about SIL and DS1's Bris (circumcision) ?

[imlikeaironingboard]

I'm Jewish (Liberal) and DH counts himself as secular Jewish (as does all of his family).
His DBro (my BIL) married out - not a 'big' thing with them due to the whole non practicing/secular thing.

I'm due to give birth to DS1 (DC2) in a week.

They do not have children and it is only DH and BIL as siblings. our DC1 is a DD.

Both DH and BIL are circumcised.

She told us tonight that she would not be coming to DS1 Bris. The idea of doing that 'disgusts' her.

AIBU to be really upset and to think that she should have realised that marrying into a jewish family secular or not would mean that these sort of things would happen?

This has really really upset me - I have never got a hint of her feeling like this before.

You may call it bandwagon jumping if you like MrBloom, but for me it's just my personal opinion, which happens to be the same as many other people's here. If you prefer to call it bandwagon jumping though - wouldn't you say the people who get their children circumcised without really understanding the procedure, or why their religion dictates it are jumping on some sort of bandwagon?

To answer your questions, the reason it is still legal is more than likely because trying to outlaw anything which is a recognised religious practice is nigh on possible. People tend to get extremely defensive whenever the practices of their faith are challenged - regardless of how many reasonable objections they are presented with. "It is how it has always been done, it is part of our religion, so it is how we will always do it" is the cry and apparently this trumps any reasoned debate.

The reason there are dedicated clinics which provide this service is, at least in part I imagine, because it is recognised that being a religious practice, people will do it whether the clinics are there or not. So if there are clinics they can at least make sure it is done as hygienically and safely as possible (though from my understanding the child will not be taken to a clinic for their brit)

I do think it's fair to say though that we might as well be 9 pages back for all the chance any of the arguments us bandwagon jumpers have presented will change anyone's mind. So to return to the OPs original question: yes YABU. Your SIL has every right to voice her opinion (the fact that she could have done so with more tact is neither here nor there). I'm sure when she married in she knew there was a possibility "these sort of things would happen", but that doesn't mean she has to condone them. It is not an attack on your religion, it is her inability to be part of a specific practice she disagrees with. I applaud her for standing by her principles and deciding not to attend.

MrBloom just because it is not illegal, does not make it ethical nor immoral.

I am Jewish, when I was pregnant and we did not know whether it was a boy or a girl, my partner insisted on a Bris. I absolutely abhorred the idea of inflicting pain on my own baby of 8 days old. So I did some research on the subject. Here is the summary. Circumcision is not even mentioned in the original version of the Torah, this was added hundreds of years later. The original procedure when it was finally introduced was actually far less intrusive than it is currently.

Moreover, circumcision actually goes against the core values of Judaism, namely V'ahavta l'rayaha kamokha (Love of others) Tzedakah (Justice/responsibility) Gemilut hasadim (Kindness/compassion)
Talmud torah (Love of learning) Hakhnasat orhim (Welcoming guests/strangers) Shalom bayit (Peace/harmony in home/family) Tikkun olam (Perfecting the world) and Anava (Modesty/humility)

When I asked the rabbi to justify the Bris, he could not come up with a reasonable answer. In the end, I had a girl so the whole debate was unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure that most people are in agreement that heavy drinking whilst pregnant is abuse and I'm sure if SS were aware of this happening would investigate. As far as I'm aware the occasional drink in pregnancy has not been shown to have any negative effects, circumcision quite clearly does and carries risks. I'm not sure why it isn't illegal, I imagine there are lots of campaigns to make it so though and I imagine it will become so.
I'm not sure if I would have used the word disgusting but I would have thought much worse.

I find it deeply disturbing when people say we shouldn't criticise religious practises or offend people because of their religion. Why? We should (and fortunately can, in the UK) criticise activities that are morally and ethically questionable. Making religious practises above discussion would be to go down a path where true horrors lurk. Yabu. Your beliefs/opinions are not above criticism any more than anyone else's are, religious or otherwise.

