Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

about SIL and DS1's Bris (circumcision) ?

999 replies

imlikeaironingboard · 25/10/2011 01:05

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.

OP posts:
CardyMow · 26/10/2011 01:06

I also believe Americans that cut parts off their newborn babies for non-medical reasons are no different. I see it as no different to pulling a baby's nails out with pliers without anaesthetic. Still Abuse IMO. I don't think you are YET an abusive parent, imlikeaironingboard - but if you go ahead and cut bits off your baby then you will be. It has nothing to do with your religion OR your culture, it has to do with the fact that only abusive parents cut bits off their babies body without anaesthetic, without a medical reason. It would be the same if it was their ear, their foot, their finger OR their foreskin. All body parts.

If anyone cut off a DIFFERENT part of your baby's body without anaesthetic, OP, would you so blase and dismissive of it? If not then you are a HYPOCRITE. I hold no truck with the fact that your religion or culture tells you to do it - if your religion or culture told you to cut your sons EAR off to be acepted would you do it? Or would you stand up for your child then? You refuse to answer this. Why is it different because it is a part of his genitals?

WHY should religion or culture make this acceptable? It Is no different to FGM in as much as it is a mutilation authorised on the basis of a religion or culture - and EVERYONE thinks FGM is barbaric, so why is it different when it is a boy? I DO think non-medical circumcision should be made illegal - it is legalised child abuse IMO.

breadandbutterfly · 26/10/2011 01:18

Just to give a little perspective here, approx 30% of men worldwide, or 77% of US men, or 58% of Australian men, are circumcised.

If the (largely female) posters on here want to view them all as irretrievably traumatised, or assume they all suffer sexual problems that's up to them, but frankly it seems rather unlikely to me.

breadandbutterfly · 26/10/2011 01:27

I also assume that as these practices continue, that dads who were themselves circumcised, far from resenting this deeply, as would be natural if it was as awful as suggested by some above, feel positive enough about the experience to choose to give the same experience to their own sons.

So who do we believe? Women who've never experienced it, or men who have? I'm happy to listen to the men here...

ohnoshedittant · 26/10/2011 01:31

I don't know the stats, but a lot of people have piercings and seem fine, not irretrievably traumatised at all.

Doesn't mean it is ok to punch a hole in/chop a bit off someone elses body without their consent (unless for medical reasons obv).

If you are the amongst the small percentage of men where it did go wrong, I'm not sure how much comfort you'd get from 'yeah, your penis is irretrievably damaged coz we mutilated you as a baby, but 58% of Australian men have it done and most of them are fine!'

ohnoshedittant · 26/10/2011 01:32

or ''yeah, your penis is irretrievably damaged coz we mutilated you as a baby, but your dad had it done and he's fine!'

ohnoshedittant · 26/10/2011 01:35

In cultures were they practice FGM, it is usually carried out by women who would also have had it done as a child. The practice continues....do you think that's ok as well?

breadandbutterfly · 26/10/2011 01:52

But lots of people do pierce baby's ears - do you make a big fuss over that too?

Do you have any statistics on damage done through circumcision versus medical problems caused by not being circumcised?

I don't really wish to get drawn into an argument, as it's not my AIBU - I only have 1 ds, and his was done years ago, so it's a bit theoretical for me, as I could hardly reverse it even if I wished to (which I don't).

I do however know loads of circumcised men and not a single one has ever expressed the slightest regret for it, whether their choice or not.

If one of them was posting here, then fair enough. But it all seems to be women with no actual experience posting for some reason.

Northernlurker · 26/10/2011 01:52

Oh I see - calling her a child abuser and wishing that she suffer pain and expressing disgust and anger at her choice - repeatedly - that's persuasion is it? Leaving aside those personal attacks which have already been deleted.

differentnameforthis · 26/10/2011 06:47

Also, there is no knife used in circumcisions anymore

Maybe not, but they do use an instrument to separate the foreskin from the penis so it falls off easily. That involves pushing said instrument under the foreskin & forcibly detaching it.

diddl · 26/10/2011 07:14

If it´s such a small thing to have done, why doesn´t the child decide for himsely at 12/13 for example?

GalloweesG · 26/10/2011 07:32

There is a growing movement of "Intactivists" who are men who are angry that they were circumcised for no good reason as a child, some have been damaged by it, some feel that their sexual experience has been compromised and some who feel its just plain cruel. This movement is getting bigger and bigger and falling circumcision numbers worldwide are proof that parents are no longer blindly following their faith.

There are plenty of reported deaths after newborn circumcision, not something I would be bestowing on my precious baby.

CardyMow · 26/10/2011 08:07

Breadandbutterfly - YES I DO feel the same way about people who choose to get a babies ears pierced - they are not old enough to consent to the pain of a piercing, therefore it shouldn't be done.

