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!!!!

Is it Disford?

That sounds something which wouldn’t terrify Ds as much.

You don’t have a link to that thread do you?

I will make an apt with the GP too.

Did he not do stretching along with the steroid cream?

I don't remember the thread I'm afraid. I did find this www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320997.php

No. GP told us just to apply the cream, although we do try and encourage him to try and stretch it when he’s showering. He tells me it hurts to do this though.

we 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.

sagradafamiliar Not those particular ones, no.

Oh I see...Just the ones you don't like then? Or just the religious and cultural ones?

Please share what we are allowed to criticise.

Wow. I wasn’t actually criticising anything. I was suggesting to a pp that his line of argumentation seemed to me to be indicative of a specific ideological perspective/background, and was trying to explain that for people who don’t share that ideological background, those types of arguments wouldn’t have the same kind of influence.
I certainly didn’t come on here to start “moaning” about the West, in fact I clearly stated my intention re this thread at the request of another poster.
I didn’t actually choose to live here and I do face some Islamophobia which means it is not always a happy experience. But I have no bad intentions or dodgy agenda towards anyone. I don’t see how I was giving you a lesson in religion either or why my posts have attracted such vitriol. If my posts are coming across as confrontational or aggressive that’s not my intention.

i didn't choose to live here

That's v too, as it any time having to experience racist scumbags

Just the ones which sound like they're challenging the Human Rights Act and bemoaning the fact we can as individuals choose what happens to our own bodies, concrete 👍 otherwise we're in really murky territory.

"Wow. I wasn’t actually criticising anything. I was suggesting to a pp that his line of argumentation seemed to me to be indicative of a specific ideological perspective/background, and was trying to explain that for people who don’t share that ideological background, those types of arguments wouldn’t have the same kind of influence."

Yes but I suspect you only mention that sort of thing because of the specific example we are talking about.

Had I instead talked about believing it an individual's right not to have their kidney taken without consent to help another, not to have to have their face tatooed, not to be made to remove their earlobes, amd a thousand other examples, then this wouldn't be met with how it indicates an indibidualistic Western attitude.

As it just represents a belief in the importance of bodily autonomy and integrity and believing that people should have the right to decide for themselves.

This isn't a unique western thing as, like I say, pick different examples and I am sure you will suddenly agree that it is your decision not to have your face tatooed or earlobes removed etc.

In answer to the OP, I never would have a child circumcised unless it was medically necessary. As a nanny I have looked after boys who were and boys who weren't, and there was no difference day to day. Where there was a difference was that one of the boys had been damaged by a problem due to the operation and was noticeably scarred. I felt really sorry for him that he had to live with a part of him damaged for the sake of an unnecessary operation.

My brother was circumcised as an older child for medical reasons, with no lasting problems.

@breeze44 - info was from several articles on the BBC.

There is a kind of parallel example to circumcision with the Sama-Bajau, a group of people who live amongst islands near the Philippines/Malaysia. Bear with me here, I know it may seem a little convoluted!

They free dive quite deep spear fishing, and there's a risk doing this of damage to the ear - so what they do is deliberately puncture the ear drum in childhood. It removes the risk of injury/pain when they're diving, but at the expense of the pain of doing it deliberately at the time, and also they have a pronounced tendency to get hearing problems as they get older.

So, is doing this acceptable? Well, they dive dozens of times every single day, and for generations, it's worked for them as an acceptable pay off in order for what they do. In context, I may not find the idea very appealing, but I can see how it makes sense beyond just being their culture.

But say you somehow had a family who lived in a built-up city, their children aren't going to be diving all day every day, there's no advantage to them doing this procedure.

Would it be right to still do it "because that's the culture, it's what we have always done"? No, almost certainly not, is my answer.

The world moves on. Some things should be left behind. Permanently damaging your child's body just because you're in the habit of doing so very much falls into that category.

Callipy I would have thought it a pointless exercise, as DC eardrums can repeatedly burst and reheal when young without permanent damage. Maybe they do something very specific, I would have thought it would lead to repeated infections repeatedly having sea water in your middle ear and potentially more?

I must be missing something in the biological reasoning.

It is a good point though, and works for this point.

As does the nail removal analogy, very well. (ouch!!)

I don't know quite how they do it, and to be honest, I wasn't particularly keen on really digging into it to find out, as I doubt it's overly pleasant! We're not talking about modern surgical approaches, I think!

sweet circumcision will be a last resort I would think. We went through all the creams and stretching for DS to no avail over a long period. He had something later confirmed as BXO.

Hospitals are often very conservative and will leave things and eventually DS suffered severe urinary blockage. It was horrific with swelling and bleeding. He literally had no real opening.. Not just tight foreskin. So when he got inflammation it was blocked. It tends to be cases like this they recommend circumcision. I hope it sorts out for your son. If he does need it don't worry it's not as bad as we expected.

