Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

578 replies

EastofEast · 20/10/2013 20:31

We get on very well with our neighbours and are pretty close but I was a bit shocked today, one of those moments where you find you really have opposing views on something quite fundamental.

Neighbour has a (gorgeous) two week old boy. She knocked on the door earlier to return my car keys (went to get a new battery for hers in my car) and I mentioned her new ds was unsettled for the first time ever; joking maybe he wasn't the perfect baby after all. My baby is demanding much more vocal about her needs. She said it was because he was circumcised today. I must have looked a little put off, I don't agree with it at all, as she then said 'oh he's doing really well. We were lucky the doctor came to house to do this one, all the others had to go to a clinic'. I was stunned, I'm amazed you're allowed to do such a thing at home in such an unregulated way. Frankly I wouldn't allow any deliberate harm to come to a child that wasn't medically necessary, but considering some people do do it I thought the rules would be tighter. We're both from (different) backgrounds which circumcise, although I refused to change my son, and I knew she'd do it after a related chat about whether fgm was that bad over a coffee one day but it's still upset me a bit the way it's done. The poor little thing is grumpy with loads of adults around to celebrate the event passing him round and round at 8.30pm.

I know the circumcision vs no circumcision has been done already, and not everyone shares my strong views, but at home? Should this be ok? I can't think of other similar procedures happening in a similar environment.

OP posts:
BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 13:47

oh I get it now. You were unaware that the reference to blood in my other post was to a real thing and not a mystical image at all.

Some - not all - circumcisions include the rabbi sucking the penis of the baby to clean the blood off. This is a real thing happening now in the 21st century in the US/UK. There has been concern about the number of cases where the child was infected this way with herpes and such. There are medical reports. Discussions with prominent rabbis over the need for this part of the process and so on.

Not mystical, not a parable, but simply facts.

Frankly I'm amazed you didn't know.

And once again I must remind Jews, Christians and Muslims that I don't care which you are. it's like different flavors of marmalade as far as I'm concerned. It's egocentric to imagine that I would care which you are. I guess it seems important to you, but fiction is fiction.

HungryGeorge · 22/10/2013 13:53

I know two men who were both circumcised around age 7, one for medical reasons and the other for cultural, both described it as excruciatingly painful and the guy who was done because of culture said he cried for a week, couldn't wear pants at all and even if his shirt brushed against it it was agonising, not to mention trying to pee :(

SamG76 · 22/10/2013 13:56

BOB

I seriously doubt if metztizah b'peh (the practice you're referring to) happens in the UK. We've been to at least 75 brittot, including ultra-orthodox ones, and have never seen it or heard it even suggested. Maybe it happens in some closed haredi communities in New York. It does suggest you're taking your info from some US site.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:11

Well the BBC I believe was the last place I saw it, but does it matter even which country? Presumably you are not ashamed of it/trying to deny it? It is for the glory of god after all.

Here we have The head of London’s strictly Orthodox rabbinate and 200 Rabbis telling people to break the law if the practise is banned in the US. Presumably he is ok with it happening here too?.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 22/10/2013 14:11

Worra, perhaps it would. But not for the reason of wanting to not make you feel uncomfortable.

And it isn't easy, nor is it self-evident that we should make this change. If you think it is, you're failing to empathise. Many Jews have died rather than give up their religious practice, including circumcision, at the behest of outsiders. If the brit caused a great deal of pain, or routinely caused psychological injuries, Jews would weigh this differently. But it patently doesn't: "some" is not the same as "a great deal" and "routinely" is not the same as "the odd few cases here and there".

YourMaNoBraBackOfMyCar · 22/10/2013 14:15

Shortly after giving birth to my ds I tenderly handed him to my fil (who despite being from pakistan and part of a strict muslim family isn't a dedicated follower of the religion anymore). My fil told me not to worry and that he'd organise the circumcision. Over my dead body I told him.Hmm I was then accused of being drugged up from the birth. I was to be fair. Anyway dh did a sterling job of kicking his folks out. Dh presumed our child would be "done" as it was just normal to him. But when I made it clear that our child would be keeping all his body parts dh stood up to his dad.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:20

It would be ok I guess if it were your pain, but it's the pain you're inflicting on someone else and I've seen no evidence that it is a small amount of pain. Only that the baby is too small to resist.

One argument goes that they forget the pain. Not sure how that justifies it, but I can see the advantage of that. Last thing you want is your grown son remembering and turning up one night with some rope and wire cutters.

If I sign up for a religion that promotes beating my next door neighbour with a stick is it morally ok for me to do so or should the neighbour have a say in it?

SamG76 · 22/10/2013 14:20

BOB - I wouldn't assume that at all. Dayan Padwa is supporting colleagues in the closed Charedi communities, where the legal position and tradition is completely different from here. I've been to a number of brittot in his Adath community, and no mitzitzah b'peh.

crescentmoon · 22/10/2013 14:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:28

Well it seems strange to me that god commands him to approve of something in the US and disapprove of it here, but if you say so. It's almost as if god is not involved and it's just human preference.

