Newborn circumcision

[Mumtobe2025x3]

Hi all,
my son is five weeks old. My husband is Muslim and I’m COE. When we were pregnant we had discussed having my son circumcised when he was a couple of weeks old due to my husband’s religious beliefs, which I agreed to.

Of course marrying a Muslim man I knew of what came with it when it came to having children etc. we have discussed our sons upbringing and he will be taught both cultures, religions and celebration Christmas and Eid etc. my husband is quite westernised so he’s not exactly a strict Muslim.

I suffered quite bad baby blues and when it came to discussing the circumcision at around 10 days old I lost it and said that I couldn’t deal with it right now and my husband said not to worry now and we will revisit at a later date.

I thought i was ok with my son being circumcised but now he’s here I’m actually not. It’s been brought up again today and it’s not helping that my husbands pushy family keep asking about when it’s happening. I’m really not ready for this. We’re already having issues with his family calling my son by a different name because they don’t like the name we’ve chosen as it’s not an Arabic name!

I’ve told my husband I’m not ready yet and he accepts this, I can tell it bothers him.

Am I being unreasonable about this? Obviously I know what I married into, but as his mother and he’s here, it now doesn’t feel right to put him through a procedure that’s totally unnecessary as he’s not a medical issue.

Repeating this

It should be illegal, no ifs or buts

Medical reasons only.

I think the WHO like the UN have some questionable lobbyists which result in a skewed support for ME countries cultures at times.

I dont agree with the WHO

Don’t do it!! If your husband was really religious surely he wouldn’t have married you, or would have expected you to convert. My family is Jewish but I would never circumcise my child.

Its the same thing in that its mutilation of the genitals. The reason and method is somewhat irrelevant in terms of the comparison of why both are abhorrent and abusive.

Do we compare and contrast different types of other assault and say one is worse than the other? Its like the bad old days where people dismissed rape in marriage as not being quite as bad as stranger rape down an alleyway.

Both pretty bad right?

But the countries they promote it in are all majority Christian, and none are in the Middle East?

And the idea didnt come from those countries

There are no reasons for routine circumcision that are not bettered by simple hygene and safe sex education.

In a world - and certainly in countries such as the uk - where soap and condoms are a thing, circumcision should only be legal if strictly medically necessary.

Well, yes - that aligns with everything I have said.

And nor did it originate from any faith that exists in the modern world.

I despair of some people. I really do.

I would get a statutory declaration signed by a JP stating that you do not consent to having your child circumcised. I would then file it away somewhere safe (friend’s house?). I would then make it very clear to DH and family that now that you have read about it, you are strongly against it and if this is done to your child against your will, you will have charges laid against them. It is not a religious requirement, but a cultural one.

This is not a compromise I would make, knowing it means my baby has an unnecessary medical procedure that comes with both pain and risk of complications. There are a growing number of people from religious backgrounds that typically have circumcised who are not doing it anymore.

If he wants to follow this practice as an adult that is his choice. This should not be done on infants.

I have a friend who compromised and agreed to this for her sons, to appease her husband, she deeply regrets it. I have other friends who have refused and feel very confident with their decision.

FYI there are Facebook groups for both Jewish & Muslim parents who don't want to circumcise. I have a friend who joined one and received lots of support.

"That's like comparing someone taking 2 adult teeth out of a 12 year old's mouth, (under anesthetic,) to someone pinning a 12 year old down to a chair, and smashing all their teeth out with a hammer (with NO anesthetic!)
Nowhere near the same thing."

This is not really a fair analogy. Plenty of boys have their foreskin removed in non sterile environments without anaesthetic. Nelson Mandela described how it was for done to him and how he had to stand in a line with a village elder moving down said line and the boys needing to prove their manliness by remaining silent throughout.

Both are a form of mutilation.

It's not like DH's rels will ever get to see whether it was done or not?

Exactly! Just tell them you’ve had it done. Failing that, tell them to fuck off.

