Circumcision but no Circumcision Party

[thefruitwhisperer]

DP is turkish but he and his family were all born in the UK and dont practise Muslim traditions apart from Eid. My DP is the only one who does Ramadan and thats only every couple of years when he can be bothered. They celebrate xmas and easter etc.

Ive agreed to have our month old baby circumcised as thats what DP wants and I agree that there are plus points, but Im an atheist so I would like all religious connotations taken out of the situation. I think thats a fair compromise (esp as its going to be quite hard for me, Im really scared) and I would like it to be a quiet decision between DP and I. His family will know the baby has been cut, why do we need to celebrate it in a party that is more for the sake of getting presents than it is anything else. I dont want the gifts.

DP has admitted that the only reason his family circumcise their babies is for social reasons, everyone has it done, everyone has a party, everyone gets money as gifts. Ive compromised on the actual circumcism, and I really really dont want to have a party. I will feel as though Ive sold my babies foreskin. Add to that, if theres no religious reason for it, why are we even doing it - and the only answer I can see is cultural/social/peer pressure reasons. I just dont see any reason to celebrate this pointless operation (obviously only pointless in this instance, I can understand where it is necessary medically or in religious circumstances) other than to show off that we have conformed and then get some money. Children who have their appendixes out dont have parties. I mean, I could equally argue that we have the baby christened catholic, my family all are and dont go to church.

AIBU to have the operation but draw the line at a party? I think DPs family are all going to be disappointed with me. And his grandparents apparently disowned his uncle for the same thing.

The sexual downside as an adult is overwhelmingly outweighed by the suffering of the child.

Faveroles I was going to make that point too about the non existence of 'routine mastectomies' in light of NorweiganWood's link.

And about that link -

Firstly it is written by an American, so while some are blithering away about the so-called cultural bias that MNers seem to have - this article has a clear cultural bias in the American author. No academic work is objective whatever science claims.
There is also a hint of political reasoning in mentioning that European nationalised medical systems are keen to avoid cost!

QUOTE "whereas in the US, circumcision is generally considered a simple, rapid operation with medical benefits which accrue throughout life"

Note the word CONSIDERED - video evidence (and I am sure a quick search) will show that it may be simple and rapid in terms of an operation, but this totally undermines the experience of the patient!!! Furthermore, although the article goes on the give statistics about the 'benefits that accrue' (not sure quite how they accrue through life!), these figures are contradicted elsewhere throughout this thread, and I would also suggest the lack of citations throughout these statistics, baring the one at the end as part of an incomplete sentence suggests manipulation of figures - unless footnotes are being used and the numbers are not showing?

QUOTE "The prevalence of true phimosis (anatomic constriction of the preputial opening, which must be distinguished from adherent foreskin) in published studies varies from 0.3% to 0.9%, 5 but true phimosis requires circumcision later in life, when the procedure is more difficult, risky, and expensive. 6 7 Balanoposthitis has been estimated to occur in 4% of uncircumcised boys, and incidence peaks at age 2 to 5 years. 3 Although treatment can be conservative, late circumcision is often necessary for recurrent cases, and medical management requires additional physician visits and treatment." - This is a fine example of statistical manipulation for a purpose - there are no correlations between one to the next statistic. It is like saying 2% of MNers have twins. X% of twins have identity issues. Identity issues peak at X to Y years. No correlation between each statistic but put in a line like that they could tell a story. Narratives are easy to create.

But when it is done for medical reasons, I assume it's done under general anaesthetic?

So while the healing might be painful, at least the barbarism of performing the procedure without any pain relief at all isn't there.

That's the thing I have a REAL problem with, the lack of pain relief and medical supervision that happens in a lot of cases.

I thought that there were less sexual problems if it is done as an older child/adult?

HouseofBanbootiful - It isn't always done under GA. I posted a video a few pages back in this thread, clearly not under GA. But then again...who would want to unnecessarily put their baby through a general anaesthetic?!

Manatee - I'm not looking at the videos so not sure whether the one you posted was a 'medical' or 'cultural/religious' reasons one.

Don't get me wrong, I think circumcision should ONLY be performed if there is a clear medical reason to do it. My post was probably a bit unclear but I was replying to the post:

"And FFs think about it before posting comments about future sex life, infections etc as many you point out this is done for medical reasons in many boys."