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

As pointed out, this isn't a valid point because they have no point of comparison.

But what you skate over is the minority who aren't happy. They have been stuck with a situation they don't like as a result of a decision their parents took to carry out a totally unnecessary operation on them which can't be reversed. By contrast, the state of not being circumcised is quite easily reversible. Surely common sense dictates that if men really are happy to be circumcised, there is nothing to lose by waiting until they are in a position to make an informed decision?

"So, is doing this acceptable?"

No. Human rights are absolute. Not affected by anyone's culture or traditional practices. They either should find another food source, or not send minors down.

Mrs Bethel I feel that it is quite offensive to suggest that men who wish to get their sons circumcised do so in order to rationalise feeling better about themselves at their sons' expense. I believe that they genuinely believe it to be in their sons' best interests. I think that you are projecting your own negative feelings about the procedure onto people who have a positive view of it.

WeBuilt you made a lot of points so I will try to respond to a few of them:

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.

The community doesn't necessarily need to put pressure as they are keen to do it themselves. I take your point that they won't know any different, but I your point suggests that potential loss of sensitivity would be the main priority whereas I think they prioritise other considerations more.

How else would you define the deliberate irreparable deforming of a natural healthy bodily organ?
Again, I don't see it as deforming. I would just define it as one of what is known in our religion as Sunan Al-Fitrah meaning the actions connected to the sound nature of man. The others are shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, clipping the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.

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.

I have to admit I don't have a lot of knowledge or insight around this area. There was a form of female circumcision practised by the Arabs and early Muslims which was essentially making a small cut in the clitoral hood, I think. However, that has completely disappeared in the area my family is from, in the whole region really, to the point where the knowledge of how to perform the procedure has been completely lost. In practice, and in religious opinion, male circumcision was always more emphasised and that is the one that continues to this day and that I have knowledge of. I know very little about the procedures done on girls in other countries/areas and I'm not familiar with the four levels you mentioned. I googled it, but I don't really understand the framework for relating those levels to male circumcision. So when I say that circumcision is not harmful, I don't have those levels in mind at all, I'm purely basing it on not seeing or hearing anything that I would consider as damage within my community. As I say my own sons healed quickly without problems.

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.

I think this is the main issue here really and the main focus of your argument and your feelings about it. I think your strong feelings about consent are your priority over other considerations. The only way I could explain it is by comparison - and I think we have seen that finding valid comparisons accepted by all is not easy- to vaccination. When you vaccinate your child, you know that technically there is a possibility they could grow up to be anti-vaxxers and resent you for consenting on their behalf. None of us humans knows the future. But you would hope and think it most likely that they would understand and agree with your reasons and be happy that you did it. We have similar hopes and expectations regarding circumcision.

As for medical benefits being debunked, firstly the benefits are not just medical, and also I don't accept they are debunked when they are promoted by the WHO and no-one has answered me as to what vested interest the WHO would have in promoting circumcision.

I'll ask again breeze, after all your justifying, whats your answers to the man further up thread who told you very clearly how it is.

He's not projecting,he's telling you the reality!

It's poi tless having a discussion if all you do is ignore all the key points of reality and fact
Not projection, facts.

Where's OP?

WHO guidelines have an interest in promoting circumcision to drive down rates of HIV where there are high rates of heterosexual infection. Research is primarily focused on sub-Saharan Africa. It should be noted that infection rates would be lower if condoms were widely used, however condom use is virtually zero therefore surgery on infants is deemed acceptable rather than intensive education in sexual health. Interestingly hiv infection is higher in the US (circumcision common), that Europe.

OP fucked off days ago, have you only just noticed?

OP fucked off days ago, have you only just noticed?

No, people are well aware of this (and it has been remarked on), but this thread on a public forum has, like many do, sparked interest in a number of people who wish to discuss the issue in question and the discussions have naturally developed into a much wider sphere than just the particular question asked by the OP.

Some threads only have relevance to the actual OP and, once their individual query/dilemma has been solved, it comes to a natural end apart from among people who don't take the trouble to RTFT; however a lot of threads, on less individually-specific topics, do indeed lead people to expand and move things along and out for debate.

After all, the OP's one-word title only actually referenced the issue in general before she then went on to describe why it was affecting her and her son personally, so why wouldn't people want to discuss it further in the round?

Apologies, Alsohuman - I misconstrued and realised that you were actually responding to Smotheroffive, so my reply isn't actually pertinent to you!

Smotheroffive - I suppose the OP was satisfied with the responses that she received, so she bowed out of the conversation; whereas other people wanted to continue the discussion of the topic in general terms.