Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

732 replies

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 00:49

On the recent threads after the tragic death of the baby boy who died from circumcision performed by a non medical professional, there have been a lot of calls for a total ban on here.
Now, I think infant circumcision is very wrong. But in practice I do not think a ban will work.
Most cultural circumcisions are performed by medically trained people. Backstreet ones need to be cracked down on with the full force of the law, but they are not typical.
Second, circumcision is key in Islam. However, while most agree it’s either compulsory or strongly recommended, age requirements are not as stringent in mandating someone has to be a minor. I think there is some hope sensitive campaigning within the community could maybe make more families consider leaving it until their son is at least maybe an older adolescent with more ability to choose.
Judaism – circumcision is central to Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox Haredi ofc, and more liberal Masorti and Reform. It is extremely unlikely that any law or external pressure would stop these practices, because brit milah is a covenantal obligation tied to Jewish identity. Attempting a blanket ban would likely trigger defensiveness, fear, maybe underground circumcisions and probably emigration of at least some to Israel or elsewhere, rather than protect children.
Focusing on sterile procedures, trained practitioners, and medical supervision would be more likely to significantly reduce risk. Jews have experienced persecution for circumcision in the past (e.g., Hellenistic bans and European restrictions), so any attempt to criminalise it today can feel existential. This is only heightened by the terrible upsurge in anti Semitism recently.

I agree with sentiments behind calling for a ban - I just thing measures short of a ban are more likely to work.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:13

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

and other fairy stories.

Do you & other people using 'sky fairy' type language really think this will, to take a pragmatic view, help convince religious Jews & Muslims not to circumcise?

OP posts:
Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:11

Sparron · 04/01/2026 15:09

Circumcision is a way of making more difficult or uncomfortable for teenage boys to masturbate. It always has been.

It really is that simple. Creepy old sex obsessed holy men in a moral panic about masturbation.

It was ridiculous thousands of years ago, its ridiculous now.

That was the reason in the US. I think that's too much to explain the religious reason just with that, though.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:08

Presumably the covenant?

and other fairy stories.

Glitchymn1 · 04/01/2026 15:11

ExtraOnions · 04/01/2026 00:56

…a ban, with criminal records and imprisonment for anyone found to be carrying it out.

If you chopped any other bit off a baby, you would be prosecuted, not sure why we don’t enforce the same rules for Foreskin.

If your God insists that you mutilate babies, you might want to look for a new religion.

This. Should only be done if there are medical issues.

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:09

They banned it because they wanted to suppress Jews, not out of a desire to protect baby boys.

Oh, I am well aware of the barbarity of the Romans. And the people they oppressed.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:11

GCSEBiostruggles · 04/01/2026 12:46

When it comes to religious practices you can't do much other than regulate. Perhaps specialist clinics where you can ensure the instruments are at least clean and someone with medical training is in attendance. A register of some sort for post op check-ups. Suggest they defer until the child can comply? It would be a slippery slope into condoning FGM though I suspect.

I don't think so as FGM is proved to have much worse effects.

OP posts:
Sparron · 04/01/2026 15:09

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:04

It's not done because of a mistake. It's done because it's believed to have been commanded to set believers apart as a sign of the covenant, not bc the foreskin is a mistake.

Circumcision is a way of making more difficult or uncomfortable for teenage boys to masturbate. It always has been.

It really is that simple. Creepy old sex obsessed holy men in a moral panic about masturbation.

It was ridiculous thousands of years ago, its ridiculous now.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:09

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:06

Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued.

It comes to something when a culture that supported gladiators found circumcision too much.

"What have the Romans ever given us ?"
"Well, our foreskins ...."

could have been a line in the film.

They banned it because they wanted to suppress Jews, not out of a desire to protect baby boys.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:09

Firstly, there are many men who are raised Jewish (and Muslim) who leave the faith once adults. Well, they're not getting their foreskin back when they proclaim their atheism or convert to another religion? That's not very fair. Perhaps they could try getting financial damages from the parents in a court of law?

In the other thread about this, I did mention the idea. However I was told it's their bad luck and they need to get over it.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:08

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 12:29

Again - what is the purpose of circumcision - you will not answer this will you?