My point was that if it has had to be done for medical reasons, at least it was likely to have been carried out with proper analgesia by a medical professional.

I can't understand doing circumcision by choice, but what makes it utterly unacceptable is the practice of doing it without anaesthetic. As there aren't any fully effective local anaesthetics for this operation, and the risks of GA are unacceptable for a perfectly healthy tiny baby, then really you are left with the inescapable conclusion that it's best to leave the poor child intact in the first place.

Yes, sorry, I re-read your post and realised you said if done for medical reasons. And I don't blame you not looking at the videos, part of me really wishes I hadn't because I can't get it out of my head and it is horrible :(

I think it would be bad enough to inflict a needless operation on your son for religious reasons, because I think doing anything because a pretend man in the sky says so is ludicrous, let alone mutilating a baby.

But the idea of doing it because it's a "social" thing is even even more abhorrent, IMO.

Favorelles- maybe some people need to see visually what a circumcision is to understand it but I really don't think it is necessary to repost on a parenting forum? I mean how can you not understand what pain it may cause without actually seeing it? It's like saying you need to see a finger being amputated to understand the pain. I just can't see why anyone would click on one of Manatees links or search on YouTube for clips of the procedure?

Bambootiful- you quote my post as what you are replying to but I don't understand your reply? My point was that a lot on here are bandying about random "facts" about a lack of sex drive in adulthood and how loads of men are wanting to have there foreskin put back on (I know a lot of c/c men and not one has ever bemoaned their lack of foreskin btw) in an attempt to put off people doing it for social or cultural reasons. But if your son had had to have it done for medical reasons then these completely baseless comments would make you feel ten times worse.

I just think that some on here are trying to scaremongering about how c/c affects men in order to make a point which is completely thoughtless.

One of my links!? I only posted one!!! I think the thing is, it is often suggested to be routine and okay, and then you see a video, and it really isn't. Any naive ideas I had before that non-medical circumcision is okay have been scrapped after watching it. So if you are in any doubt about circumcision, as the OP is (though she has not returned to the thread) then watching that link gives a very honest look at the reality.

Do you agree with the non-medical circumcision of boys Jojo?

jojosmaman -

under the NHS circumcision is done for medical reasons as a "last resort" measure. Meaning that the alternative - leaving the child or adult intact will have palpable negative impacts and the only and last option is to circumcise.

Given that this is the case, I think that most parents of children who have had to be circumcised on medical grounds would be accepting of the fact that there was no alternative and that the choice that has been made for their child was the best outcome. No alternative and all that.This includes my nephew for example. Had hypospadias.

jojosmaman - yes, I can see that I haven't responded to your main point. The bit I was referring to was about how mothers of boys who had been circumcised for medical reasons were being made to feel dreadful by this thread.

I was making the point that medical circumcisions are done (I assume) with proper anaesthetic and medical aftercare, which should lessen any risks and at least makes it a humane procedure.

Bambootiful/ pooka- yes I completely agree and I am sure most parents would accept that whatever the outcome they have no option but I just don't think it's particularly helpful to throw around comments about cc'd boys future sex life that have no basis and are most probably completely made up! If you are going to make a point about why you shouldn't circumcise for non medical reasons then there are much clearer and factually correct points you can make. I also find it a little offensive to suggest that my husband is not happy with his sex life because he's been done, far from it in fact.

Manatee- sorry i should have put one of the links like manatees but I think it's really odd that someone would think the procedure is a walk in the park unless they see it in action? Most Jewish/ Muslim people I know would know fore well exactly what the procedure involves as it is part of their culture and so it wouldn't be something they would need to google.

Fwiw I don't agree with non medical circumcisions and I think the practise is dying out amongst my peers at least. However I won't judge others who have had it done or had it done to their sons.

I think that in light of the OPs question and uncertainty, watching a video would be useful for her. I certainly did not post the link I found with a view to making anyone who has had their son circumcised feel bad, it was aimed at the OP.

