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.

Is it just me or is the religious creation of showing trust in God sacrificing your own child one that is truly horrific? What sort of benevolent God would ask that? Surely the sort of man that would sacrifice his child not in anyway Godly?

Yes I think you have it there TheBrandyButterfly. Although would it not be more common with catholics in that case

Add 'by' where you spot my stupid mistake!! (and then forgot the 'l' and nearly wrote [bush]

Doesn't matter thefeministparent you're making a whole lot of sense with or without typo's.

In our nominally christian counrty God is seen as being all goodness and light, its a bit of a theme isn't it to say well "there is no god because otherwise I wouldn't get stuck in the snow" or whatever.

Jews beleive that man makes his own way in life. Basically god is not good or evil. Man is not made in gods image and we as the human race are not something like animated toys to be played with by some god in the heavens. Actually its very healthy to take responsibility for your own lot in life.

Nothing compared to my typos

I'm not religious, my family is Catholic but I haven't been Christened and have never been to church.

I have always held the view that no god has ever asked anyone to sacrifice a child (or part of a child) to show their faith. Therefore I don't have anything against anyone's god.

It is the men(and women) who follow said god who ask you to do that to "prove" your faith.

This is pretty much my view on all things religious.

Note I don't I just tried to explain why practicing Orthodox Jews do.

Having worked in operating theatres for years and seen the plastibell procedure done without a GA, I can tell you that anyone who says it is pain-free is talking bollocks. Imagine putting something tight on your nipple to cut off its blood supply until it rots and drops off. Where's the difference?

And no GA is without risk, so doing it that way isnt much better. The post op pain must be horrendous, I know they always woke up extremely distressed .

follyfoot..dh said it is the most horrendous thing he's ever felt...and to top it off his baby sister whacked him in the groin 2 days after his was done.

On the same train of thought - the poor baby must be in agony every time his nappy is changed.

It is no Parents' right to physically label a Child with their own religion or a culture.

I baptised my Child Catholic.
Aged 8 she decided she was Atheist. Progressed aged 11 to Agnostic.

Thankfully She wasn't missing any of her genitalia; when she made her own choice.

Oh FFS. Some people on this thread are truly misinformed, or just plain stupid.

Jews circumcised their boys to prevent disease. Same reason why they didn't eat pork, etc. OF COURSE it was sold to the masses as a "God wants it to be done" thing, but ultimately it was about the health and survival and procreation of their tribe of nomads 6000 years ago. Not that the health reasons are as relevant today (though if you follow the research in Africa you will see advocates of circumcision claiming that it helps prevent AIDS), but that's the basis of it.

Muslims also have Abraham as their forefather, hence they do it for the same historical reasons.

North Americans do it because of cultural/social reasons ("everyone" does it, your kid will stand out if he's not, etc). Most parents don't even think twice about it, they just have it done the way they get their immunisations and whatnot.

Fwiw I will not be circumcising any son of mine as I find it barbaric. I'd like to see a cultural/religious shift to stop circumcising boys given that it's completely unnecessary mutilation, but a massive change like that is long-term and requires much public campaigning by influential people. Hopefully someday though.

Curious how many posters here would have their daughters' ears pierced? At age 1, 5, 12? After all, that's mutilation too. Also a bit painful with potential for complications.

Barelyutterly - I have said that dd can have her ears pierced, if she still wants them done, when she is 13. That's what my mother said to me - though by then I couldn't be bothered, and ended up getting them done when I was about 19. Never wear earrings though.

Am hoping dd will forget about it.

Note however, that she is the one who (aged 7) would like her ears pierced. Not me forcing it on her. PLus she's distinctly less enthusiastic since a friend of hers had them done, nearly refused to have the second ear pierced because it hurt, and has had on-off weepy ears since.

Jews circumcised their boys to prevent disease. Same reason why they didn't eat pork, etc. OF COURSE it was sold to the masses as a "God wants it to be done" thing, but ultimately it was about the health and survival and procreation of their tribe of nomads 6000 years ago.

Call everyone else misinformed!

