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.

Can any of the Muslims or Jews on this thread who support circumcision say a bit about why God would want them to do this to their babies? What purpose does it serve? That's a sincere question btw and not meant as a hostile challenge.

And most problems with penises can be treated with ABs and better hygiene.

Can you please quote the source of the evidence stating that teh removal of a foreskin early in life is dramatically less risky than it would be later?

mathanxiety

So you are not denying that the removal of sensitive tissue reduces sensation, but your opinion is that this might not reduce sexual pleasure and intimacy.

Your position does not invalidate an opinion which differs from your own

(especially one which, in my own opinion, makes more sense).

I was just wondering how your opinion would play, if you asserted that the removal of sensitive tissue from female infants might not reduce sexual pleasure and intimacy.

The recovery is far faster and far less complicated, with no stitches required. Erections really have the potential to throw a spanner in the works if circumcision is done after puberty.

Of course children die after vaccinations .

My son is circumcised. If I had to do it all over again, I would not do it. If I have another son, he will remain intact.

However, I have never seen an uncircumcised man in real life, and only know a handful of males who are not circumcised. I'm pretty sure they all have fairly decent sex lives...

DH was circumcised at around the age of 4 for medical reasons. However, this was back in the past where surgeons seemed to be more eager to carry out minor surgery than they are now (tonsils out at the first sore throat etc etc). DH suspects that it wasnt really necessary just one of those things which was done without too much thought (more than 40 years ago).

DH would rather it had not been done. He has nothing to compare it with but does suspect that he has missed out in some way.

Anyone? Why does God want babies circumcised?

Just got back online after hectic day (and it got a bit late last night after going through the other posts!). Sincerely hope nobody has been waiting with bated breath for my reactions!

Could not actually find online citations or links as good as the ones in the textbooks (not just for facts but for concise summary of potentially confusing notes)...these are the clearest basic ones, for nonmedical readers I could get. (I assume the objectors from a medical background here can look up their own Medline links). These 2 are the best I've managed to get:

kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html (American, but would still be relevant in UK)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-214 (one of the better wikipedia entries out there)

I certainly wouldn't be recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for all male infants, but if a boy's parents from a Jewish or a Muslim family wanted it done, I wouldn't be hesitant - I would just advise using sufficient pain relief and ensuring that hygienic and safe methods were used, and that a well trained and experienced practitioner did it, whether that be inside or outside a hospital. It's a very, very long history of Jewish and Islamic civilisation we are talking about - and parents are often very well educated and articulate individuals (who don't need to "follow the crowd") who have thought things through - we're not talking about individuals from villages with animistic beliefs and poor/no formal education.

There is a telling statement in one of the links in the wiki article to the Australian Medical Association review that the problem with decisions like this is that, if the child grows up and wishes he had had it done (if he gets painful balanitis and needs it done as an adult) or a child grows up and wishes he hadn't had it done, you can't turn the clock forward and backward and wonder what your son would have wanted.

There are other procedures done for children (male and female) that don't always have oerwhelming evidence for them to be done - tonsillectomy (after three bouts? after two bouts? after one bout that occurred during Common Entrance exam?), appendisectomy/appendectomy (although with better diagnostic technology now we are lucky not to face the same dilemma as often as we used to), even cochlear implantation for certain kinds of hearing loss. Parental medical decisions are actually greyer than we would like to think they are.

Yes, children can die from this intervention as from any other - one 14 year old girl died from ear piercing. But that doesn't mean I will forbid or urge parents never to let a girl get her ears pierced.

I do of course recognise (even without directly being present at a Bris - I was sick at the time my then baby relative had his) that it is an extremely painful procedure - I am very sorry to hear about the traumatic time Annie's friend had. At the end of the day, parents have to decide for their own children. I would not however tell Muslim and Jewish friends that their decision to circumcise is barbaric any more than I would hope they would ever criticise my decision to let my children participate in Easter Egg hunts or put out carrots and biscuits to wait for Santa Claus.

Are uncircumcised men unusual in the states fearful?

Whilst routine circumcision is now on the decline in the US for infants a large majority of US adult males will have had it done when they were babies.

PJ -- I am saying that whatever reduction of sexual pleasure for men that occurs is insignificant on an individual basis or circumcision would not be done, and that it is impossible to measure from man to man how much sexual pleasure is experienced.

I object to the conflation of FGM and male circumcision in these debates. The idea that there is a comparison either in context or in effect is misleading. FGM is done usually in societies where girls and women are second class citizens and virginity upon marriage is vital to the marriageability and thus the economic future of the girl. There is no corresponding victimisation or stigma of boys or men associated with circumcision. FGM used to be called female circumcision but is now called mutilation in order to emphasise the severity of the effects compared to the effects of circumcision.

I would not advocate the removal of sensitive tissue from a girl unless there was some medical indication for doing so and to the best of my knowledge there is none. FGM, to which you are obliquely referring, rarely involves just the removal of a little tissue even with the least cutting done. The sexual effects are almost always significant when FGM is performed. It is done with the specific intent to damage a woman's sexual response and it is usually successful.

Uncircumcised men are definitely in the minority in the US. The rate of infant circumcision there has dropped to about 60%. It used to be much higher.

Here are some global figures.