MrBloom Did you watch the link? I'm guessing no. "The greatest disadvantage of circumcision is the awful loss of sensitivity when the foreskin is removed. . . . On a scale of 10, the intact penis experiences pleasure that is at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3." Adult male who had circumcision in adulthood.

BMJ :
Ritual male circumcision is an ancient religious rite for Muslims and Jews, and the crux of this debate revolves around the primacy of parental religious conviction versus the primacy of the human rights of the child, the preservation of its bodily integrity, and its right of self determination.
Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure. There are potential anaesthetic risks, and the short term risk of bleeding and infection associated with any surgical procedure.4 Longer term potential complications include pain on erection, penile disfigurement, and psychological problems.5 A recent report shows that the non-circumcised adult penis is more sensitive than the circumcised penis, largely because the five most sensitive areas, identified in the study, are removed during circumcision.6 This implies a reduction in future sexual sensitivity for circumcised adults. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.

Oh and circumcision definitely reduces sensitivity. I speak from indirect but intimate experience!

I probably know more circumcised men -Jewish, Turkish, Asians, Canadians, Americans- than all the "it's child abuse" brigade put together, and if you asked any of them whether they are traumatised or have less sexual satisfaction as a result of circumcision, the answer would be 100% NO. Randomised studies have produced the same outcome, so yes, there is actual data on the point.

Funny how it is easy to spout verbal abuse on a forum about something you know nothing about. Whenever circumcision is mentioned on AIBU this place turns into what I imagine the Daily Mail forum is like. Posting videos of circumcision is akin to posting pictures of dead foetuses on an abortion thread, and makes some posters appear hysterical. There is a real debate to be had, the topic deserves better than that.

I fully understand that some people make the risk/benefit analysis and decide they don't want their sons circumcised. That is their CHOICE. However, the same analysis will lead other people, with their own circumstances, to conclude in favour of circumcision. Such decision is not irrational or abusive. Parents the world over overwhelmingly want the best for their children and it is patronizing and imperialistic to say that those who opt for circ simply 'haven't thought it through', as if we, British parents, are the holders of ultimate right and wrong with respect to parenting decisions.

I think much more energy should be devoted to decrying unsafe circumcision practices. Unsafe is not the same as ritual or cultural circumcision, which is often carried out in a safe environment. I don't for a minute believe that the OP intends to use a kitchen knife to chop her son's foreskin - so the risks are really extremely small.

I know I have said it upthread and even though no one seems to care, I will say it again: the WHO supports circumcision of male infants and its latest guidance (Feb 2011) states several significant health benefits, not only for African infants but worldwide. But I guess WHO guidance is only valid when it relates to breastfeeding? this is further supported by several recent, reliable studies - as opposed to some of the pseudo-science some posters want to rely on.

benefits of circumcision

I sincerely hope for all your sons' sakes they never get HIV, herpes or penile cancer so you are spared asking yourself whether, if only you had given them the protection afforded by circumcision, they might not have caught these diseases.

YABU just because your SIL has married a Jewish man does not mean that she should not have an opinion and should just accepted the situation. I do agree that she was a bit tactless about it though.

I'm sure it will be made illegal eventually. It will be in stages though. First perhaps we can require that it is done in a proper hospital. That will upset a lot of people who will say it only works if you do it with a rusty knife by the light of the full moon. It will kind of spoil the associated party too.

But those only doing it to please their parents will be okay with that. We then may have to wait for that older generation to die off before we stop it completely.

I'd just make it an arrestable offence tomorrow if it were up to me.

Unsafe is not the same as ritual or cultural circumcision, which is often carried out in a safe environment. you mean like a living room with a bunch of family gathered round to watch?

The argument that it is better medically is I think misleading, but worse it is hypocritical.