Oh OP! I'm in a similar-ish boat (married to a Muslim) except I've said the whole time that I'm not doing that to my hypothetical son, so would be less of a surprise to my DH if the time came & I objected.

It actually doesn't say anywhere in the Qur'an at all about circumcision and you're perfectly allowed to change your mind about your son once he arrived. I'd start off pushing the first point and watch them to try to justify that. It's difficult where you've got the wider family involved but I'd refuse to engage with them on that and just speak with your DH. It's your son, not theirs!

As other posters have said, in the UK both parents need to give consent too so they can't go above your head!

Good luck xx

By aligning male circumcision which is unnecessary, to FGM which is life altering mutilation is outrageously disrespectful to the female victims of FGM. Males survive circumcision and go on to have healthy sex lives and procreation. Women victims of FGM are disfigured and are often left with life long debilitating consequences.

Please don’t use the word ‘irrelevant’ when justifying conflating the two. They’re a world apart.

That said, I would also outlaw cultural male circumcision. If religious groups can’t teach their sons to just wash their cocks properly they need to start. It’s the 21st century ffs.

It's ignorant and unnecessary violence committed on an innocent boy. That's all it is. Even worse that it's in the name of religion. Fight your corner. You have my support, and that of most men I know.

"Women victims of FGM are disfigured and are often left with life long debilitating consequences."

Yes because no male has ever suffered disfiguring life altering consequences or even died from botched circumcisions...🤔

Even plenty of male "survivors" try to "restore" their removed foreskins, by stretching what skin they have left.

Don’t let them cut pieces off your perfect baby. If he wants to do it when he’s a full adult, that’s his decision but it’s cruel, can cause serious harm and it’s unnecessary.

Too many very bad things are allowed in the name of religion and they’ve got to stop.

It amazes me that the U.K. banned tail docking on dogs unless for medical reasons but didn’t ban this !

I presume you would also advocate for the removal of the breasts of all girls/young women as soon as they have finished developing? After all, breast cancer is a horrendous killer, and we have ready availability of formula milk for feeding babies, so the benefits obviously outweigh the risks, eh?

Does it not seem just a little bit strange that a fully grown man found a medical procedure and the aftermath so arduous, yet apparently a tiny little newborn baby is much tougher and more resilient undergoing the same procedure - often without anaesthetic (largely because even anaesthetic can be very dangerous for a baby, which might provide some kind of clue as to their strength and resilience when compared to a grown adult).

Considering that the vast majority of men don't ever have to be circumcised out of medical necessity, how about saying that it's much easier to not do it at all to anybody unless it should happen to become medically necessary or, I suppose, if an adult man decides for himself that he wants it to be done.

It might not be the express 'justification' for inflicting it on a child, but circumcision also reduces sexual enjoyment for a man's whole adult life.

Why would anybody look at any baby and let their thoughts go straight to the baby's genitals, and be determined to mutilate them for no benefit whatsoever? Most normal parents see their baby and want cuddle them and kiss his or her face; not cause pain and any degree of damage to their genitals for no reason other than tradition.

Barbaric procedure to do this to a baby boy unless medically required. Should be banned in the UK, cannot understand how any parent would willingly allow their son to go through this.

Also bearing in mind that a lot of doctors and other adults who eagerly advocate for circumcision will deliberately deceive the parents into believing that there's some kind of medical issue simply because a baby's foreskin doesn't retract.

It's entirely normal for a baby's foreskin not to retract (think about the cleanliness practicalities for somebody so young that he quite naturally does what all babies do in nappies). In the majority of cases, it will naturally retract in plenty of time before he is of an age to be sexually active... and if it doesn't, THEN is the time to consult a doctor and explore options and necessities.

Yes, there are other health conditions - such as hypospadias - which may indeed necessitate circumcision in a baby or very young child; but it's as absurd to diagnose phimosis purely because a baby's foreskin doesn't retract as it would be to automatically consider that same baby disabled and needing a wheelchair because he can't yet walk; or to refer him for urgent speech therapy because he can't yet talk.