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.

It is claimed that FGM is religious practice too, I still think it's disgusting and should be banned.

How could a man who has never had his full penis know what it is like to have sex with it all there and why would he choose a position that he wishes it were never done? No one would so any comment from a man who has been circumcised needs to be treated with a pinch of salt.

It is not the same as ear piercing although countless british women would never have a girl's ears pierced anyway as it is lower class but that's a separate issue.

It is about genital mutilation. It is not as bad as FMG of course but it still is mutilation.

The more threads like this and publicity against it the better so that parents make informed choices and know what the rest of us think about their subjecting their boys to this procedure.

It was all about sand in the desert and disease originally when the Jews and Muslims came up with it. We are mostly no longer in the desert. The justification has gone such as it ever was.

I wouldn't have a babys ears pierced and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my class; it is because as a good human being I do not agree with hurting or altering people without their express permission.

Firstly, I do not agree with circumcision for a lot of the reasons posted above.

However I do agree strongly with this sentiment:
No matter how strongly one feels about it there is no excuse for using the word disgusting or any sort of rudeness when it comes to a religious occasion.

There are a lot of very anti-religious emotive statements on this thread which make me feel very uncomfortable. They are not anti-circumcision - they are seated in anti religion setting with little understanding or sympathy of how important religious traditions are - even if they are controversial.

If you are trying to make a point against circumcision there are ways that it can be a lot more civilised and will probably have more effect than going off on one about it. Religion should be treated with a bit more sensitivity than is being displayed here.

Making a petition isn't going to do anything. You have to gently persuade people to break from traditionals of their forefathers rather than forcing them to stop. Forcing it to be stopped is more likely to have the effect of alienating various groups and make them more determined to protect their right to do so and to be more determined to make sure the tradition is carried on. Thus having the exact opposite to what you want to achieve. As MrBloomsNursery pointed out, if you ban it, it will simply go underground in the same way abortion goes underground if you ban it. That would be a lot more damaging and dangerous to children.

It will take time to change attitudes but they are starting to. Rates are dropping in the US which has encouraged the practise for a long time. (To the people having a go at mathanxiety, medical opinion is different between the UK and US - there is a lot more support in the US and she is probably not going against professional opinion and did what she thought was best for her child)..

The Catholic position on birth control and particularly condoms is an interesting one. Despite religious doctrine, people are choosing to go against it. It shows that with the correct education to show benefits or problems, people are willing to go against religious teaching and choose what is what they perceive to be a better option.

As far as the law goes, because this is a religious issue there are powerful lobby groups which are likely to make it difficult, if not impossible to change the law in this country especially as it will be viewed as being a significant part of their religious identity and tradition which is also protected.

Just because she's not rude in any other way doesn't mean saying she finds the bris disgusting is not rude. It is.

She could have said she finds herself uncomfortable with the idea or she is squeamish. She could simply have kept her big mouth shut, stayed away, and sent a gift. What did she hope to accomplish by her bluntness? What good has her statement done as compared to the harm to family relationships?

Flangelina, there are many who think vaccination is in the same category as the one in which you place circumcision -- medically unnecessary (even potentially harmful), painful, permanent or at the very least long lasting, lacking the consent of the minor..

Mathanxiety, plucking and nail varnishing are not irreversible. Plucking doesn't hurt as much as having your flesh cut into. Lastly, they are things you voluntarily do to yourself, not someone else. So they aren't remotely comparable. I think the closest you get is ear piercing, but even then you let your children have it when they were older. There's obviously an argument about what age a child can give informed consent, and maybe 7 isn't old enough. But it's a sight closer to it than a few days old is. Ear piercing also isn't necessarily permanent: holes sometimes close up.

