Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Circumcision but no Circumcision Party

446 replies

thefruitwhisperer · 29/12/2010 10:58

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.

OP posts:
pooka · 26/01/2011 22:52

I suppose I'm coming at it having read a fair amount about the complications that can occur with infant male circumcision, and also with a certain amount of confusion as to why the removal of the clitoral hood is deemed mutilation whereas the removal of the foreskin is not. Not disingenuous.

pooka · 26/01/2011 22:54

Incidentally, male circumcision similarly covers a spectrum - ritual circumcision can mean just the pricking to draw blood, or the removal of a small sliver of the end of the foreskin. Or the much more aggressive and radical modern method of complete amputation through use of the plastibell.

StataLover · 26/01/2011 23:02

I've never heard of ritual circumcision for Jews and Muslims, which probably accounts for the majority of circumcisions in the UK, just pricking to draw blood.

On the other hand, most FGM doesn't involve just ritually removing the clitoral hood. You can't compare infibulation, which is the extreme of FGM, to male circumcision.

RoundAndAround · 26/01/2011 23:04

I would come at it from the a human rights angle, ie that the penis belongs to the child and nobody should have the right to remove parts of it without very good reason.

Not even his parents, who wouldn't have the right to authorise the removal of any other parts of his body for non-medical reasons.

differentnameforthis · 26/01/2011 23:10

If you believe circumcision protects against contracting HIV (not AIDS) then you are the only 'dingbat' here, CoteDAzur!

Sorry, but that is a bizarre - not to mention inaccurate - reason to mutilate a boy against his will!

differentnameforthis · 26/01/2011 23:12

The fact is that circumcision reduces chances of getting HIV from an infected woman

Link?

StataLover · 26/01/2011 23:13

Of course it's accurate different

Circumcision reduces the chance of a man contracting HIV from an infected woman.

It's not a 'belief' - it's scientific evidence.

It might not be relevant to the OP but it's correct and it's accurate.

Why do you have a problem with this?

StataLover · 26/01/2011 23:14

from the WHO

differentnameforthis · 26/01/2011 23:17

Is that the same 'study' (quote by cote) that gave the circumcised men condoms, but didn't give them to the uncircumcised? Hmm

StataLover · 26/01/2011 23:19

Why don't you read it? Compelling evidence, 3 separate RCTs.

IT's good enough for the WHO, good enough for me.

monkeyjamtart · 26/01/2011 23:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sweetkitty · 26/01/2011 23:22

Anyone considering circumcising their baby boy should watch a video first. Spreadeagled and strapped to a board a newborn baby boy is screaming in pain for 6 minutes whilst a doctor cuts a part of his body off. Then he has to pee and poo in the open wound.

It made me cry.

theinet · 27/01/2011 00:37

I have been reading this thread with interest and can give a man's perspective.

I was circumcised at a young age (5). I am now in my 30's.

I was "done" for medical reasons, the foreskin was too tight and i clearly remember it & my mum fretting, & there being no alernative. It was one of my earlier memories. I was put under general anasthetic in hospital and had a consultant surgeon do the operation.

I remember it being painful and sore and a bit traumati - at such a young age its all a bit bewildering - i remember my parents being dreadfully loving and really being remembering the big cuddly soft toy dog that i was bought - wearing hospital gown and with bandages on its tail!

The surgeon did an extremely neat job, something which i have come to appreciate as i am older, as i realise not everyone has such an operation done well. I have no visible scarring but i know that some people do.

As a child the impact was more in my mind than physically and yes it did have an impact if i'm honest.

Looking back I was dreadfully shy around "bathroom" times, for years and years later. i hated anyone seeing my penis, was always extremely embarrassed about what had been done to me - enough to always use a cubicle instead of the stalls in the gents, (though i suppose some men do this whether circumcised or not) - right up to adulthood . I'm certain the shyness was due to the op.

At school i would go to great lengths to hide myself in the changing room and cringed at sports times. I avoided the showers and did feel in some way inferior. I never mentioned anything to anyone about my feelings. They didnt dominate my life by any means but they were there.

However, as i came into adulthood it all faded away, and as my love life got going, the embarrassment disappeared as i realised partners weren't bothered, it never stopped me getting laid, and i stopped feeling inadeqate.

i cant say i've ever had a problem with sensation or sexual pleasure - i love sex and get huge pleasure from it, like most people. I suppose some might say "but it would be even better if you had a foreskin" but i actually don't think so or care.

