Circumcision

[muma19]

DP wants DS circumcised however I don't. I also have MIL getting involved and pressuring me. What do I do? I want to be fair to my partner but I really don't want him veg for circumcised. HELP!!!!

One of the effects I should say

The reasons why you are not right to compel a coworker to go and pray on her lunchbreak are the same as why you are wrong to circumcise your child.

You think it is not harmful, or "worth" doing. It is not your decision. Your right as a parent to make decisions for you child does not extend to unnecessary surgery because you want it done. Why you want it done is irrelevant.

How long it's been done for, how many people have done it or continue to do it, all irrelevant.

JAPAB you said
No-one wants to stop people having a shared community or religion in common. They just want adults to be able to choose to not be a part of it, and for permanent physical alterings to be delayed until the person being altered is in a position to accept or reject it.

I realise that, but are you hoping that parents will change their minds about infant circumcision and voluntarily give it up, or are you hoping that governments would ban it altogether?

CallipygianFancier you said that I should reject the community's mindset, but it's my mindset as well, and the mindset of those who were circumcised as children.

Their mindset is theirs. They can be happy with their own circumcision and that's fine. That is the limit on who they are morally right to circumcise: themselves.

The men who were circumcised as a child have two choices:
a) make an issue of it, upset their parents, admit to themselves that they are probably having less fulfilling sex than they otherwise would, and challenge their own cultural upbringing.
b) convince themselves it's fine and just 'go along' with the culture.

What's done is done, it can't be changed. Most men will rationalise (b).

I like to think if I were a father contemplating this for my own son I would have the integrity and intellectual fortitude to be honest about what is best for my child, rather than going with whatever rationalisation makes me feel better about myself. But who knows?

As someone whose child had this done for severe medical problems, it can be hard to read these threads. I was really upset and had tried everything else until there was no choice (he was in A and E and had a condition that can cause cancer if not treated). It was very straightforward and he was in no pain after. I wince when I read people say it ruins the adult sex life or is being butchered

1. The only acceptable course is to wait till your DS is 18, then he can decide for himself.

1. When he does reach that age, tell him to pull the foreskin back and walk around in a pair of jeans with no underpants on. Then explain to him that he will loss feeling in that area after the snip.

1. At that point you can stop worrying, no man would ever do it.

'Non-consensual': In general our experience leads us to believe that the vast majority of our sons when grown up will be happy that we consented to circumcision on their behalf

Surely a lot of that will be community pressure and that’s all they've ever known. As a lot of their potential sexual enjoyment was taken away from them long before they were of an age to experience sex, they have nothing to compare it with.

'Mutilation': People in our community don't define it thus.

That’s your choice, but others will see it other ways. How else would you define the deliberate irreparable deforming of a natural healthy bodily organ?

'undeniable negative consequences': I don't believe that there are. The only potential consequences which have been mentioned are pain and possible loss of sensitivity.
Pain, especially nowadays in an era of easily available anaesthetics, is usually minimal. Any slight amount of pain will be quickly forgotten and is outweighed by the lifelong benefits.
With regards to loss of sensitivity, this would not be severe, and is only an issue if you see the maximisation of sexual pleasure as a goal to be aimed for in and of itself. I repeat that circumcised men have normal sex lives and the same fertility rates as non-circumcised.

Aside from the fact that you seem to consider the use of anaesthetic in order to perform medically-unnecessary surgery on somebody who hasn't requested or consented to it as no big deal; as I take it that you are either a woman or a man who was circumcised at birth, you really aren't in a position to judge on reduced sensitivity and resulting enjoyment of sex. If a man were to dismiss the pains experienced in childbirth as “attention-seeking, over-reacting performance-moaning over something that surely can’t hurt any more than a stubbed toe”, would you consider his assessment of the situation to be reasonable, valid and of valuable insight?

Some people are seekers of extreme sexual pleasure; some people have no interest in sex at all; most people fall somewhere in the middle in wanting to gain pleasure from regular loving acts with their spouse or partner. It’s not for somebody else to decide for somebody as a baby what his attitude to sexual enjoyment as an adult will be.