Your last sentence would be asking for a slap in real life. As we're online, I'll debunk it instead. There have been numerous examples throughout history of people slaughtering others for religious reasons (I should be clear that I'm not suggesting that circumcision is morally equivalent to this: mutliation isn't as bad as mass murder). There were, for example, Christians who massacred and forcibly converted Jews because they thought God was telling them to do so. Or Muslims, during the Crusades. I have no doubt someone will say this isn't really a part of Christianity, but nonetheless these people did what they thought God demanded. It was seen as a religious obligation- as circumcision is by Muslims, Jews and some others. People killing others because they think God is telling them too still happens today as well. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't tell the perpetrators of such actions they were being disgusting, should the opportunity arise? They are both cases of people doing things to others because they thought God was telling them to.

Additionally Mathanxiety, I don't want to start a vaccination debate. So I'll leave the medically advisable side out, and just point out that the level of mutilation is not comparable. As I understand it, people who object usually do so because they think it isn't safe.

The only way to assess whether sexual pleasure is adversely affected would be for a man circumcised after puberty to be able to compare his pre and post experiences. Neither a man who has never been circumcised nor one who has been circumcised since birth can really say one has a better time than the other.

The sand theory was discredited by British Army studies during wartime afaik. (The Army considered circumcising men sent to the N African theatre).

Quietlyafraid, could you clarify something for me please. Do you think people's religions shouldn't be insulted because theological beliefs are entitled to special treatment, or because it's a bad way to try and persuade people?

If the latter, I agree. We need to be sensible and tactical about this. People do get very tribal where religion and culture are concerned. I've done it myself. If the former, it's a sack of shit. Privileging people's views and actions because they think God told them to do it is madness! As I explained upthread, people have claimed that God has told them to do all kinds of hideous shit. I see no reason why older and more widely followed hideous shit merits special treatment over newly invented hideous shit.

I'd prefer to leave vaccination per se aside too, but there are a fair few people who think the internal messing around with the immune system that is involved, plus the introduction of elements such as aluminium adjuvants into the body, is just as much a warping of nature/mutilation as circumcision, and with more serious side effects. (As I said, all of my DCs are vaccinated to the eyeballs)

The OP's SIL probably had to come out with a strong statement as 'disgust' to make her opinion clear. I think if she had just stated that she disagreed with the practice the OP would have pushed her for a reason/justification.

If you prefer to leave vaccination aside, then don't bring it in! But even if a person thinks vaccination is totally unjustifiable for the reasons you mention, what would that have to do with circumcision? There must be any number of people who are opposed to both- it's not an either/or, is it?

Flangelina, applause for your reasoning regarding vaccination.

I was not slating Math for the choice she made at the time with the information available, she did what she thought was best at the time.

Crunchbag, Are you privileging a statement and making the speaker exempt from normal rules of civil discourse because her opinion of circumcision coincides with yours?

Why was it important to make her opinion clear? Did she really have some obligation to make her opinion known? Who or what obliged her to make her opinion known to the mother of the baby?

Religion has been the way of controlling people over the centuries in MY opinion, now with more openess people are seeing the light and some of the huge scams that it involves (see US church's ripping people off with hype), this control has been passed down and it will take a long time to sort it out, it is happening as the nonsense is being uncovered (see The end of the world Harold Camping total nonsense recently!).

Anyway, I joined mumsnet to learn about being a mother not get involved in fraud and mutilation, what is worrying is that there are fraudsters and barbarians out there mutilating children, that is what has got me riled, Religion is one large scam in my eyes, so I am going to leave it there with regards to this thread, and leave the other sensible and more tolerant people to continue with it as I may offend someone if I stay, and I don't want to do that.

Thanks Dutchgirl. I agree, nobody can be blamed for following their doctor's advice. Clearly there is no medical imperative for circumcision, but I wouldn't blame anyone who'd been told there was and acted accordingly. However, most of the advocates on this thread have other motivations.