Have you been on MN long? Have you seen how many judgy threads are started about people who pierce their baby's ears?

If it is a necessary part of the religion or culture to be circumcised - why can it not wait until the child is old enough to give INFORMED CONSENT to have this done (at least 13yo), and it be done in a MEDICAL ENVIRONMENT under ANAESTHETIC.

I don't need personal experience to say that non-medical circumcision is wrong FFS - do I need personal experience to say that FGM is wrong? Oh, well you haven't had your clitoris cut off, so you are not allowed an opinion on whether it is right or wrong? Oh, you haven't had your foreskin cut off, so you are not allowed an opinion on whether it is right or wrong?

And I am not saying the OP is a child abuser yet- merely that the act of cutting off a part of her newborn baby for a non-medical reason without an anaesthetic, IS child abuse, just as much as FGM is classed as by people who willingly circumcise (like the OP). TOTAL double standards and HYPOCRISY. No-one will EVER change my opinion on that, IMO this barbaric, archaic, abusive practice SHOULD be made ILLEGAL, and anyone who does it should be locked up for CUTTING BITS OFF A BABY IN THE SAME WAY SOMEONE WOULD IF THEY CUT A BABY'S EAR OR FINGER OR FOOT OFF FOR A NON-MEDICAL REASON.

differentnameforthis · 26/10/2011 08:09

SamG Just because you don't know of a male who has expressed upset at not having a foreskin, doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

As for sons being upset when they find out what has happened to them, none of my friends or their DP's and no-one in my extended family has ever expressed the slightest concern about it. They would probably be more irritated to find out that they have been excluded from the community

Perhaps you need to read this

GColdtimer · 26/10/2011 08:10

117 baby boys die in the US each year from complications arising from circumcision. Will link to the study if I can work out who to do it on my iPhone. That is comparable to the number if baby boys dying from SIDS. All for a completely pointless procedure.

Not that there is probably any point as the op is going ahead with this no matter what Sad

GColdtimer · 26/10/2011 08:12

over 100 infant deaths

GuillotinedMaryLacey · 26/10/2011 08:21

One out of every 77 male neonatal deaths? Shock And that's presumably in hospital, as an unnecessary medical procedure with all the necessary precautions.

CardyMow · 26/10/2011 08:25

That is such a SHOCKING statistic. And that is when they are carried out in hospital in better conditions than many infant circumcisions are carried out in. Which means the statistics for neonatal deaths attributable to infant circumcision outside a hospital are probably higher than one in 77 neonatal deaths.

And a 'loving' parent is willing to risk that for the sake of tradition / culture / religion, without question. Sad. Why would ANYONE want to put that risk there? For their NEWBORN BABY?

nenevomito · 26/10/2011 08:30

low incidence of cervical cancer in Jewish Women - and I'm all for saving women's lifes, but there you go.

This isn't a very useful debate - actually it not a debate at all its a group of posters with the bit between their teeth hurling abuse at the OP. I think KRITIQs post was very insightful and reasoned.

fatlazymummy · 26/10/2011 08:30

breadandbutterfly it doesn't matter if 100% of men who are circumcised are 100% happy with it. That doesn't give them the right to make that decision for another human being [unless of course it is a medical decision].

seeker · 26/10/2011 08:40

There is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among any group of people who for whatever reason have had only one sexual partner. This is not to do withcircuscision- it is to do with the transmission of the HPV virus.

GalaxyWeaver · 26/10/2011 08:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GalloweesG · 26/10/2011 08:41

Low incidence of cervical cancer in Nuns too.

seeker · 26/10/2011 08:45

"I just hadn't noticed much condemnation of Americans here, that's all."

If there was a rule, that nobody could explain, that said in order to be an American, boy babies had had to be circumcised, and Americans went along with it "I don't know why I'm doing this thing, but that's what we do so that's what I do" then I would be just as quick to condemn.

I find the suggestion that to question the practice is anti Semitic deeply offensive.

PosiesOfPoison · 26/10/2011 08:49

Of ffs KRITIQS. Really? You want to make this religious intolerance do you? Not about the baby's penis anymore? That's the whole point isn't it? Someone's 'beliefs' over the pain and suffering of a child.

There are campaigns in America but as not many people are aware it happens or that it's wrong they don't get a lot of press. It's a bit late isn't it, for most. And only some people are adversely affected so it's a non issue for most Americans, who don't even protest much about thousands of blacks displaced and treated like shit following the floods, so I'm not going to think if Americans think it's okay it must be.

I wonder when it comes down to the procedure OP how you will manage. How you will hold your baby or hand him over, how you will pretend that the cries are nothing, the blood is nothing, the scabs are nothing, how you will convince yourself that it's okay and not question your role as a mother, as the ultimate protector of your baby.