Cultural circumcision in babies/young boys

[junipermarten]

1 of my DS's is circumcised due to a medical issue, he was 3 at the time and it was bloody horrific.

When he was going through it, a good friend gave me tips on after care and offered the number of a private doctor. She has sons who were circumcised shortly after birth for religious reasons.

I personally don't agree with circumcision unless medically required however I respect others choices for religious reasons.

It got me thinking about the high % of boys in the US who are circumcised for cultural reasons, just over 2/3rds. Why is it so prevalent there?

I was having a look at % of male pop per country and the highest were mainly Islamic, but also Samoa was almost 100% which surprised me but apparently its cultural as opposed to religious (I think).

greenspaces4peace a brandy soaked cotton ball is in no way at all the same as a man putting his mouth on a babies penis (which is what the wine thing involves).

But they shouldn’t have that right for non medical reasons. Cutting off healthy body parts from children is very wrong.

He needed it for medical reasons, totally different to supposed cultural or religious reasons. Most boys can urinate freely, potty train and have no pain without this procedure. People shouldn’t be put through unnecessary medical procedures.

I had to read the whole thread to see if this had been mentioned: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7426595/Pharmacist-spared-jail-posing-mother-11-month-old-boy-circumcised.html

Someone getting someone else's child circumcised AGAINST the parents' wishes for Christian and cultural reasons.

@ForgetBarbie the Quran describes periods as a 'hurt' to women which is why they're commanded not to partake in strenuous/physically demanding acts like praying and fasting. Islam does not view women on their periods as being dirty or unclean. Women can still pray, just not touch the Quran, they can visit mosques, carry on with everyday life, etc. the Quran makes mention of ritual impurities but includes men in the description of those too.

In Islam, circumcision is the Sunnah (preferred way) of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and the prophets after him which is also why Prophet Muhammed encouraged it. Having said that, when something is a sunnah in Islam, Muslims have the choice on whether or not to follow that act/ritual or not.

It's a very common, minor procedure performed on billions of boys. Who grow into men who can speak and campaign if they want.🤷‍♀️

I get that you hate it, but that is no reason for the state to get involved.

For those saying boys can be taught to keep their penis/foreskins clean/British people are clean,etc. and there's no need to bring in barbaric forrin practices here, I refer you to the hundreds of debates on cleanliness on MN and one post in particular when someone once asked if she WBU to put her toilet brush in the dishwasher. People are filthy.

"Islam does not view women on their periods as being dirty or unclean. Women can still pray, just not touch the Quran."

Why not? What is the objection here?

@AndyWarholsPiehole

It's a part of a religious ceremony, a practice dating back probably thousands of years.
Religion is a protected characteristic.
The practice is not illegal.
The whole thing is none of your business.

And FYI, you're straying into Protocols turf there, with the reference.

Has anyone been along to say it’s no different to having your child’s ears pierced yet?

Actually it's not medieval!! Leastways if you're referring to medieval Europe. In Christianity circumcision has never been generally obligatory and, in fact, was banned in late medieval Europe.

So it's curious that circumcision has become so normal in north America. I don't think it happened for specifically religious reasons. My understanding is that doctors in the 1800s began recommending it for hygiene reasons. North America may be more religious than Europe now but it wasn't at that time. Also it was believed to prevent certain habits that boys are known to indulge in.

I'm in NZ and my understanding is that it's never been common here.

*Male circumcision is the cultural/religious norm for billions of men all over the planet. Not all of them have access to clean water for washing and it is recommended for health reasons.

If there is to be movement towards a ban, it needs to be led by circumcised men.*

Exactly! This is exactly what I mean when I say a lot of people from the Western world believe their way is the best way because that’s their norm. Not everyone around the world has running water and access to clean water. Circumcision is the best thing for young boys in these circumstances.

Seeing as most people who have circumcision as apart of their culture, are not always born here. It’s really not difficult to understand why the practice continues.

I also can’t take people seriously on MN. One person attached a random link and multiple posters are jumping on the bandwagon saying to other posters, ‘how do you feel about the wine thing?’ when they’ve probably never even heard of that before! Some of you read one thing and think that applies to every circumstance.

When DS was circumcised there was no wine involved. He was circumcised at 4 months old and had anaesthetic involved so he couldn’t feel a thing. He cried because they had to hold his legs down (he’s quite a kicker so didn’t like to be restricted) not because he was in any pain. Apply olive oil to it everyday for a 10 days and give him a bath in salt water daily and the ring eventually falls off.

People commenting saying that it’s barbaric, inhumane etc is really just another chance to look down upon one’s religion/culture. You can absolutely disagree with something because you wouldn’t do it to your own child, but there’s no need to have a sense of ‘I’m so much better than you because I’d never do that.’ Anyway, discussions like this are pointless really. Circumcision will always be allowed and unless men who have been circumcised, want to protest for change. No amount of discussion on MN will change that

I also wonder how many people that comment on threads like these, actually understand how circumcision is done. If there’s anaesthetic involved and the baby literally can’t feel anything, what is so awful about simply cutting the tiniest bit of skin to show the head of the penis for the foreskin to eventually fall off?

