Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Dadsnet

Speak to new fathers on our Dads forum.

Original poster

How do you talk relatives out of ritual circumcision of a child?

329 replies

UrbanDad · 25/01/2009 14:28

A (non=-ewish) female friend of mine is married to a quite nice jewish DH. They have just had a baby boy and DH's parents and aunts/uncles are putting pressure on him to have their DS circumcised. DH is equivocal but my friend is dead set against it. I think it's barbaric - how would you react to a member of your family putting pressure on you to mutilate your child's genitalia? No apologies - it's child abuse pure and simple and should be criminalised. Religion is no excuse for this mediaeval, unenlightened superstitious crap.

Has anyone got any experience of talking moronic religious extremist relatives out of this stupidity? (Apologists for/proponents of/justificants of ritual circumcision please don't even bother responding to this post.)

OP posts:
Original poster
UrbanDad · 25/01/2009 18:08

There are several religions which practise genital mutilation on children and TBH judaism is probably one of the less harmful of them - I'm not singling one religious/tribal/traditional group out (although in my friend's case it happens to be that religion and BTW there is far from unanimity in that religion about whether it is right to do it).

Comments which are SO totally beside the point:

  1. I prefer circumcised penises (?) - Well let the baby decide when he's an adult if he agrees, then. You have the ability to express a preference, what about the poor child?
  2. I am X religion and I am horribly offended by what you have said and it it is an insult to us all because my people have done nasty things to children for many thousands of years, so I don't need to think about it and anyway the sky will fall in if we question it now. Well, if you're happy and you can live with your own conscience, why make such a big issue out it?
  3. It's not the same thing as female genital mutilation. You're spot on - it is in fact male genital mutilation.
  4. You won't convince people who have a deep-seated reigious belief. It's about sheltering a family who does not have that belief from its imposition from outside. If it were criminalised, then we wouldn't need to convince them.

I think I've already got the answer though - her DH needs to stand shoulder to shoulder with his DW against the relatives and if he doesn't, he has to take the consequences.

OP posts:
LynetteScavo · 25/01/2009 18:20

None of my circumcised ex-boyfriends have considered themselves "mutilated" - believe me.

nkf · 25/01/2009 18:28

Are you serious about how it's done? At home? Without anaesthetic? By a Rabbi?

Original poster
UrbanDad · 25/01/2009 18:28

LS - of course they don't regard themselves as mutilated - they've never known anything different and it has probably happened to the rest of their male family, so it has been completely normalised. I suspect you'd get a different answer if you asked uncircumcised men whether they wanted it done.

The argument is never going to be about whether it is right or wrong - it's about whether you believe in reason or religion.

I haven't got the patience to argue the side of reason with you lot any more. Turn the light out when you've finished please...

OP posts:
Monkeytrousers · 25/01/2009 18:32

I think you can just stand by your beliefs and state them. Sometimes its better just to state something calmly rather than demand your are listened to. You plant a seed it might grow. If you try and shove it down their throats they'll just resent it.

ComeOVeneer · 25/01/2009 18:33

Going back to the OP, the fact that the man in question has married a non-jewish woman and the family are still involved with each other would indicage the family is not ultra religious (as my dh's) and therefore can be talked around.

Am still bemused what the hell it has to do with the OP though anyway.

nkf · 25/01/2009 18:34

Also, COV, the baby isn't Jewish surely.

hester · 25/01/2009 18:41

I'm Jewish. I would choose to not circumcise. I find the OP's post offensive and really unhelpful to his friend who is in, we can all agree, a difficult situation.

SoupDragon · 25/01/2009 18:54

UrbanDad, female circumcision has more in common with cutting off a penis than it does with male circumcision. You simply can not compare the two.

Lulumama · 25/01/2009 19:01

urbandad, i think, wanted a good old anti Jewish rant. if he had wanted a calm and reasoned discussion, he would not have phrased his OP thus

having found that he did not meet with a chorus of approval, he has decided the thread is not to his liking.

how very worthwhile

Watoose · 25/01/2009 19:04

Lulu, I'm sorry you and others were upset by it.

