To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

[EastofEast]

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.

Stumpetron, I could equally write that I hope you never have to face your son telling you he's got HIV, herpes or prostate cancer, and you then have to ask yourself whether you might have saved his life (or vastly improved his health and his quality of life) had you chosen to have him circumcised :) I know which of the two scenarios, yours or mine, I'd rather face.

This being said, 'Live and let live' is by far the most sensible you've said on this thread.

all the people I know do so for religious reasons. I'm muslim one son he had his done at a clinic. He cried for 1 hour after the anesthetic wore off after that he was happy and I was on holiday the next day, he gave us no trouble at all he was oblivious to the small procedure. I know Jewish people who have it done too again relgious.

Can't be done in hospital unless it's a private job. I went to a clinic, with a doctor who has been doing it many years.

You may get some con men but I've not met any, blowing it out of proportion to imply all these doctors in this profession are possibly not qualified.

I know in many African cultures it's done for cultural reasons and done on girls too, this is not the case for Jews and Muslims.

Frankly don't care if people think its barbaric, it's seems as if everything anyone outside of the western cultures do is deemed barbaric or backwards but western traditions and Norms are perfectly civilised. Excuse me if I feel bitter about this self important attitude.

Is that what you call Abraham?

Well that's the guy who was willing to murder his son to get in god's good books so I think calling him a pervert would be quite mild. Would you use him as a babysitter?

I wouldn't use any stranger + even most men I know as a babysitter.

Strumpetron was thinking of Mohammad when she said "old perv" (married an 8 yr old, dontchaknow?), and now she is dancing around trying to fit Abraham to the "perv" description - "fascination" with baby dicks etc.

You are welcome to come join her in this dance, though.

Ah yes the 'only get visions from god when sleeping with a 9 year old' thing.

Funny sort of god, that our morals now exceed its. Or is it possible that we are wrong about the whole sex with 9 year olds thing...maybe it is fine after all....well if its fine with, or even rewarded by, God then it must be okay surely?

You can tell the science adds up the pros and cons of circumcision and comes up negative because it isn't in the NICE guidelines.

That's what the NICE guidelines are for. Looking at all the interventions and the ratio of pros and cons for each and making a recommendation.

Now they change with time as more information becomes available and it may well be that one day the NICE guidelines will recommend circumcision. At that point I will stop thinking of people who do it is violating their babies bodily autonomy and recategorise them in my head to the same place as people who give vaccinations (following the guidelines). But until that point (and given the vast amount of counter indication for infant pain, breast feeding difficulties and the small to non-existent health benefits it seems unlikely that day will EVER come) I will continue to believe that people are hurting their babies unnecessarily and treating them like possessions in a way which frankly makes me feel more than a little sick.

I don't give a fuck if he's a holy man, a man who concerned himself with the penises of little boys has serious issues.

Health benefits were a thing of the future then ladies so lets look into the mind of a man who thought it was right to cut bits of baby boys.

No dance, just not a deluded mind. I'm sure if a man popped up nowadays claming to be a holy man and wanting us to cut off bits of our daughter's he'd be branded a perv. This is no different.

CoteDAzur you say "Strumpetron was thinking of Mohammad when she said "old perv" (married an 8 yr old, dontchaknow?),*

Well Strumpetron can confirm, but I'm pretty sure you misunderstood that. It was about Abraham 'starting it' meaning starting circumcision. Genesis 17 or thereabouts.

As for Mohammad - which you brought up - he was just a man of his time and saw nothing wrong with a child bride. You can't hold that against him.

Mind you it does mean Mohammad wasn't getting moral guidance from any god, but then we knew that anyway didn't we.

And I wasn't thinking of Mohammed in particular actually, so don't assume.

sorry cross posts

CoteDAzur I see I missed a comment from you further back.

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.

Right... so what happens if they don't do what Mohammad has said to do?

Oh yes definitely neither Abraham nor Mohammed should be held to account for the time period in which they lived. But how anybody alive today can believe in a God that supposedly supported and encouraged their actions is a total and utter mystery to me.

Your sexualisation of male circumcision says quite a lot about you and your way of thinking, strumpetron.