All in all, i would say if you want to have your child "done" for your child, you need to have a good reason. I wouldn't do it to my children except for medical reasons, though i do think about hygeine, STI's etc although i see these as a side benefit from being cut rather than a reason to do it in the first place.

If you are in a religious community or somewhere where everyone has it done as custom then you have your own reasons i suppose but i would personally question it.

It may give your child a bit of a complex about that part of their body depending on the age it's done and the circumstances - circumcision in my locality seemed rare and no one else family or friends had much experience of it and it's never nice being the odd one out as a kid. Of course, i couldnt' care less now, but i did then.

Something for the OP to think about - i certainly would never go into it as a "casual" thing to do.

CoteDAzur · 27/01/2011 16:42

StataLover - Thanks for WHO link. By now, I assume that nobody here is denying that circumcision reduces chances of HIV infection.

So... Circumcision protects against AIDS, and it has a very small risk of leading to infection or other problems.

Given that there are pros and cons, can we now say that it is up to individual families to assess the risk/benefit of circumcision and leave it at that?

MsBethel · 27/01/2011 17:34

In that case, why not wait until the child is old enough to think for themselves, and involve them in the decision?

Unless it is being done because of whatever religious/cultural values the adults happen to adhere to. In which case, probably best to do it before the child can object. Wouldn't want the adults to miss out!

MrSpoc · 27/01/2011 18:00

StataLover & CoteDAzur - your both bonkers.

It does not protect you from HIV / AIDS and I would not trust any report done in 3rd world countries and which was undertaken in 1989 and which has such a dodgy trial.

Now if the UK Goverment published results then I would listen to them.

And CoteDAzur - everyone disagrees with you.

MrSpoc · 27/01/2011 18:01

Its just hit me - are STATLOVER & CoteDAzur the same person?

jojosmaman · 27/01/2011 18:02

Theinet- thank you for an honest and rational comments amongst the hysteria

Sweetkitty- god knows what you have been watching but it's not a common circumcision I can tell you that!

StataLover · 27/01/2011 18:03

OK, I'm bonkers together with the World Health Organization. Hmm

Actually, the UK govt DOES support this - it funds circumcision campaigns in low income countries with high HIV prevalence through overseas aid.

StataLover · 27/01/2011 18:12

here you go didn't take long to find an example of UK govt supported (ie YOUR money) circumcision campaigns (in Zimbabwe for eg)

I quote:

Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection by about 60%. We saw DFID-supported programmes in two male circumcision clinics in Bulawayo and in Harare. This pilot programme was launched in mid-2009 and 3,000 men have so far been treated. In addition to the procedure, patients are provided with counselling and an HIV test. Once it is rolled-out, the programme aims to reach 80% of young men in the country in the next eight years, a total of three million people.[180] We were told this would cost $140 million, but would save over £3 billion in treatment

CoteDAzur · 27/01/2011 18:15

MrSpoc - You might notice that others have stopped waving your flag after reading about the WHO saying circumcision provides significant protection against AIDS.

CoteDAzur · 27/01/2011 18:17

So... "everybody disagrees with you"

StataLover · 27/01/2011 18:20

cote

There are many people on MN who never believe evidence unless it supports their already decided viewpoint. They cherrypick evidence that agrees with them and ignore any that doesn't.

CoteDAzur · 27/01/2011 18:21

MsBethel - There is a reason why circumcision is usually done to children and not to adults but I don't remember what it is. Something to do with erections.

There are exceptions, though. Unless a Muslim woman and her family are very open-minded, a non-Muslim man wishing to marry her had to convert to Islam. This is an easy enough procedure, except that he also has to be circumcised (ouch).

I have often wondered at just how in love these men must be Shock

CoteDAzur · 27/01/2011 18:37

Stata - True, but given that there is no evidence provided by one person (only claims of having read some "studies") and ample evidence provided by the other, the clever ones seem to have understood their initial error and disappeared.

Not MrSpoc. He is quite special. Not only does he understand what he reads (if he reads at all) but seems to believe reality is subjective a la "why is your study more conclusive than the studies that Deciduousblonde has been reading?" Hmm