Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

circumcision yes or no

387 replies

morocco · 16/03/2003 23:18

My 5 month old has a tight foreskin and doctors here recommend circumcision but Im really not keen. I spoke to docs in the UK and they said to wait and see but then I started worrying about whether it would be traumatic for him to be circumcised at say 4 or older and whether it might be better to just go ahead now. Has anyone been through this with a child of this age/older? All advice gratefully received

OP posts:
fallala · 27/03/2003 21:51

"you don't understand so you shouldn't comment"
Hmm. Very flawed.
Do any of you understand foot binding?( I am guessing no)
Do any of you judge it cruel and unnecessary? ( I am guessing yes)

Why can't those of you who have defended circumcision see to some of us it is equally repugnant as foot binding?

fallala · 27/03/2003 21:58

I see the pain issue has moved to "it only hurts a bit but is over quickly".
I am really horrified at this logic being used to defend this procedure.

Jimjams that was a very thought provoking piece, thank you, but it did nothing tofurther the circumcision discussion as far as I can see . However I will certainly try not to jump to conclusions about childrens behaviourbased on what you have told us so thanks again.

Jimjams · 28/03/2003 07:59

Fallala I think there is a universe of difference between foot binding which is painful for life and crippling, and something which hurts a bit but it over quickly!!! To go back to the blood tests analogy whilst I was happy to have my son pinned downed screaming for the couple of minutes or so it took to take blood I would not be happy to pin him down screaming whilst his leg was amputated.

The point of the horse farm story was to say don't judge. In this case it strikes me that the people taking the anti viewpoint don't know much about why it's done or how it's done or how much it hurts etc etc. They are also judging and condemming parents who obviously love and care about thier child. When you have been on the receiving end of people with lovely neat little lives judging you every time you go out of your front door you tend to get sensitive when you see it happening to others.

And finally this will go down like a lead balloon but I have to say it. If you (collective you- not one person) feel so strongly about circumcison (which remember seems to be something that hurts breifly but not for very long) that you feel you can condem people who have their own strong reasons for practicing it (and who are obviously normal, educated, balanced, caring mothers) then quite frankly you haven't got enougth to worry about.

Croppy · 28/03/2003 08:02

In foot binding, the bones of the feet are broken when a child is aged about three. The bones effectively stay broken for the rest of that person's life. This leads to the most hideous infections (many of which were fatal)which accounted for the revolting stench whenever bandages had to be removed. Of course foot binding effectively crippled the person for life. Don't personally see the connection between that and having a flap of skin removed. I know loads of circumcised men, it is simply not a big deal to them.

Tissy · 28/03/2003 08:23

I think Nicola3 has given up on me, but if you don't mind lisalisa, I'd like to ask another question about Judaism....

(BTW, Does your name come from the Cat Stevens song?- It's one of my favourites!)

Why is Jesus not the Messiah? It occurred to me last night (this thread has really got me thinking ) that when Jesus was born it became apparent to his followers,who presumably were also Jews, that he was something special and they came to see that he was the Son of God. Why were the rest of the Jews around at the time not convinced?

Sorry if this is a really stupid question ( and absolutely nothing to do with circumcision- sorry, Rhubarb), but it intrigues me!

Jimjams · 28/03/2003 08:28

Tissy I understood- and could have thins wrong that the orignal follwers of jesus were not jews (he was but they weren't). You can only be a jew if you are born to a jewish mother (I think- correct me if I'm wrong), and so at the time there were lots of people (oppressed- by Romans) without a religion. Jesus came along and said don;t worry follow me- and you can get to heaven through me- so they did.

Could be wrong though- but I thought that was how it all began..... Could explain why christians don't circumcise- the original ones weren't jews.....

mum2toby · 28/03/2003 08:31

Your last comment Jimjams - can be said equally for a person that spend even MORE time trying to convince people that their opinions are trivial, irrelevant, uneducated and judgemental.

zebra · 28/03/2003 09:04

There was a Radio4 programme about following in the Footsteps of St. Paul. The impression I got was that Christianity was originally a sect meant to appeal only to Jews. The point of division was circumcision; Christians wanted to convert non-Jews, but most of the adult male, potential converts didn't want to undergo circumcision. So circumcision was dropped as a requirement.

Tortington · 28/03/2003 09:55

for non medical reasons is it done on the NHS?

and surely this cant turn into another religeon thread?

and fallella i think foot binding is a crap comparison.

this is another thread thats got completely out of control dispite lots of people begging for it to quit - so lets carry this on on forever shall we with the arguments for an against?

i just dont understand why parents would want theirs sons to have a smaller penis surely the little extra is bound to help - so i think its all womens fault for allowing their sons to have this done kowing their future wives will have a little less penis.

mum2toby · 28/03/2003 09:57

Custardo

Nicola3 · 28/03/2003 10:37

Tissy I'm sorry I haven't given up on you , just been so busy.

I'm interested to hear lisalisa's response to your question regarding Jesus, as I've been taught about this from a Christian perspective but I know we both have very different ideas about who Jesus was.

The Jews were promised a Messiah in the old testament, a king if you like, someone to be their saviour and lead their people out of oppression. The problem was, when Jesus was born to a carpenter in a Bethlehem stable, and his family came from a place like Nazareth (frowned upon), this was not the king the Jews were expecting. Although old testament prophesy describes the manner in which Jesus would come, the Jewish people could not accept that this man could be their messiah. To make matters worse, when Jesus began his ministry, he proceeded to condemn the pharisees and the high priests for the hypocritical way in which they were living, and he accused them of not following the Law of Moses, even though they professed to. He challenged them on every level and in turn they also accused him of not adhering to their law - he healed people on the Sabbath, refused to condemn people that were looked down upon and treated as outcasts by the religious leaders, he publicly questioned their motives, and accused them of oppressing their own people. Not exactly going to win votes for yourself by challenging people where it hurts. Many of the religious leaders were incensed by his teachings and his growing number of followers, so they sought to have him condemned, which is what ultimately happened. In the New Testament it describes Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, primarily because his own people had not believed who he was.

