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:
Gorionine · 26/01/2009 13:32

It was a very different experience fo my son as he was older, maybe the debate should not be "for" or "against" circumcision but how is it done?

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:33

Male circumcision significantly lowers the risk of the circumcised male's female partner developing cervical cancer.

MarmadukeScarlet · 26/01/2009 13:36

Can you state why or what evidence supports this georgimama?

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 13:37

If it's done in hospital under general anaesthetic because the foreskin is too tight and causing serious problems, then I don't think anyone would object. It's the fact that it's done without anaesthetic (and a topical cream really doesn't count) as part of an unnecessary ritual without the childs consent that has many (including myself) up in arms.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:39

I'm so tired of the way every assertion in this forum has to be accompanied by a fully referenced research trail.

If you don't believe me why don't you check it out yourself?

Google circumcision + cervical cancer like I just did, and got thousands of links including this:

BBC

onager · 26/01/2009 13:42

From your link.

"But they admitted that advocating circumcision as a realistic and significantly important addition to other strategies to combat cervical cancer "remains to be documented"

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 13:42

If you read down a bit further, the advice from Cancer Research UK states -

But it adds many now thought that as long as uncircumcised men are careful about keeping their genitals clean, the risk of cervical cancer in their partners should not be any greater than that for circumcised men.

Cancer Research UK adds: "It is likely that this association has risen because certain religious groups who practice circumcision, such as the Jews, also have a low risk of cervical cancer due to low levels of promiscuity."

MarmadukeScarlet · 26/01/2009 13:44

I just wondered if you were speaking in a professional capacity, no need to get narky.

In any debate it is usual to back up an assertion with evidence, is it not?

GreenMonkies · 26/01/2009 13:44

"Male circumcision significantly lowers the risk of the circumcised male's female partner developing cervical cancer. "

So do condoms, and vaccination.

Both better than surgery on a wide-awake new born.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:46

Did I say that the article advocated blanket male circumcision? Did I advocate blanket male circumcision?

No, it was demanded that I provide some evidence to back up my assertion, and I did.

I don't think I ever suggested that keeping the foreskin clean isn't a good thing or just as effective.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:50

How long has it been possible to get a vaccine for HPV? And how universally available is it?

The OP started a thread stating that male circumcision is child abuse. No one asked him to reference that assertion. Did you ask him whether he is a clinicial psychologist, Marmaduke?

pooka · 26/01/2009 13:50

Ah but that link does also say (CRUK) that if a man keeps his willy clean then the risk would be no greater with an uncircumcised man.

And also refers to the HPV vaccine, that I believe is now offered to secondary age girls (may be wrong).

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 13:51

Male circumcision significantly lowers the risk of the circumcised male's female partner developing cervical cancer.

What exactly was your point then? Especially as the research was more fully explained later in the BBC website by Cancer Research UK.

Condoms, HPV vaccine, low promiscuity (CRUK's words, not mine) and a good wash are known to be as effective at reducing cervical cancer. Does that mean we can now hope that circumcision will be consigned to the dustbin?

OrmIrian · 26/01/2009 13:53

DD will be getting HPV apparently. I thought it was going to be standard for all girls.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:55

My point was that it had been asserted that there was no good reason for doing it, and I was pointing out that there was at least one good reason.

Condoms, a good wash and low promiscuity would solve lots of problems, not just cervical cancer, but they don't seem to be too widely practised do they?

The HPV has been available for about 2 years I believe. I sincerely hope it does have the effect of lowering cervical cancer rates, but unfortunately people often seem to view one advance - for example the pill means people don't use condoms and therefore STD incidence is rising.

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 13:55

It is standard now.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:56

that should have read:

one advance as a reason to abandon other beneficial practices.

BonsoirAnna · 26/01/2009 13:56

Circumcision of boys is not harmful. I wish people wouldn't get so het up about it.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 13:57

Anna! My God we agree about something!

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 13:59

Well, low promiscuity is apparently something that is practised in the Jewish faith. So why the need to circumcise?!

As I said, now that we have the HPV vaccine I'm hoping that we'll finally see an end to circumcision. If it's being done with the health of women in mind of course...

Watoose · 26/01/2009 14:03

one of Bloss's links said that wearing a condom didn't affect the rates of cervical cancer but being circumcised did.

Gawd knows how they worked that one out.

Bloss - thanks. I wonder if there are any unbiased research articles out there at all, most of us seem to feel strongly one way or another.

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 14:07

The statement from Cancer Research UK seemed pretty unbiased to me.

georgimama · 26/01/2009 14:07

Funnily enough paolosgirl, when the practice was invented the link between cervical cancer and circumcision hadn't been researched .

paolosgirl · 26/01/2009 14:12

You don't say Georgi

Well, now it is known, and now we know that other things are JUST as effective, can I take it that we'll see a gradual end to the process?

Because I'm kind of thinking that circumcision has not been carried out for the benefit of women since we have known about it - given that as I said earlier, people of the Jewish faith tend to be less promiscuous and so have a lower incidence of cervical cancer as a result anyway.

BonsoirAnna · 26/01/2009 14:14