How would you feel if a parent proposed removing all of a baby’s taste buds soon after birth? After all, you can still eat and gain the nutrition that you need to stay alive. Whoever says that food should be something you might want to enjoy eating?

As for the ‘lifelong benefits’ that you claim, these have been widely debunked by the international medical community. Even if there are any medical benefits, these will all be linked to sexual activity, which is something that obviously doesn't apply to a baby or a child. If a grown man believes that he wants the perceived benefits once he’s sexually active, he can freely seek out a circumcision for himself, having the capacity to make the decision.

I don't fully understand your points about murdering and punching people in the street; it reads as if you think I am trying to persuade you that circumcision should be done within your own ideological framework/worldview and according to your decision-making criteria. I'm not; I'm trying to give some insight into the perspective of some of those who do routinely circumcise, but that takes place in the context of a different worldview and a different set of decision-making criteria.

Sorry if that was a strange analogy, but my point is that deliberately causing another person less harm than you potentially could have done is no excuse for deliberately causing them any harm. I don’t know what your personal opinions of FGM are, but a lot of bizarre people will insist until they’re blue in the face that there is no comparison whatsoever between the two, mainly because “FGM does xxxxxxxxx amount of irreparable damage whereas circumcision of a baby boy will ‘only’ do xxxx amount of irreparable damage.” In fact, because male circumcision on average is seen as equivalently less severe than the worst two levels (of an internationally-identified four levels) of FGM, proponents will invariably deny that circumcising a boy therefore does any irreparable damage at all. Kind of like saying that shoplifting can’t really be considered a crime owing to the fact that some ‘much worse’ criminals will break into a private house with a gun.

Finally, you said: I just can't understand the desperation to mutilate babies for no actual reason and try to justify it by saying "oh, they'll probably be fine - even though they've had thousands of sensitive nerve endings taken from them without their consent, it probably won't make any difference - it's not like I've chopped their arm off."

That's blatantly not what I am saying and you know it. I don't have to justify it; male circumcision is currently not illegal in any country.
I do have actual reasons: circumcision is mandated in my religion and is also a cultural norm which people are happy to adhere to.

I know that’s not what you’re actively saying, but it is what you and others seem to be subconsciously implying. You do see it as essential to cut off your baby son’s foreskin, don’t you? Surely the only alternative to the implication that I stated as to justifying it would be “I don’t care if he’s fine or not – doesn't bother me at all” – which I’m certain is NOT your belief. You’re correct that it’s not illegal, so you’re free to do it if you want to. This thread is all about the MORAL and ETHICAL reasons for circumcision; nobody is saying that you’re acting illegally (although if your son had happened to be born a girl and you still wanted to cut off part of her genitals, that WOULD obviously be illegal.)

I understand that your faith mandates it and there’s no law to stop you from doing it if you choose to. I don’t accept your assertion that it’s a cultural norm which people are happy to adhere to as those who are made to adhere to it have no voice or choice in the matter. Nobody in their right mind would excuse an odious violent man with a belief that wife-beating or coercive sex are part of his ingrained misogynistic culture – even though HE himself is very happy to adhere to this culture.

Circumcision, unless carried out for medical reasons is child abuse. It is a vanity project for the parents. Absolutely disgusting

As someone whose child had this done for severe medical problems, it can be hard to read these threads. I was really upset and had tried everything else until there was no choice (he was in A and E and had a condition that can cause cancer if not treated). It was very straightforward and he was in no pain after. I wince when I read people say it ruins the adult sex life or is being butchered

Medically necessary circumcision isn't the issue though. You could remove someone's eye, and it's whether it's medically necessary that marks the difference between calling it butchery or mutilation, and just regarding it as something that unfortunately needed to be done.