The reason Jews do not eat pork is because pigs do not have split hooves. There is no greater reason not to eat pork than there is not to eat shellfish.

penelope, i think you will find that according to the un conventions of human rights, it actually is a right.
google it if you dont believe me

Penelope baptised her child into the catholic faith, is that right? I don't have an opinion on this although I wouldn't because I feel the child should be free to find their own way.

I have heard of atheists trying to be un-baptised because they feel so violated.

I agree with nogreat - it is cultural/traditional rather than religiously observant, even if it appears to have its roots in relegious doctrine.

Same with sikhs and turbans - no religious requirement for them at all!

Sorry to sidetrack, but nogreat what is the argument re: cloven hooves and non-cloven? Is a non-cloven hoof supposed to be less hygienic?

I thought the pork/shellfish thing was likely to stem from the likelihood of an inability to keep fresh, and the risk of food poisoning in hot climates with no refridgeration, as well.

As an agnostic Jew, I find myself agreeing with barelyutterly. Back in the desert 3000 years ago, without refrigeration, pork and shellfish were much more likely to go off and kill you than other meats. And a sandy foreskin can't be pleasant when washing water is hard to come by.

In light of modern technology, hygiene standards and knowledge, most religious dictates were good sense at the time, but don't have the same health implications today. Which make them somewhat redundant IMO. Go ahead and don't eat pork or shellfish if you like. It doesn't affect anyone else so why not. But don't mutilate your child and pretend that god made you do it.

The best link I know for circumcision I highly recommend the Penn and Teller page.

Of course an adult who has it done for medical reasons isn't going to find that his sex life is worse, he's most likely going to find it improved! Men who have it done as adults for cosmetic reasons don't agree, they do find it makes their sex life worse.

I'm shocked that anyone uses a plastibell for religious circ, it's far from a traditional circ which is removing a slither of skin (not that I'm justifying it) plastibell is straight out of the USA and is full amputation of a healthy working organ. Have a look at any painting of a naked baby Jesus and to our eyes He looks intact that's because compared to that He is, He would have had a small amount removed to fulfill the covenant. If full amputation was done in Abraham's day then most boys would have died. RIC is the leading cause of infant death in the USA.

I broke my nail recently, right across the middle, ripped the nail from the nail bed and it is the worst pain I have ever experienced! Amputation of foreskin of boys does pretty much the same thing, rip away skin that is fused to skin.

There is a law that can be used against RIC (in both the UK and USA) so anyone who does it needs to consider that.

A lot of Jews, Muslims and Christians (in the USA "religious reasons" is being stated by Christians too) are now speaking out against it, all using scriptures to back it up (Christianity is the easy one it says over again not to do it as it does about eating meat "do not call anything I have made unclean").

My partner was done for medical reasons that I won't go into here. He's not my first partner so I have got comparison. Sex with him is brilliant, however I do notice the difference. He didn't have a full amputation so has some movement but he is dry and keratinised which is uncomfortable as I need to provide more moisture than if he was whole so sometimes it hurts. The head of the penis has sharper edges so it rubs against the walls. Imagine having sex with a plastic penis with no lubrication and that's pretty much what you have. My partner is the biggest British intactivist I know. His son was done for the same reason (inherited from him) and he was heartbroken for him.

I am a breastfeeding advocate, a Doula, a peer supporter but this is a totally different issue. RIC kills more children than anything else in the USA, even more than formula does. It's irreversible and there are so many more negatives. I would rather feed my child completely on formula than mutilate them.

The reason that it continues is the same reason hazing continues, only this is different. You have to admit your parents allowed something bad to happen to you.

RIC doesn't prevent HIV, the study had to be abandoned early because so many of the participants had caught the virus and it was an incredibly flawed study anyway. There are no medical benefits accepted by any medical body in the world, in fact the opposite.

Oh and if you look into the difference between clean and unclean animals you find that it's the amount of stomachs they have. The more they have the more their food is processed.

In the old testement it says that in order for food to be Kosher the animal must have split hooves and chew their cud, like cows, sheep and goats. Fish has to have both fins and scales, so no eating catfish or whales! I would think that only very observant Jews would totally stick with the food laws, its mostly impractical. As far as I am aware no mention of hygiene only in relation to eating shellfish.