Presumably the covenant?

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:07

Mischance · 04/01/2026 15:05

I can find no nuance in the concept of mutilating babies.
While we discuss the non existent nuances thousands of baby boys are being mutilated. As citizens of the UK they have a right to protection under the law.

I can find no nuance in the concept of mutilating babies.

That probably means you aren't as clever as those (that say ?) they do ?

That's the usual tack people take to make themselves sound liberal.

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:06

Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued.

It comes to something when a culture that supported gladiators found circumcision too much.

"What have the Romans ever given us ?"
"Well, our foreskins ...."

could have been a line in the film.

Mischance · 04/01/2026 15:05

I can find no nuance in the concept of mutilating babies.
While we discuss the non existent nuances thousands of baby boys are being mutilated. As citizens of the UK they have a right to protection under the law.

KitWyn · 04/01/2026 15:04

sabababa · 04/01/2026 14:37

Medical fact is both the small benefits you listed and what I said about medical complications being greater as an adult.
I never said its the main reason to do it.
But given the small benefits and cultural importance and relative ease as a baby, personal choice.

So you agree the possible benefits are very small, and irrelevant in the 21st century?

If so, that just leaves the argument that if you're going to have your foreskin removed, it is better to have it done to you as a baby than as an adult man? Really?

Firstly, there are many men who are raised Jewish (and Muslim) who leave the faith once adults. Well, they're not getting their foreskin back when they proclaim their atheism or convert to another religion? That's not very fair. Perhaps they could try getting financial damages from the parents in a court of law?

Secondly, why don't we adjust our religions to reflect today's scientific knowledge. The Ancient Greeks used tales about their Gods to explain seasonal weather and why we need to sow seeds in the Spring and harvest in late Summer and early Autumn. [The Greek Fable involves the Goddess Demeter, the abduction of her daughter Persephone by wicked Hades, and six pomegranate seeds. Long story.]

Why not, just stop with the unnecessary mutilations of babies? Simply stop.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:04

Mischance · 04/01/2026 12:02

It beggars belief that people who believe in the existence of an infallible god should at the same time believe that he/she makes such major mistakes in the construction of babies that we need to set about correcting these - what utter nonsense it all is. Nonsense that is allowed in UK law - it is time we got on with outlawing this.

It's not done because of a mistake. It's done because it's believed to have been commanded to set believers apart as a sign of the covenant, not bc the foreskin is a mistake.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:03

Usernamenotfound1 · 04/01/2026 15:00

from what I can gather men seem to be generally happy with the choice made for them, if it aligns with their cultural values.

for some reason the major thing seems to be cosmetic, people disliking the look of an uncircumcised penis, not wanting to look different to peers, thinking women would dislike an intact penis etc.

in the US the “hygiene” side seems to be heavily pushed, but then circumcision is a moneymaker for US healthcare. In fact I was reading recently that circumcision is now actually an indicator of wealth/privilege, and the big reason circumcision rates are falling is because people don’t have insurance or their insurance doesn’t cover it.

medically I haven’t checked the literature for a good while but I believe much of the “hygiene” theory is now debunked as it’s nothing a bit of soap, water and a condom can’t sort. I think it’s been shown that circumcision reduces sensitivity and significantly affects sensation.

i read an article the other day by a Jewish scholar who said circumcision started with a ceremonial nick in the foreskin, progressing to a removal of a small part, and then to full removal of the foreskin.

clearly there is a big link to religion, and while I strongly disagree that anyone should be circumscised for anything other than medical reasons, I understand how hard it is to change such an ingrained part of a religion. It has been done though, we ignore other parts of religious instruction as we move into a modern world, so it can be done.

perhaps if we went back to the removal of a small part or the ceremonial nick, so it wasn’t such a clear physical difference, it could eventually die out if it wasn’t immediately obvious who has had it done.

Now that's a good point.

Checking Wikipedia, it seems there is a documented history that it used to be much less severe. I need to check further though...