You are talking tosh. You only have to look at posts where people say 'I am having my son circumcised for religious/cultural reasons and it's a quick, painless procedure.' Actually, that's a load of bollocks. If people insist on doing this to their sons without medical reason, then they should have to face the reality of it. I am sure those who's sons had it for medical reasons are assured by the knowledge there was no other option for their children, it wasn't exactly a choice they made.

if i had married a jew and had had a son i would not have had it done (much probably to the annoyance of inlaws) as i would want the child to not be 'branded a jew' incase there was another nazi style rising as that would lead to certain death although one good thing about not having a forskin, it is easier for the penis to remain cleaner for longer as it is without the folds of skin for sweat etc to hide underneath. as for the pain of the child, i am not the type of person personally who would have been able to stand by and have the procedure done to my child, i have been to a few bris's over the years. the child cries for about 1/2 a minute and then stops, i do not know if the moyle applies a pain relief of any kind, i guess so, not pleasant eitherway, but i must say that the child has not appeared overly bothered. i doubt that many posters here have witnessed one other than viewing a video on youtube? i am not pro circumcision, i am typing my experience, i wouldn't have my son done, my comment was a neutral one

Midori - I totally agree,

Kelway - Thinking about a Nazi style uprising is an odd way to approach the issue IMO. Also, what is a 'bris' and a 'moyle'?

manatee' - to be honest, you would probably have to be a jew to understand that one. if the nazis weren't sure if you were a jew (if you looked aryan) the one sure way to tell was to get the man/boy to drop his trousers before they killed him, this was common practice. a bris is the name given to the 'occasion' and the moyle is the name given to the chap who performs it. it is my understanding that the royal family often use or certainly have in the past, moyles to perform them, not sure why the royals have had them done, also not sure which of the royals are without foreskins, can't say that i care either really, i just seem to for some reason be in posession of this information.......

Bambootiful - I don't feel dreadful at all that my ds had this procedure. It was a last resort, and carried out to prevent further problems. Dh and I were fully aware of the possible side affects to his future sex life, but still felt there was no choice bit to go ahead.
No-one has said anything that I didn't already know.

I do feel though that it beggars belief that this is carried out in the name of religion without effective pain relief, and no questions asked.

Docking newborn puppies tails and dew claws was classed as barbaric and banned from being carried out without anaesthetic. Are baby boys less important than puppies?

ps: (not wanting to sound pro circum' as i am not actually) but adding in a neutral way, i have never known a jewish boy/man who was bothered that they had had it done, to them it is normal and not even something to think about but i can see how awful/unecessary it would sound to a non jew or non muslim. i grew up with this, i understand it but i am not into it, i am miss neutral, i always see things from both sides, i like to take the chilled approach......

Its a Mohel- trained Jewish men who are usually also doctors and trained to circumsise infants at 8 days.
A Brit is the party to celebrate the child's first mitzvah.

Sorry had to jump in because Kelway had not answered MEO question.

Midori- what, do you mean the very few mumsnet posters on circumsision (half of which miraculously post and disappear.. Hmmm) who don't know what it involves? That's the problem with munsnetters, they think that mumsnet is the world and representative of society when it's really not. I am talking from actual experience of people who live within the cultures we are discussing and I would hazard a guess that almost all are fully aware of what is involved. I just don't think it is necessary for people to be drawn to YouTube videos of babies being circumsised to prove a point that it more than likely hurts. But each to their own I guess, I'd rather see a well balanced discussion than a video from god knows where of a baby who more than likely hasn't consented to having it's intimate parts bandied around the web.

And re the sex life issues in adulthood, I don't believe it's a worthy arguement to put forward as a reason not to c/c your son, if the procedure itself isn't putting them off then why would whether the fact that some people believe that it can possibly affect sensitivity. Maybe. Although not much. As I have said already, it's quite offensive to those men who have had it done to suggest that they have a somewhat inferior sex life due to c/c for whatever reason when this is really not the case from my experience (I mean of talking to men, their partners etc, not actually me experiencing it iykwim!).

I bet the Nazis would have had a fine old time rounding up the British upper classes had they have reached these shores.

Ideally avoid the mutilation but definitely avoid a party. Just imagine what the cake would look like.

Please don't scaremonger to prove your point

It isn't scaremongering. They are facts. People say it doesn't hurt, IT DOES! Look at the evidence.

People say it is healthier, it is better, cleaner. It isn't! Look at the facts.

By posting these images, people are hoping that mothers will see what effects this 'treatment' had some men/boys etc.

It isn't without it's risks. But many think it is.