In my opinion, Darby is a richer scholar of human sexuality and the culture of parenting than Gollaher, who wrote a related book about the rise of circumcision in the USA.

British routine circ fascinates because of the way it blended in with the British class system. So much so that a slang name for the circumcised penis was "toff penis." At Eaton and Harrow, 80-90% of the boys were cut. At the upper middle class boarding school Richard Dawkins attended in the 1950s, 50-60% of the boys were cut. Among the sons of men who ate fush and chups and threw darts in pubs, the circ rate was at best 10%. The overall rate never exceeded 35%. British circumcision became like a "cattle brand" denoting better origins, having a mother with aspirations.

In 1945, the British people elected the most left wing government ever. Is it any surprise that that government defunded routine circ in 1950? Why should the taxpayer pay the toffs to have cosmetic surgery done to their penises, so that the toffs would recognise each other in sports changing rooms and when doing Army service?

Because the author is a gay male, he has difficulty appreciating the mind set of British mums and nannies regarding boys' penises. The discovery of bacteria and of the role of human waste in propagating disease was a compelling reason to keep the genitalia clean. But upper British mums, and the nannies they hired, felt that to concern themselves with a boy's penis was beneath their dignity. They also believed that a circumcised boy was clean merely by sitting in his nightly bath. Hence they had boys circumcised so they would be spared having to be concerned about that part of his anatomy. By doing this, British mums revealed that foreplay done to their husbands was not a significant factor in the marital sex life of British upper women. Any surprise??