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that many Hellenistic Jews attempted to restore their foreskins, and that similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued. The writers of the dictionary hypothesize that the more severe method practiced today was probably begun in order to prevent the possibility of restoring the foreskin after circumcision, and therefore the rabbis added the requirement of cutting the foreskin in periah.[65]

According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, the Torah only commands milah.[66] David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of priah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins: "Once established, priah was deemed essential to circumcision; if the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient to comply with God's covenant", and "Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations."[2]

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:03

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:00

Do all adult European men hang around in the cold naked from the waist down?

Only in Newcastle, I am told.

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:03

Fleurdeville · 04/01/2026 15:02

Think the Finns do!😂

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥶

Fleurdeville · 04/01/2026 15:02

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:00

Do all adult European men hang around in the cold naked from the waist down?

Think the Finns do!😂

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:01

5MinuteArgument · 04/01/2026 11:38

Surely if we allow cutting off bits of children's bodies because it is the strongly held belief of religious and cultural minorities, we would need to legalise FGM? We would need to reverse the ban on FGM in the UK as banning it is an infringement of the rights of those groups who practice it? Who is in favour of that?

FGM is judged differently because the medical concensus is it's much more harmful.

OP posts:
Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:00

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 14:48

Otherwise, why isn't there a queue of adult northern European men queuing round the block to be circumcised?

Because it gets longer in hot weather ?

Do all adult European men hang around in the cold naked from the waist down?

Usernamenotfound1 · 04/01/2026 15:00

TheLivelyCat · 04/01/2026 14:21

I haven't read the whole thread, I wonder how Men who were circumcised feel about this topic. For example my brother was as in the country he was born in it was normal practice at the time. My DH isn't. Dose it effect there daily living? Has any proper studies gone into pain and trauma experience, at the time long term?.
I think it's a complicated issue, I can't fully comment on the religious context, as someone not from their faith.
But I think comparing it to FGM isn't the same as they know that long term damage, trauma etc.

from what I can gather men seem to be generally happy with the choice made for them, if it aligns with their cultural values.

for some reason the major thing seems to be cosmetic, people disliking the look of an uncircumcised penis, not wanting to look different to peers, thinking women would dislike an intact penis etc.

in the US the “hygiene” side seems to be heavily pushed, but then circumcision is a moneymaker for US healthcare. In fact I was reading recently that circumcision is now actually an indicator of wealth/privilege, and the big reason circumcision rates are falling is because people don’t have insurance or their insurance doesn’t cover it.

medically I haven’t checked the literature for a good while but I believe much of the “hygiene” theory is now debunked as it’s nothing a bit of soap, water and a condom can’t sort. I think it’s been shown that circumcision reduces sensitivity and significantly affects sensation.

i read an article the other day by a Jewish scholar who said circumcision started with a ceremonial nick in the foreskin, progressing to a removal of a small part, and then to full removal of the foreskin.

clearly there is a big link to religion, and while I strongly disagree that anyone should be circumscised for anything other than medical reasons, I understand how hard it is to change such an ingrained part of a religion. It has been done though, we ignore other parts of religious instruction as we move into a modern world, so it can be done.

perhaps if we went back to the removal of a small part or the ceremonial nick, so it wasn’t such a clear physical difference, it could eventually die out if it wasn’t immediately obvious who has had it done.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:00

Whyhaveibeencutoutofmamsnot · 04/01/2026 11:23

A couple of my female colleagues were pleased they had given birth to girls as they were dreading having to have their baby boys mutilated circumcised.

There needs to be more support for parents who don't want to.

OP posts:
Fleurdeville · 04/01/2026 14:59

I think the problem is like much of online debate - we get stuck in polarised positions tgat make nuance impossible - the debate we should be having is not whether to ban it or not - that is a given in the UK under our medical practice - the debate should be how can we support communities through a ban when it is so much a part of their identity - ceremonial rites, symbolical rituals - they all give meaning to people and are very important to their identity - how do we help communities shift from a physical act to a symbolic one tgat respects their beliefs but also allows the necessary underlying physical health integrity of babies to be prioritised? Governments need to decide and be clear on what they are basing their decisions on as we prioritise physical health here first so why isnt the law extended to circumcision?

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 14:59

you cannot take an isolated act out of context and judge it by standards from a different culture.

Oh yes you can. If your society practices human sacrifice - as some have done (and for all we know may still do so) then I for one will judge you.