Lets hear it from those who believe that their god demands this! Would you refuse to have them circumcised if you knew it was going to increase their chances of getting HIV or would you go ahead anyway?

Primafacie Would you support a total ban on circumcision if it was found to increase the chances of getting HIV?

"I sincerely hope for all your sons' sakes they never get HIV, herpes or penile cancer so you are spared asking yourself whether, if only you had given them the protection afforded by circumcision, they might not have caught these diseases."

This is bullshit. Absolute shit. Fucking hell. Do religious people honestly believe God is so dimwitted that when he designed man he made such a stupid error? I mean I think we evolved so I don't have to answer such bollocks.

Abortion films, which are always propaganda lead shit put out by pro life idiots is not the same as a factual video that is intended to show people what happens during the procedure.

the 'proof' about HIV is dependent on a study in Uganda, none of 50 circumcised men contracted HIV from infected partners, but 40/137 intact men did. Factors such as frequency of condom use, frequency of intercourse were taken into account. Although the main reason touted seems to be the keritisation of the glans (hardening of skin and loss of sensitivity) which reduces something that assists the virus. Although chances are if you have sex with someone who has HIV you may catch it so hardly a good reason to sever baby's penis.

Out of interest Primafacie, how do these men KNOW that they do not have reduced sexual satisfaction if they were circumcised as babies? Surely the only way anyone could know that would be to try both ways, therefore the only men you should be listening to on that subject are those who were circumcised in adulthood.

I'm guessing that's a very small fraction of the circumcised men you know.

The others simply CLAIM they do not have reduced satisfaction. That's very different from knowing

As far as the HIV and herpes goes, there are a lot better preventative steps they could be taking than chopping off their foreskins. If any of my male friends ever contract HIV I'd put money on the fact they won't be thinking "Oh shit, I should have been circumcised"

Primafacie I don't have a son, but if I ever do I will encourage him to wear a condom. That ought to appease my conscience.
OP - if I was your SIL, I'd have tried to be a bit gentler. "Sorry, I know this is important to you, but I'm afraid I wouldn't feel comfortable being there; is there any other way I can celebrate your DS with you" etc. But if you pressed me, I'd have to admit I find it disgusting.
YABU for thinking that your deeply held beliefs are more valid than hers because there's a religion attached.

not so many years ago in ireland it was unheard of amongst catholics to question their religion or leaders. the priests stood above the law. well we all know what horrors that status allowed the catholic church to get away with. so no, i wont apologise to anyone for questioning a religious practise that is harmful to someone who cannot speak for themselves. children have a right not to be harmed and that right should be upheld by the two people that choose to parent that child. allowing a circumcision to be carried out on a baby for non-medical reasons is an abuse of the responsibilities parents have for a child. it is an abuse of that child's basic human rights. it is child abuse. and being 39 weeks pregnant and upset does not make it not child abuse.

Do you feel nothing Primafacie for the abject pain and terror these babies go through? Or are you of the outdated opinion that babies feel no pain.

As you've said yourself, the WHO recommends a Local Anaesthetic, are Mohels and Imams qualified in administering these?

I would be the same as the SIL as far as attending a bris. The very idea that people have a party while a newborn baby is tortured IS disgusting. No one should be able to decide what is best for a child who cannot consent (or fight back). I had thought that 13 year old jewish boys were cut, since they can consent by then, but it shocked me to find out that it happens when they are only 8 days old.

It is NOT more hygenic. It does not lessen their chances of catching HIV or STD's. It does not make sex for them better (maybe they are more sensitive right after a circumcision because their very sensitive glans is now completely exposed), and can lead to erectile dysfuction and personality disorders!

If there is the slightest chance that your belief that circumcision is beneficial is completely wrong, shouldn't that be enough for you to question the procedure?

More people need to be like the OP and be honest about how circumcising infants makes them feel. It is only by people speaking out about it that will eventually lead to it being stopped. That's how FGM was made illegal in the US. It's only a matter of time before MGM is illegal too!

