medical inspections on entry, as is normal, and some boys were recommended for circumcision to be done at the local teaching hospital, and the rumour was that the job was given to novice surgeons as their first effort on real live meat. Many were OK, but there was some definite butcher's jobs, and I have always suspected that the rumor was true. I was on the list, but fortunately left before my number came up and I lost my foreskin elsewhere.

A helpful indicator is whether or not they suggest having a general anesthetic or not. Circs don't normally require generals, and the suspicion arises that they only suggest a general if they don't want you to know what's going on.

The real point is cash. There isn't enough to go round. In most cases NHS surgeons have got better things to do and so pass the work on to 'cheaper' junior doctors who will be under pressure to get the work done as quickly as possible with the least amount of fuss. You can't really expect the NHS to take into consideration your opinions. Assuming that necessity has been established and the NHS will pay, then you have to appreciate the fact that you are being treated at all. If you want to call the shots you need to be able to pay your own way privately. Unless someone has a bright idea - in which case please enlighten me!

This may sound rather abrupt/cynical/depressing but anyone living in the UK will understand

Alan  (UK)

---

Prince Andrew's Technique

Good Friends: I have recently read an article with an observation that almost all British circumcisions are by free hand methods; that is, no clamps such as are common when circumcisions are performed here in the United States.

Several weeks ago I saw a secretly taken picture of Prince Andrew in the buff that showed a circumcision had been performed on his penis. It is my understanding that circumcision entered the British Royal Family at the time of Prince Albert who had his son the future Edward VII circumcised. The 19th century British Explorer, Burton, has written several most interesting reports in his books on the practice of circumcision as he found it in the Middle East. As a matter o fact, he had himself circumcised in England in order that he could enter Mecca—and still live! His writings are fascinating. Will be interested in all responses. Vern.

---

Some Parents Opt To Circumcise Sons

I was just coming home from work the other evening when I saw my neighbor helping her 3-year-old son out of the car. He didn't look very happy. "What's wrong?" I said. She explained he had just been in hospital for a small operation, as she took him into the house. I enquired to make sure it was nothing serious.

She explained that although some people are against, both she and her husband decided to have their son circumcised. I think at this point she was expecting me to be shocked at their decision. In fact it was quite the opposite, and I went on to tell her that I had been cut as a boy. This led to quite a long conversation, as she wanted to know about a lot of things about growing up circumcised. It turned out her husband had the op as an adult. At one point she even showed me Luke's (her son) penis. It looked quite sore, with his little glans peeping out the end of the bandages. I guess that explains his look as he got out of the car.

Still here's to Luke and his newly circumcised status. I hope he comes to appreciate what his parent have done for him, and has many years of enjoying his bared glans!

Agent CCUK

---

Ruling Stops Boy 5 Being Circumcised

I found this article in The Guardian (7.5.99):

A high court judge ruled yesterday that a boy aged five should not be circumcised against his mother’s wishes.

Mr Justice Wall said in London that the welfare of the child, identified only as J, was the ‘paramount consideration’ when parents disagreed over the procedure. Rejecting an application by the child’s father for the operation to go ahead, he said ritual circumcision, for religious or social reasons, was lawful. Only when the parents disagreed was it for the court to decide the matter.

He said the father, 27, who is of Turkish origin, was not a practising Muslim, and the mother, 29, the primary carer, was a non-practising Christian. They separated in 1986(?) and were divorced, with the father granted reasonable contact.

The judge said it was plain the mother had neither knowledge of Islam nor any interest in acquiring it. J’s only real contact with Islam would be through his father, who lives in England and does not mix in Muslim circles.

He ruled that, as there was no medical indication that J required circumcision, on balance it was not in his interests to be circumcised against his mother’s wishes. In his judgment, the disadvantages of this ‘effectively irreversible surgical intervention’ in J’s case outweighed the benefits. He made an order preventing the father arranging for the child to be circumcised without the permission of the high court. He granted the father leave to appeal.

---

CIRCLIST Home Page	Medical Terms & Penile Anatomy	Considering Circumcision?	Styles & Results of Circumcision	Instruments & Techniques
	Personal Preferences & Experiences	Rites & Practices Around the World	Circumcision Discussion Group	Circumcision Resources

Copyright © 1992 - 2009, All Rights Reserved CIRCLIST.