With regard to circumcision, Jesus brought with him a new covenant which would free people from the bondage of the Law. Since circumcision was still part of the law, and Christ represented a new covenant between God and his people, circumcision (along with many of the other requirements of the law) was no longer necessary. Commitment to Christ and accepting him as their saviour was the new requirement, enabling people to live a life under God's grace, as opposed to being bound by the Law. (Because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for all sins).

Hope this all makes sense and I hope you didn't mind me interjecting here.

Nicola3 · 28/03/2003 10:38

Custardo that was a classic

Nice to have a little comic relief..

Sabbath · 28/03/2003 21:09

Hi all,
MY ds has an infection on his willy, and it has really swollen up, he is on antibiotics and some cream to stop the swelling, but I was just wondereing if anyone else has gone through this and how long does it take to go, we are meant to be going to legoland tommorow,and i am abit worried about it. And suggestions?

fallala · 29/03/2003 01:00

give me strength! I am not comparing circ with footbinding. I am saying I have feelings of revulsion towards both. If you can understand revulsion to fb ( which I am sure you all can) then be assured some of us feel revulsed (if that's a word) about circ. SO allow us to feel revusion and don't expect us to be talked out of it!!
This is NOT to compare the two, but to explain my and others feelings.

Sabbath sorry I can't help but I hope he gets well soon.

Ghosty · 29/03/2003 06:40

Dear Sabbath ... I am sorry that you little boy is having this trouble .... and I am also sorry that no-one has answered your query ...
I think that people might be ignoring this thread because of the arguments that are going on....
I have no advice for you either as I have no experience of this but it might be an idea if you ask the same question by starting a new thread ... Otherwise you might find yourself ducking in the crossfire ....
I am sure there is someone out there who will have some advice for you .....
Cheers ... GX

Tissy · 29/03/2003 10:40

Hi, Sabbath,

Is he able to pee? Is he able to walk around without being too sore? If so, going to Legoland isn't likely to be a problem. These infections usually take about 48 hours to start clearing up.

HTH

StuartC · 29/03/2003 16:03

The point about footbinding is that it is incomprehensible to people nowadays but it was once accepted cultural practice in the East. Parents then could justify having it done to their daughters - just as they now justify circumcision on their sons.

hmb · 29/03/2003 17:49

As I understand it footbinding never had religious connotations, it was rather a fetish that men had. It started as a fashion following one of the emperesses who had malformed feet. Over the years it bacame more popular, and had sexual conotations. It also 'proved' that the males of the family could afford to 'keep' a wife, who was esentialy prvented from working, as the bound feet left her crippled. The process of unbinding the feet (which happened following the communist revolution) was as painful as the binding process.

StuartC · 30/03/2003 12:47

News for Americans interested in circumcision - tomorrow is the start of Genital Integrity Awareness Week. Marches and demonstrations are planned in Washington to highlight opposition to male genital mutilation. Details here .
Other news - this month Utah became the eleventh state to withdraw Medicaid funding for infant circumcision.
Could anyone answer a question please? After a circumcision, most US hospitals sell the foreskin to biochemical or biomedical companies or even to middlemen traders. Does this sale also happen after a religious circumcision?

monkey · 31/03/2003 09:26

lisalisa, I have a question for you, not regarding circumcision, but malathion. I'm sorry tp hear of the problems you've had with your ds. I guess following your problems you did a bit of investigations into things that can cause foetal problems - do you know of any comprehensive site that can say if a product is safe or not safe to use during pregnancy? Will a pharmacy know - for the more obscure things I'm not sure they would & I don't want to take any chances. I'm sure many peopel have used lice shampoo thinking it couldn't possible cause any problems, especially as it's used exterrnally and not ingested. I found what you wrote shocking. I wish you & ds & family all the best.

lisalisa · 31/03/2003 10:23

Message withdrawn

Jimjams · 31/03/2003 10:51

monkey- I don't think they'll say anything is safe in pregnancy- partly becuase for obvious reasons you can't test drugs on pregnant women- and after the thalidomide fiasco.......

You may hear of specific problems in rats, or as in lisalisas case from accidents but you won't get much help. IME Boots tell you that nothing is safe- they wouldn't even sell me a tube of canesten when I was 9 months pregnant and itching like mad! Sometimes the independent chemists give you an idea.

What doctors don't tell you have started a page on their website for recording reactions to drugs- you could browse there. Don't think it's been going very lng though and it's probably more along the lines of "rash" "wheeziness" IYKWIM

lisalisa · 31/03/2003 11:10

Message withdrawn

Jimjams · 31/03/2003 13:44

oooh no I I'm sure it's fine. Don't worry! Boots are just extra fussy- it was because I was at the end of pregnancy as well (36 weeks-maybe they were worried about it kickstarting labour) I got it from an independent chemist. Boots wouldn't even let me have a vicks nasal sniffer things when I was bfeeding!!!

Sabbath · 31/03/2003 22:08

Not intending to argue with anyone, just wanted to thank all how helped with my question. My ds is fine now and was able to go to legoland after all. I left his nappy off all night and laid him on some towels. It has nearly completely gone. I think the doctor scared me abit as he said if he can't wee you'll have to take him to the hospital. Thankfully he was fine.