None of this is relevant anyway. If someone took a child to france and abused him it wouldn't be any less important to me. Getting bogged down in locations and details.

Thou shalt not hurt a child should be the first commandment. Before the ones about sucking up to god to get in his good books and be rewarded.

CoteDAzur · 22/10/2013 14:29

So the assumption is that doctors don't know what is for the good of the baby and what is not?

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:32

crescentmoon yes that's why it should be illegal.

As for 'well meaning' I'm quite sure that many Jewish, Muslim and Christian parents do it for what they think are good reasons. They are not all monsters you know.

They think it's normal because brought up to it just as the family in the UK that tried to torture the demons from their child with a hammer were doing it for the child's benefit. The kids immortal soul is more important than their earthly body right?

CoteDAzur · 22/10/2013 14:33

"Thou shalt not hurt a child" ever, even if it's for his own good?

You do realise I hope that these parents believe that's circumcision is for the good of their babies.

If your answer to the above is affirmative, the world might have to rethink its views on vaccination, orthodontics (hurting a child over long months just so his teeth will be slightly prettier), etc.

thebody · 22/10/2013 14:33

couldn't give a shite whether people who do this are religious or not.

it's still barbaric if you are Jewish, Muslim, Canadian or of no religion or creed whatsoever.

mutilating babies is wrong. abiding and inflicting pain is wrong and despicable in babies and ch

Writerwannabe83 · 22/10/2013 14:34

Why do people think circumcision is good for their child though??
That's what I don't understand.....

thebody · 22/10/2013 14:36

having braces fitted requires the child's consent. vaccinations have been proven over decades to prevent serious illnesses. they are a second of discomfort.

mutilating generals has absolutely no benefit ( except for medical reasons) and is extremely painful, irreversible, non consensual and barbaric child abuse.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 22/10/2013 14:39

BoB, "I've seen no evidence that it is a small amount of pain" - you do realise that no-one besides you has used the phrase "a small amount of pain", right? I used the word "some". If what you meant was "I've seen no evidence that it is only some pain and not a great deal" - have you looked? Have you found evidence that it is a great deal of pain?

CoteDAzur · 22/10/2013 14:40

BOB - You are using Christian terminology and talking about Christian issues. Muslims don't circumcise to get their "immortal souls" into heaven. They circumcise because it's "cleaner" & more hygienic and because they want to live like Mohammad & do what he has said to do.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:41

CoteDAzur come on. I just said 'they think there are good reasons'.

Comparing it to vaccination only works if you can show that they are in danger if not circumcised.

You may try to argue that it's safer for medical reasons - people do. The arguments are thin, but more importantly are NOT the arguments for circumcision in the first place. I'd ask anyone who tried to use the 'it's healthier' argument what they would do if it was shown to be seriously dangerous. Because it's their religion they'd have to say "well I'd do it anyway".

CoteDAzur · 22/10/2013 14:49

"having braces fitted requires the child's consent"

Really? Like an independent panel of psychologists assesses whether the child consents to orthodontic treatment before it starts? Hmm

A child being circumcised gives exactly the same kind of "consent" - he is told it will hurt a bit but it will be ok, "look, everyone else is doing it" etc. He goes there out of his own will, in his white costume and lets his penis be handled & foreskin cut in an instant.

"mutilating generals has absolutely no benefit"

You are wrong. There are ample studies and meta-analyses that show beyond any doubt that circumcised men are less susceptible to STDs, notably HIV. The WHO is advocating male circumcision in Africa, iirc.

And of course removing a bit of skin is not "mutilation" which suggests permanent loss of function.

About 1/3 of the world's male population is circumcised. If it was such a big deal for them, I honestly think we would have heard about it by now. From the circumcised men themselves and not from bored mums on MN, that is.

CoteDAzur · 22/10/2013 14:52

"Comparing it to vaccination only works if you can show that they are in danger if not circumcised. "

I agree that orthodontics works better.

No danger if braces are not fitted and teeth pulled straight over an agonising year or so. So why do parents do it? How can they be allowed? Just so it looks nice?!?

Given your "first commandment" Thou shalt not hurt a child, that is.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:57

HomeHelpMeGawd I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that it is certainly more than a small amount of pain, but less than a great deal. Then you demand proof that you are wrong.

Any amount of pain inflicted on another for the good of the person doing the inflicting is an atrocity.

the WHO is advocating male circumcision in Africa, iirc. any signs of them advocating it in Essex?

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 14:58

CoteDAzur How about putting kids through pain so that their parents teeth became straighter? Would that be ok?

Cuddlydragon · 22/10/2013 14:59

I agree that it is barbaric to mutilate children's genitals in the name of religion or culture. It should be utterly illegal. I'm afraid I wouldn't be bothered about it being done at home as opposed to a clinic, I'd just be bothered either way.

FoxMulder · 22/10/2013 15:02

Can't say I found having braces agonising. Plus, I was about 13 or 14 when I had them, so old enough to know I wanted them. Would it not cause you problems if you have really crooked teeth? What with it being free on the NHS, I assume there is a medical benefit. Also, in my case at least, the results are not permanent!