No, it's not either/or (and I would really like to leave vaccination related issues themselves aside, i.e. whether anyone is for or against them and whatever their reasons are) but that doesn't preclude a comparison of the reasons people use for or against vaccination or for or against ear piercing, waxing, eyebrow plucking, etc. There are a lot of reasons for opposition to circumcision mentioned here, many of which could equally be applied to other practices that are accepted without a blink by society in general.

mathanxiety it depends why she said it. Of course she should have politely declined, but if she was asked why she is declining then she is entitled to express her opinion. In her position I wouldn't have used the word 'disgusting' but I would have given my reasons why if I was asked. If something is wrong in my eyes then a religious motive or reason doesn't make it right.

sorry math , I'm answering your question to Crunchbag. I just disagree with your view that religious practices shouldn't be criticised simply because they are religious.

"Do you think people's religions shouldn't be insulted because theological beliefs are entitled to special treatment, or because it's a bad way to try and persuade people?"

Hmm a bit of both. I don't think they are mutually exclusive actually. I do think theological beliefs should have special treatment - in other words you have to recognise the importance to other people and the sense of feeling they provoke and be prepared that its going to take longer to convert hearts and minds. Going in without giving it special treatment just leads to problems and is a bad way to persuade people.

People DO do things that they would otherwise see as irrational or unacceptable because of the 'God factor'. You can't argue directly with the word of God and frankly I think its pointless to try to. its a different kind of rational. I do not think that a Jew or a Muslim parent is an abuser - I think they see it as doing something that is in the best interests of their child. I'm pretty sure the women on this thread who have had their children circumcised share exactly the same views on child abuse to any of the other people on this thread and suggest differently is naive and insulting to them.

Its a difficult concept to get your head around but its the key to solving the problem. Parents very rarely do anything that isn't in the best interest of their child. Its all a matter of perception and what they consider most important - and that can include spiritual beliefs. Which shouldn't simply be tactless and belittle them as being less important than medical ones.

You have to also remember that medical evidence can also be seen by many as controversial. Think of the number of scientific studies on various medical things that have opposing views out there or have since been shown to not be correct. They can also heavily influenced by political agendas. Not everyone has the same level as faith in medicine and science as being fact as others. Some people will just see anti-circumcision views in the context as being Western Imperialism or Christian superiority. The God Factor needs to be respected whether you think its a bs excuse or not unfortunately. Ignore it at your peril.

There is proof of less sensitivity receptors in the exposed glans, makes sense really. It's called keritinisation (sp) where the exposed skin is harder and more resilient. Men circumcised in adulthood can experience more sensitivity for a short time, but this eventually fades as the skin toughens up.

MrBloom. I'm sure you understand in a reasonable debate when one talks about outcomes of circumcision they are talking about real possibilities and not absolutes. So the men that step up and say they feel the their own non consenting circumcision was an act of abuse and has left them emotionally damaged it is not for you to belittle, but accept.

Masturbation is more difficult to do with a circumcised penis as is the initial part of penetrative sex as the glans is dry. There are reasons our bodies are designed as they are.

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, whilst 320 men die of penile cancer 32 will have been circumcised.

mathanxiety, not because we have the same opinion about circumcision but because she has the right to give her opinion. I don't think that a 'no thank you' would have been accepted by the OP.

And if you read back, you will see that I agreed that the word 'disgust' might not have been the best to use.

I don't think religion is a good enough excuse to commit this morally bankrupt repugnant act on one's child. It's bad enough to do it for health reasons, especially under the advice of the WHO, which tailors it's studies for the third world, given that most people who circumcise their child won't be breastfedding for two years.

I'm sure that there is a lot of religious people see non-religious people as morally bankrupt.

Therein lies your problem.

And don't get me started on WHO... It has a pretty spectacular track record on political agendas and making conclusions up based on results which prove exactly the opposite. Which sadly completely undermines its position and the respect it gets from certain groups.

Most Jewish mothers I know prefered not to watch their son's brit as they knew it would upset them.

One good friend of mine, however, felt she owed it to her son to look him in the eye while it was done. She said what she saw will haunt her for life, as his little mouth formed a perfect O of pain, his eyes rolled back in his head and he passed out. She told me more but I'll spare you the awful details. What she told me that day removed any last doubt I had about how barbaric ritual circumcision is.