I don't pretend to understand the true motive of OP but I don't think it was big or clever. And I am anti circ as you know.

cautious

nkf · 25/01/2009 19:13

People will rarely understand this. If you are not Jewish then circumcision is really hard to understand. And if you are, then presumably you don't see what the non believers are objecting to.

scifinerd · 25/01/2009 19:19

Lulu I totally agree with everything you have said on here. A reasoned debated about circumcision is one thing but the language here is incredibly defensive and far removed from reasoned debate. And paolo's girl how many times does Lulu have to explain the difference between male and female circumcision?

The issue is far from back and white but as ever uninformed people will remain suoerglued to their soapbox with their fingers in their ears. I saw the world in balck and white when I was a teenager but I have grown up since then.

nkf · 25/01/2009 19:21

He wasn't asking for a reasoned debate. What he didn't seem to realise is that to ask for no responses always invites them.

memoo · 25/01/2009 19:21

I agree that it shouldn't be carried out for religious reasons but it can't be outlawed as Some people have to have their son circumsised because of medical reasons

I think people need to be careful about what they say sometimes, 'mutilating' is slightly insensitive and hurtful to the parents who have had no choice and acted only in the best interst of their child

tumtumtetum · 25/01/2009 19:28

It is so difficult because there aren't any other practices (which I can think of) which are in any way similar, in that:

They are a traditional religious thing

They don't actually cause any lasting damage (I know that lots of men are very fond of their foreskins, but sexual function and pleasure are in no way impaired)

It is on the face of it pretty cruel, but it is very quick and very rarely leads to any complications

So it's not dangerous and has no long term implications - although must be pretty unpleasant for the baby at the time.

So really it's not the end of the world?

I can think of far worse things to get worked up about...

And we do inflict pain on children in our society to ensure they conform to societal norms - correcting very minor hare lips springs to mind. That is purely aesthetic and to do with how much our society values looks, so not very edifying really.

nkf · 25/01/2009 19:30

Hair lips can cause problems though. With feeding and speech. The foreskin never did any harm.

Lulumama · 25/01/2009 19:30

i was only at the language used by the OP , and the intimation that female genital mutilation is even equatable to male circumcision.

usually i avoid circumcision threads, but this one was started with such a nasty OP, i felt i had to comment.

back at you !

memoo · 25/01/2009 19:33

NKF, foreskin can do harm sometimes.

I had to have my DS circumsises when he was 22 months because he had to much foreskin and had repeated infections on his penis because of this. He was in agony because of it

Is this mutilation or a medical procedure?

nkf · 25/01/2009 19:34

Okay but there was a problem and it was dealt with. In the same way, we remove an infected appendix. I'd say it was a medical procedure. What do you think?

tumtumtetum · 25/01/2009 19:35

I was thinking specifically of hare lips which cause no physical problems. I am aware that they can relate to very big problems but some where just the lip is affected with no physical side effects will still be "corrected".

It was the only example I could think of but I think works. We accept what we see as the norm in our society without question, when in anotehr society it would be deemed cruel.

I would also think that when you marry someone Jewish you ought to think about these things first. If I was going to marry someone of a different religion I would make very sure I knew what was expected/normal/could cause problems.

WEESLEEKITLauriefairycake · 25/01/2009 19:36

Genuine question - which part of the OP's original post do you think is anti-Jewish ?

I can only see the bit about being anti-religious by calling it "mediaeval, unelightened superstitious crap" and "moronic religious extremist relatives"?

memoo · 25/01/2009 19:36

I do think its a medical procedure but my point is that people need to be more sensitive to these issues because they are going to upset a lot of people like me who did it only for medical reasons.

The op was wrong to use terms like mutilated

nkf · 25/01/2009 19:37

People can revert to type a bit when they have children. She might have msrried a secular minded Jewish man who became more traditional when his son was born.

Lulumama · 25/01/2009 19:41

basically, the OP was saying Jews who choose to carry out the ancient ritual of male circumcision are religious extremist moronic child abusing criminals. i kind of take that as an anti Jewish OP. even if you can say it is not anti Jewish , it was nasty, agressive.. etc etc etc

the OP has only posted 2 other threads on MN so is eitehr new or a name changer, and bearing in mind the heated middle east debates/israel/gaze threads with some pretty heated debates re anti semitism/anti zionism, i wonder if this was a bit of under the radar trolling/stirring