Presumably you cut your child's fingernails? You will say it's not permanent. But as soon as they grow back, you cut them again. In Western society, would anyone who had, say, five inch long fingernails be able to live a normal life? Then in societal terms, it has the same effect as cutting them off permanently.

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

Firstly, cutting fingernails doesn't actually hurt at all. I very much doubt that anybody has ever needed anaesthetic to have their fingernails clipped.

Secondly, you can categorically insist on continuing to (painlessly) cut your child's fingernails until they're 18 if you want to. However, once they're an adult, their nails will still be continually growing and, if your adult son or daughter chooses, they can reasonably quickly grow them to many inches long and never cut them again if they choose.

Yes, this would certainly make their life difficult in many ways and restrict their social and employment abilities - which is why most people don't choose to do this - but this would be their own adult choice.

An accurate comparison with circumcision would be if, instead of painlessly clipping the part of their nails that overhang their fingertips, you decided to wrench out the ENTIRE fingernail from the cuticle - which would hurt them very, very much and would never grow back.

It was sinister breeze, because your wording, 'Your attitude reflects a Western individualistic perspective whereby the freedom, choices and personal decisions of the individual are seen as paramount', indicates that you find this problematic. You don't need to give me a lesson in religion in order for me to understand your point. Religion and culture don't always go hand in hand and it was western culture you were making your point about. You shouldn't bring up 'western perspectives' in a critical way if you live in the 'western world' quite happily anyway, it makes you look hypocritical at best.

Sagrada - are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't criticize Western attitudes if they live here? That's quite a controversial standpoint. I mean you could say reasonably that people shouldn't plot against the West while living here but banning criticism - wow!

You shouldn't bring up 'western perspectives' in a critical way if you live in the 'western world' quite happily anyway, it makes you look hypocritical at best.

My neighbour used to say this. Along with all immigrants should speak English. And, "I'm not racist but...."

Sam I think it's more controversial to go onto a worldwide but U.K-based forum and start moaning about 'the west' and how individual choice is not a good thing.

Concrete- don't. Just don't.

Your neighbour was clearly disgusting. I'm trying to hold myself from what you're insinuating. I'm deeply insulted.

I’m my view it’s modification of a child’s body if without medical reason (eg phimosis), and certainly without consent it is abuse.

You shouldn’t criticise western perspectives - why on earth not? We’ve seen a fair amount of criticism and ridicule of people’s religion on this thread. The right to criticism is a one way street now, is it?

Not those particular ones, no. Individuals having choice over their own bodies should not be criticised, ever unless by someone with their own dodgy agenda.

We had the same thing. I put my foot down and said no. It was raised in discussion a couple more times. I said no. H stopped and accepted my view point. With ds2 it didn’t get raised. By no one. Both boys are intact.
There should be no pressure no raised voices or threats. If there is then you have a bigger problem than whether to cut your child.

Mil wanted to circumcise DH for cultural reasons and FiL said absolutely no way. DH is definitely very glad it didn't happen and would be angry if it had.

"I realise that, but are you hoping that parents will change their minds about infant circumcision and voluntarily give it up, or are you hoping that governments would ban it altogether?"

In principle I think it should be banned. Parents should have a massive amount of freedom in what they do with their kids, but there has to be a line, and surgeries to permenently physically alter the appearance of the body and which risk a reduction in one of the personss senses, should be on the other side of the line if not medically necessary.

I’ll possibly need to make a new thread for this but anyone here whose Ds foreskin didn’t retract until 12/13?

We saw the GP last year as Ds was having a few issues down below. Was prescribed a steroid cream to apply every night. It hasn’t worked.

GP did mention being referred to urology, something for which Ds isn’t too keen on, as it will possibly mean circumcision?

He’s 13 in September. Should it have retracted by now? Doesn’t seem to be causing him to many problems, apart from his aim occasionally.

I’d feel awful sending him for this procedure if he didn’t need it, so in that respect hold firm OP.

@SweetMarmalade the standard treatment is no longer circumcision, I think I read on another thread that some sort of stretching exercises is how they start now.