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:
loveandsmiles · 21/10/2013 17:51

My DH is from the Middle East and was circumcised when 6 years old, at home, at a party for the occasion and he still vividly remembers the pain.

When our DS was born we spoke to the hospital and the NHS advised they would not circumcise him until he was 1 and it would be under general anaesthetic. Muslim religion or not, we could not subject our son to this ~ every operation carries a risk, which we weren't prepared to take.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 19:32

Honestly, I'd be more worried about giving general anesthesia to a 1-year-old.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 19:55

Absolutely disgusting how this is still allowed.

Mutilating someone for any reason, religious or nay is wrong.

I don't understand why ANYONE would invest so much thought into their sons penis - medical reasons excused.

cory · 21/10/2013 20:07

I would have thought if it is to be done at all, the risks of infection are less in the home than in a hospital: ime even most doctors acknowledge that hospitals aren't exactly places you got to avoid infection.

ElleBelly · 21/10/2013 20:13

Circumcision without medical need is awful. I actually find it very upsetting that people inflict this barbaric practice on their children.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 20:22

"I didn't even know this was a Muslim 'thing'... "

There are people in this world who are not aware that Muslim & Jewish men are circumcised?

"... as my nephew is Muslim but is not circumcised"

Without meaning to be nosy - What kind of Muslim is that? I'm asking because I have not heard of any Muslim man being uncircumcised. Unless there is a condition that prohibits it, I suppose.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 20:35

"Cote I apologise for saying I didn't believe you"

Thanks, Wilson Thanks

However, re: "I don't need to consider anything."

Why are you talking to us, if you are not interested in considering what others say?

"If I wished to consider your assertion I'd like to see some proof"

You need proof that the operation for a congenital malformation might be different than a ritual one? It sounds plausible to me but of course impossible to know for sure without knowing what exactly your DS's problem was.

loveandsmiles · 21/10/2013 21:11

cote it's because of general anaesthetic that we wouldn't get it done and wouldn't want it done at home either incase of any problems. We initially thought the hospital would do it with a local anaesthetic but this was not the case so we didn't proceed.

WilsonFrickett · 21/10/2013 21:12

I didn't actually say a thing about the two procedures being different. They were - one was necessary, one isn't, for a start - I simply asked what you were basing your assertion that a ritual circumcision is less painful than a medical one on.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 21:21

Did you really not understand what I was talking about? I wasn't referring to a conceptual difference but a procedural one - i.e. what is cut & how much, stitching, etc.

And I didn't "assert" anything except point out that your experience is with pathological cases involving congenital malformation of the penis and hence whereas mine is with perfectly normal ones having a ritual circumcision.

My exact words were:

"Your understanding of circumcision is limited to pathological cases with an underlying physiological problem. You need to consider the possibility that "normal" circumcision of a healthy penis might be a far less drastic (and less painful) affair."

... which is a perfectly reasonable and valid point.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:24

No circumcision is normal. None. If done for cultural reasons, it's abnormal. If done for medical reasons, it's done because there's an abnormal condition.

Why oh why do people uproar about it happening to females but not males. It's archaic, barbaric and completely unwarranted.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:25

And if a penis is 'healthy' then leave it well alone. It's not yours to mutilate.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 21:39

"No circumcision is normal"

"Normal" being "what is usual", it is normal in some parts of the world. And then when those people come live in the UK, they continue to do what is "normal" for them. And that is "normal", too.

So, maybe not normal for you but it's perfectly normal for some other people.

"Why oh why do people uproar about it happening to females but not males"

Possibly because they are nowhere near the same thing. Female "circumcision" involves significantly more than taking off a bit of skin and makes it impossible to experience sexual pleasure and even live pain-free in extreme cases.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:46

Sorry but no amount of attempting to condone it does so.

Would you consider removing skin from your hypothetical daughters vagina?

No?

So why your son's?

There's a lot of things considered 'normal' in some societies and cultures but in modern day civilised practice removing part of someone's sexual organs for no reason - and to have a fucking party to do so - is vile.

This thread has actually made me feel sick. The sooner this practice does out the better.

And no doubt it would be banned if it wasn't for fear of upsetting religious communities.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:50

And regarding FGM, the pain and destruction of it is only one point. An other is what gives someone the right to touch and cut off a part of another persons body.

I will soon post a link of a forum where men who have been disfigured talk to each other. They are distraught. They are victims of this barbaric practice. Many hate their parents because of it. Many have gone through painful procedures to try and get excess skin back. Many feel they aren't real men. Many have had to have counselling.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:53

This blog should be read by all.

barreloforanges.com/2013/09/29/treating-rage/

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 21:53

The thread can't have made you sick because you haven't read it Hmm

If you had even skimmed the thread, you would have surely noticed one of the five times I have said that my DS is not circumcised. (I've said it 6 times now, ffs!)

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:57

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4072048?utm_hp_ref=tw

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 21:58

cote I have read the bloody thread and read that yours haven't but what I've also read is you and others CONDONING it

Read those links. Read what is happening.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 22:05

If you read that my DS isn't circumcised, then why on earth are you asking me this:

"Would you consider removing skin from your hypothetical daughters vagina? No? So why your son's?"

Err... I didn't and I haven't.

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 22:08

You're being obtuse. You have repeatedly condoned the practice so therefore you think it is perfectly acceptable to do it. I asked you if you would think it acceptable to do to a baby girl.

Hypothetical questions. I'd already read the whole thread and I'm saddened by yours and others thoughts on the matter. I notice how you ignored the links though.

Mim78 · 21/10/2013 22:10

My understanding is that there is no comparison between fgm and male circumcision. Fgm is causing a causing a really serious injury and removing necessary parts which as others have said prevents a normal sex life and can cause life long pain. Also much more painful that male circumcision at the time. Any comparison trivialises the very serious issue of fgm in my opinion.

However, I don't really like the idea of male circumcision. I agree it's only akin to piercing your child's ears but I don't like that either. Why cause them pain when it's not necessary? I can see it might have been a good idea 2000/4000 or whatever years ago, but not necessary in modern times.

However my best friend has had her son circumcised and her daughter's ears pierced and I'm still her friend! I certainly wouldn't be friends with someone who committed fgm!

Strumpetron · 21/10/2013 22:14

Sorry but victims are victims. It's not always the physically side, it's the mental side. The feeling of betrayal, the feeling they've been sexually abused. The fact people don't seem to like a comparison trivialises men's feelings. I think it's ignorance to this that makes people outcry at FGM but not MGM. it's been normalised and watered down in the men's cases so it isn't emotive anymore.

Just because one is physically worse doesn't mean the other shouldn't be treated in the exact same way.

CoteDAzur · 21/10/2013 22:14

I do think it is acceptable. And so does your government. You do realise that circumcision is legal in the UK, I hope.

There is a health benefit, however small, and it doesn't seem to negatively affect the vast majority of circumcised men (including all male members of my extended family, almost all of my male friends, their children & families, etc) so I really can't get outraged about it.

shallweshop · 21/10/2013 22:19

Mim - my friend's son had to have 3 days worth of continual pain relief (alternating calpol and nurofen) following his circumcision - never heard of anyone needing that after having their ears pierced!