It's only in the Western mind that it's ever even been sexualised.

"what happens if they don't do what Mohammad has said to do?"

Re circumcision? Nothing. The uncircumcised boy in a Muslim country would probably be a bit ostracised (among other boys), and he will probably have trouble finding girlfriends & a wife.

Nothing like eternal hell fire is predicted for the uncircumcised.

BTW, according to the bible, Abraham circumised HIMSELF at the age of 93 as did all the men in his tribe at that point.

And it predates Abraham. The ancient Egyptians and the Canaanites also practiced male circumcision.

MarjorieDawes there was no such thing as circumcision then, please tell me why a person would take such an interest in the sexual organs of a child to actually come up with it.

I suspect sexual motives. which is quite fitting really since so many people here apparently do it because of the risk of STI's.

Strumpetron - re " I wasn't thinking of Mohammed in particular actually"

"In particular"? How many men were you thinking of when you said "Whoever thought of it in the beginning was a right nasty old perv anyway"?

Surely, there must have been one and only one man who must have thought of circumcision in the beginning. Chronologically, that was Abraham afaik, who lived 2600 years before Mohammad.

I was thinking of whoever started it actually. Marjorie has just stated it predates Abraham anyway.

Cote

Male circumcision predates Abraham even.

Apparently the ancient Egptians were also perverted.

I think, Strumperton, the reason you can't accept that others do not see circumcision as sexual is that you are suffering from cultural absolutism.

Do you actually know anyone who has been circumcised?

"please tell me why a person would take such an interest in the sexual organs of a child to actually come up with it"

It's not "of a child" but "of a person". Surely you realise that the idea is to have a circumcised penis for life, not just as a child.

To answer your question, though, possible reasons why Abraham thought to promote circumcision:
(1) God, creator of the universe, told him to do it
(2) He was an exceptionally clever man who saw that it was very difficult to keep the penis clean with the extreme heat, shortage of water, etc and realised that there might be a connection with disease.
(3) It was a sacrifice (much less bloody than filicide)

If you tried, I'm sure you would also be able to figure out some possible reasons why the practice of circumcision started in the world without assuming it was all about perving over the tiny penis of a baby.

Of course you were, Stumperton. That is why you said "old perv". Because you had no particular person in mind.

hmm okay so if it was God's idea...then what was Gods motivation supposed to be?

I mean if it was a health cleanliness thing then shouldn't God have been back more recently to say 'actually you can stop that now you have antibiotics etc.'

If he was demanding a sacrifice..then erm...well...I can't really think of a way to express how I would feel about an omnipotent all powerful being that can't survive without worship...I mean its all just a bit needy isn't it?

If it was Abrahams idea...then why can't we all listen to someone even more intelligent with even more evidence on their side in the current day as to whether or not it is still necessary?

Please can you help me to understand why people choose to have their sons circumcised when there is no medical need? Several years ago, a family at our primary school had their son circumcised - this particular family were Jewish and chose to have the procedure done at home, no anaesthetic, small family group present. The following week, baby was in hospital with a kidney infection. The baby's mum was most indignant that the hospital staff seemed to be blaming her during the few days that her son was on the ward. This was a highly intelligent, very caring family, and I didn't have the heart to say I agreed with the hospital as mum clearly felt that she had done the right thing for her son. I just don't understand why it is seen as so vital and I would like to - please help!

"Surely you realise that the idea is to have a circumcised penis for life, not just as a child. "

Yes well quite.....so you are happy about making a decision for an adult man about whether or not he should have a foreskin then? Coz it just seems like it should be his decision?

Icebeing

I don't believe in God and I'm not religious.

I know enough to know that male circumcision is considered a symbol of God's covenant. For religious Jewish people, this is a basic statement of faith and has huge cultural and religious significance.

The very fact that you mock it shows that you don't understand its significance in the slightest.

I'm not sure of how much it means in other cultures and faiths, but in Judaism it's central. AFAIK, Jewish baby boys are loved just as much as boys in other faiths/cultures and are just as able to function socially and sexually.

The suggestion of child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is quite simply risible (as well as offensive).