It’s also completely different to piercing a child’s ears as even though it’s a cultural thing for many (like mine), it really is only done for beauty reasons. There’s no health benefit at all whereas there is for circumcision. I had my DD’s ears pierced when she was 3 months old and I instantly regretted it. If I ever had another daughter, I would wait until she’s older for her to decide whether she wants pierced ears or not. However if I ever had another son, I’d certainly get him circumcised again and I’d do it within the first month of their life.

Comparing FGM to circumcision is actually quite horrible in my opinion. FGM is all about preservation of virginity, being deemed worthy enough to marry and to enhance sexual pleasure for men. There are also many other reasons. My point is, is that FGM is done to essentially control young girls/women all for the benefit of men. There’s also no way for FGM to be done in a ‘painless’ way and that is truly barbaric. Now if circumcision had similar intent, then I’m sure society would move forward in terms of trying to make this illegal. However the intent (and act of circumcision) is COMPLETELY different. If people circumcised their child on the basis of making them look more attractive/worthy and solely for the benefit of the other sex, then I’d agree with some of the comments. In reality, this is not the case and I think most of you know that

Access to clean water is absolutely never a reason for circumcision. If they are unable to wash how do you suppose they care for an open wound? Ridiculous.

It doesn't need to be led by circumcised men. It needs to be led by science and knowledge.

It's a very self-serving argument to say that circumcised men should argue for this. Why should this be?

what is so awful about simply cutting the tiniest bit of skin to show the head of the penis for the foreskin to eventually fall off?

Because the foreskin is there to protect the glans, which is the most sensitive part of the penis and which feels *** horrible if touched. Imagine having your clitoris rubbed by fabric until it loses sensitivity. No thanks? Then don't defend circumcision.

In my husband's culture circumcision is traditionally performed by marching teenage boys around all day then lining them up and lopping there foreskin off. Any grown man who was found to have escaped this rite could be hunted down and forceably circumcised at any time. Would you defend their right to do this? Because it's no different than what happens to a defenseless little baby who can't fight back.

That’s nonsense. Those “complications” are almost unheard of. It’s like saying you’re going to cut your child’s toes off to save them possibly getting in-growing toenails one day. It’s just a weak excuse used to defend a cruel and unecessary procedure.

And, as others have pointed out, you can’t possibly claim that your child is immune to the risks of surgery. The chance of infection from an open wound is far greater than from a normal intact foreskin.

Unreal that some posters will defend having it done to keep clean. I have to nag my son to clean his feet and armpits etc, but if I asked to have bits chopped off there I’d be considered insane.
I’m an atheist so I can’t say much about the religious aspect because in my opinion MANY religious people have been told what to believe and not chosen it for themselves. I remember distinctly a conversation with my dad as a child where he told me God exists and that’s just fact. He stood corrected by my atheist mother but what if they had shared the same belief? Would 5 year old me really question both my parents?
Cutting a part off your child- seriously?!

For the poster who said others should not judge in this, sorry but if I can’t judge someone choosing to cut their kid’s limb off what can I judge. I judge you for thinking this is acceptable, because if you really do think about what you’re doing, surely you’d agree your child is born perfect.

Medical reasons are different, I agree. But in my
family there’s a known issue with one of our toes that causes some issue - we simply need to be careful and make sure the toe nail is growing properly to prevent infection etc. Because we’ve ALL got this issue, would it be easier to just remove the toe at birth?? Surely that’s the last possible option, surely you wait for a problem to occur before you treat it.

MADNESS.

People commenting saying that it’s barbaric, inhumane etc is really just another chance to look down upon one’s religion/culture.

It absolutely isn't. You are projecting here. It is just a barbaric and, in most cases, unnecessary procedure. As far as most people are concerned the religious reasons for doing it are irrelevant.

But you are forcing your child to something that he can’t consent to. Surely, you could wait until he is older so he can decide for himself? Because it’s “culture” is a weak excuse. Culture and tradition does not always equal good. You put your perfectly made little baby in pain and discomfort for 2 weeks, “just in case”, and you say he won’t remember it. Why? Why are you putting “culture” above your baby’s safety and comfort?

And I don’t know what British people you hang around with, but people do shower here in this country every day. What a weird comment.

I will judge anyone who mutilates a child

There are billions of uncircumcised men, on this planet, that have had no issues with cleanliness and absolutely no medical issues what’s so ever, who have happy and healthy lives.

Who pays for this in the UK?
Is it the NHS or do you have to go private?

A 15 year old, in a sexual relationship, is absolutely not culturally “acceptable” in the UK. What are you talking about it? And what’s the relevance of having tattoos before 18??