Sorry, I meant more people need to be like the OP's SIL and be honest about it.

primafacie, far better for HIV rates if all those men wore condoms regardless of if they are circumcised or not.

Primafacie that spiteful last sentence somewhat dents your credibility.

The fact that your SIL has never said anything before and has respected your Orthodox friends does suggest that she really does find it disgusting. She may even respect your wanting to do it but to automatically expect someone to actually attend this? No. YABU

OP you think you have had your beliefs called into question, but your SIL has been honest with you rather than be hypocritical about the whole ceremony. IMO circumcision is fundamentally wrong for anything but medical reasons, the only thing that can 'justify' it religious faith. Your SIL doesn't share this faith so what did you realistically expect? Her feelings are her feelings and are as valid as anyone else's.

Actually your SIL was alot more tactful than I would have been if in her position. Altering a child in any way doesn't sit right with me, including ear piercing etc.

I think you are a huge hypocrite OP - FGM disgusts you but you are willing to do the equivalent to your son? FGM is done in alot of countries in the name of religion, removing a piece of anyones body against thier will is disgusting. Why not let him have the choice himself when he is old enough to make that decision?

There is an alternative ceremony you could have, the brit shalom.

Primafacie I probably know more circumcised men -Jewish, Turkish, Asians, Canadians, Americans- than all the "it's child abuse" brigade put together, and if you asked any of them whether they are traumatised or have less sexual satisfaction as a result of circumcision, the answer would be 100% NO. Randomised studies have produced the same outcome, so yes, there is actual data on the point.

Your point here is totally null and void. The vast majority of men who are circumcised in adulthood who have already experience sex with an intact penis report that a few years after the circumcision they lose most of the pleasure during sex as the exposed skin becomes toughened over time, this effect is even more pronounced in men who were circ'ed as babies. Quite frankly men who were circumcised as babies/children don't know what they are missing and would probably feel robbed if they did. There are countless men upset by thier circumcisions, go look online into the many support forums set up for these men who are very angry that this was done to them without consent, some even opt for foreskin reconstruction.

Quotes by men describing sex after adult circumcision:

Like sight without color
An orgasm for a circumcised man is similar to "each stroke" for an intact man
An orgasm for an intact man is 'incomparable to anything a circumcised man will ever experience.

And there are studies which prove this, this page has a link to the full article.

www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

Most of the 'benefits' in the link you supplied are not risks at all if the man practices safe sex (and plenty of studies disprove these 'benefits' anyway), the cleanliness 'benefit' has been disproved, the too tight foreskin in teens/adults is rare and can be resolved in other ways or as a last resort, circumcision in adulthood when the person can make the choice themselves, and penile skin cancer is even more rare. All so rare that it is not worth the health risk of circumcision in a baby. You do realise that some babies still die from circumcision don't you, circumcisions that are performed in hospitals, in a sterile environment by experienced doctors.

I think you were very naive to think that your sil would not have any problems with circumcision, especially as she is not Jewish and her husbands family are secular.

Maybe she shouldn't have used 'disgusted' but that depends on how much you quizzed her on her reasons. Respect her honesty and views.

It really baffles me why people 'pick and mix' this specific part of religion, why not wait until the boy is old enough to make his own choice.

"why people 'pick and mix' this specific part of religion, why not wait until the boy is old enough to make his own choice"

Because they think their belief that it should be done is more valid than a teenagers view that it shouldn't. Or because their need for acceptance is more important than their childs comfort and future happiness.

So all the men in the world who have been circumcised are bad lovers and may have erectile dysfunction and...wait for it...PERSONALITY DISORDERS?? Surely that's a new one!! .
So let's see, my husband has a personality disorder because he was circumcised...As do all the men in my family... Excuse me if I feel that, that is complete bullshit.

It is NOT abuse. Don't tell me that parents who have their child circumcised love their child any less than a person who doesn't.