Yes, Methe. I remember one guy in my class was uncircumcised and it was the subject of much (good natured) banter. I worked in a daycare for years and remember three boys in all that time who were not circumcised. None of the men I've slept with (not that there have been tons mind you ) have been uncircumcised.

Please - can anyone explain the religious rationale for circumcision?

I keep thinking about the fact that before very recent advances in medicine this procedure would have been much, much riskier and more painful. Still is in many parts of the world where it is being done. Is anyone aware of the faith explanation for it? Other than 'Because God says so'.

MA
"PJ -- I am saying that whatever reduction of sexual pleasure for men that occurs is insignificant on an individual basis or circumcision would not be done, and that it is impossible to measure from man to man how much sexual pleasure is experienced."

So you say it is impossible to say how much effect the removal on sensitive tissue has, yet you allege that it is in insignificant?

That's some kind of a guess is it?

You object to speaking of infant genital mutilation of males and females together, on cultural grounds? That's handy for you. If you admitted that they could be compared, you would be on the slippery slope of having to say that removal of sensitive tissue is damaging, and having to discuss how much, or how little, tissue damage has how much, or little, effect. Luckily you can avoid that because the voices in your head have told you it is insignificant for males.

Yet again posters are ignoring the pain and risks of circumcision, or diminishing it like it means nothing. Whatever eases the conscience, I guess.

Without wishing to make fun of religious argument, there is none. It's just a random request, in a list of 'don't have sexual fun' rules. Weirdly many of these rules already existed in ancient Eygpt, funny that God is never original. It's almost like religion stole them. Why Americans do it, except for the puritanical "for fuck's sake don't wank", is beyond me.

Um. Americans wank. And the "for fuck's sake don't do it" attitude went out in the 50's.

If it was significant, then I think I am safe to assume no men would have it done, yet men do pay for circumcision as adults and for a variety of non-medical reasons. It's not a guess to say that men would not willingly get circumsised if there was going to be any significant difference. I am absolutely certain that if there were significant sexual side effects those men would absolutely never get it done.

My objection is not on cultural grounds. My objection is to the jumping on the bandwagon that has occurred and the effect it has had of minimising the problem of FGM. It's part of the 'what about the menz?' trend. The two cannot be compared because they are done to two completely different populations in different contexts, for completely different reasons and have completely different results.

Fearful. I am thinking about it's introduction rather than the reasoning people still do it!! (sorry if that did not come across)

math. stats about how many men do it for anything other than medical.

And rubbish that it stamps on FGM what about the menz, it does no such thing. In fact if men weren't circumcised I think FGM would be seen as even worse.

Do not pollute the waters of feminism by suggesting that objections to mutilating babies in patriarchal cultures (very patriarchal cultures that are already pretty shit for women/mothers) whereby mothers are required to leave the room whilst harm is done to their babies is all okay by the feminists because it's a baby boys penis.

Quite disgusting to even suggest such a thing. This is a patriarchal evil, toward a child.

There is a difference sexually but no man will really know because they don't know anything difference from what they know.

As for what God thinks - if you make someone in yhour own image and that person rejects that image and chops bits of the body then you are insulting God who probably looks down shaking her head at the mess men have made of things.

Sorry but haven't read the whole thread - don't have time right now!

I will say though - I agree with the OP. But that's probably just me. I'm engaged to a Christian and even though I'm an atheist who hasn't been christened etc, our DS is due to be Christened in January/February, simply because I know that it's a tradition for the family and although I may object to it, I knew what I was getting in for when I accepted his proposal.

It's a rite of passage that he believes all children should go through and to be quite honest I don't want to stamp my feet and refuse to go along with it because the argument that it would incur is not worth destroying my relationship with my in-laws for! Some things just aren't worth starting wars over.

She should be a little bit considerate towards your beliefs. She doesn't need to convert but at the same time she should still accept your customs.

Fearful. I am thinking about it's introduction rather than the reasoning people still do it!! (sorry if that did not come across)

math. stats about how many men do it for anything other than medical.

And rubbish that it stamps on FGM what about the menz, it does no such thing. In fact if men weren't circumcised I think FGM would be seen as even worse.

Do not pollute the waters of feminism by suggesting that objections to mutilating babies in patriarchal cultures (very patriarchal cultures that are already pretty shit for women/mothers) whereby mothers are required to leave the room whilst harm is done to their babies is not okay by the feminists because it's a baby boys penis.

Quite disgusting to even suggest such a thing. This is a patriarchal evil, toward a child.

Maths "If it was significant, then I think I am safe to assume no men would have it done"

I think it is safe to say that no infant who suffers genital mutilation has requested it or consented to it. You will recall that's one of the strong objections to it.

I just love your guess assumption that it isn't significant, and I'm glad you are accepting that mutilation which removes sensitive tissue does cause damage and loss of sensitivity. It's a pity your disparaging reference to mutilated male babies as "menz" gives the impression that you have no concern for them, purely based on sexual prejudice.

Well seeing as this thread is coming to a close, I just want to say that no matter how vile or barbaric you try to make this out to be, you can't change a person's faith or culture, as OP has shown.

Children have been circumcised for centuries - the human race still lives on.

Do NOT have the audacity to come on a forum like this and quote baby deaths after circumcision. I could sit here and quote baby deaths due to PROMS or premature birth or smoking/drinking whilst pregnant. Absolutely vile and evil minded people would try to make out a mother is harming their child on purpose.

That's all I have to say on the matter.