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

[UrbanDad]

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.)

My father was circumcised for reasons of hygiene. No ritual, no religion, nothing. He lived in a very hot climate quite a long time ago where hot water and soap were not as readily available as they are now and little boys got very nasty infections quite frequently - infections that could lead to very serious problems. Circumcision was done to prevent this.

And so this leads you to recommend it now because....

No, I mean tryint to justify circumcision of an 8 day old boy without anaesthetic and without his consent based on your adult woman's sexual preference.

There is something very icky about that, do you know?

Labia trimming is a cosmetic procedure performed by plastic surgeons on women who are worried that their fanjo is ugly. So actually pretty darn similar to the idea that Anna seems to have introduced regarding circumcision being to do with sex and aesthetics.

I'm not recommending circumcision. I'm just saying that it is not all bad.

Not all bad because you as an adult woman prefer it sexually.

I've wasted enough time on this. I don't really care about Dr Kellogg from the cereal family, I can't understand the relevance. So a bloke who made cereal was in favour of male and female circumcision. So what? Organised your Kellogg boycott yet?

I don't agree that circumcision is genital mutilation.

I don't agree that circumcision is child abuse.

The biggest argument against it seems to be that it hurts and babies cry when it is performed. The heel prick test made my DS scream blue murder. I consented because I considered it beneficial.

I can't speak for Jewish people (perhaps Lula would come back now that the OP has wandered off and explain her view of this) but I think it is perhaps viewed as not just beneficial physically, which is my justification for it, but also that it shows a cultural identity which is important.

Well my uncle was circumcised because my grandfather was convinced that there would one day be another world war only in the deserts of the middle east and he was worried my uncle would get sand trapped under his foreskin (I kid you not).

The fact that people had bizarre ideas in the past does not really support the argument for the practice these days. Crikey, there are heaps of antiquated medical practices that we would consider barbaric and completely pointless these days.

Of course the OP is phrased in a racist manner, I am not surprised that anyone Jewish or Muslim will take offence at "Has anyone got any experience of talking moronic religious extremist relatives out of this stupidity?"

I am shocked that anyone would stick their nose into another families decision-making process when it absolutely cock-all to do with them. Did you see what I did there with the "cock-all"

Saw it folderal

Oh, FFS, I was putting it into historical perspective from the fact that it is much more commonly done in the US. Get a grip georgimama

"No ritual, no religion, nothing." Really? That would be very unusual. Not saying it couldnt happen, but it would be v unusual?

Was it after he had developed problems? If so that would come into clinical need wouldn;t it?

Having only read the OP and about half the thread I noticed the accusations of anti semitism or at least that the OP had said things sailing quite close to the wind and not strictly confined to the debate in questions.

the expression that made me cringe was in the OP itself that his non jewish friends was married to a "quite nice jewish dh". Why was it necessary to say the dh was "quite nice" as well as bieng jewish? Are the two usually mutually exclusive then? Woudl the OP have felt the need to explain , were the dh to have been C of E that his friend was married to a " quite nice christian dh"?

No, no problems for him (or his brothers). He lived in an area of very poor hygiene. My grandmother (who was not a maternal woman) did very extended breastfeeding (very unusual for someone of her background and personality) for similar reasons - health and hygiene.

I think that it would depend on the context lisalisa - in that in the op (which I agree is unnecessarily inflammatory) I think that by saying "quite nice jewish dh" he is saying that he quite likes the dh and feels that he is a sympathetic character. He is attempting not to paint the dh as the "villain" in the piece IYSWIM.

I think.....

That was my take as well, pooka.

I agree with Pooka. The OP certainly could have been less inflammatory, but I took his OP to mean that the DH is Jewish and quite nice.

Doesn't wash wiht me I'm afraid. Sounds too me like " Some of my friends are jewish but.....".

Again, if the dh were christian would he have felt the need to explain that he is actually "quite nice"?

I think what lisalisa said. The tone of the rest of the OP means that at the very mildest the OP meant "her husband is nice for a religious nutter". Or possibly "quite nice for a religious, child abusing nutter".

I agree with Lisa

The female is the friend of the OP. Her DH is Jewish (hence the circumcision thing, which wouldn't be an issue if the DH was Christian), and he is quite nice.

That's my understanding of it.

the fact is that between 30-40% of world's male population are circumcised for religious/cultural/medical reasons
(i had a bit of a read up online, statistics drawn from religious populations and sociological and medical sources)

if you don't want to circumcise your sons for your own reasons that's fair enough but i object to not having access in uk to circumcision in hospital as soon after birth as possible

there are 2 million muslims and half a million Jews in uk and they are directed to private clinics, mosques and synagogues for circumcision which would obviously be a lot safer performed in a hospital

So for reasons we have

1. Clinical need (where the foreskin is too small/infected) Done properly in a hospital

2. Prevention of disease. Which mostly seems either for the womans benefit or could be replaced by soap and water

3. Pleasing god (God prefers it to be done without general anaesthetic) and you invite your friends round to watch.

4. Pleasing Anna (because men get less enjoyment and therefore take longer to orgasm)

Did I miss any?

If circumcision is that great, why aren't adult men queueing up to have it?

since none of you anti-women are going to be circumcised or have your sons circumcised why do you care if others chose to?