Timing of circumcision

[sunhat88]

Hi,

My baby boy is due soon and he will be circumcised. (Please no circumcision debate on this thread). Those of you who have had you baby boys circumcised... what is your opinion on the best age to have it done? Also what was your experience of their recovery?

Thank you

firawla

Well done you!

Fakename Im with you on the ear piercing too.

Firalwa - brilliant, well done you - your kids are lucky to have you for their Mum.

Firalwa - good for you. Lucky boys!

Am I correct in thinking that circumcision isn't a religious requirement in Islam but rather a common cultural practise in muslim countries?

sticklebrix there might be a difference of opinion about it. I have read it's not 100% compulsory so I'm kinda going with that! It's supposed to have originated with the story of prophet Ibrahim though so I think that's the same for both Jewish and muslims as we share that common origin

There's nothing in the Quran about it so you are correct in thinking it's not compulsory. However it is Sunnah - meaning that it is what the Prophet Mohammed did (actually some believe he was born without a foreskin) and that's why it is highly recommended to follow.

Thank you firawla and Butterfly. That's really interesting.

Happcatt - sorry for delayed response, due to Passover. What parents get out of it is that they have fulfilled their religious duty and carried on the tradition. This isn't a popular concept on MN but that's why I and all my Jewish and Muslim friends have carried it out, even those who aren't especially observant.

Sam. Thank you for answering my question. I have to admit that I still don't get it. Sorry :-( I'm curious what would happen in your circle of Muslim and Jewish friends if someone didn't circumcise their child. Would it be disapproved of?

I understand the power of tradition but times change and surely traditions can be adapted to reflect changes in society. It just seems so out dated for adults to need to prove their religious observance by circumcising their male children. Is there a reason it has to be done when the child is too young to agree to it?

I think it's absolutely abhorrent to do such a thing to a defenceless baby potentially only a few hours old. I could weep for these poor mites who are given absolutely no say and really just want to be held, fed and loved.
I think that the OP and any others contemplating such an act should be truly ashamed of themselves.

As a mother, the concept that you can intentionally cause any kind of discomfort (at best) to your child is totally alien to me. Barbaric to do so unnecessarily and in such a permanent way. How is this even legal anymore?!?

As a mother, the concept that you can intentionally cause any kind of discomfort (at best) to your child is totally alien to me. Barbaric to do so unnecessarily and in such a permanent way. How is this even legal anymore?!?

Firawla for you, you're brilliant!

I'm Muslim so we have to do it in our religion, I done my sons when he was 1 months and he recovered literally in 3 days. I didn't have mine done at the hospital though I had a doctor (registered) to come to my house and do it. I've heard a lot of mums say the sooner the better because once they're moving around more it'll hurt them more if they're rubbing against it. Try and do it as soon as possible if it's for religious reasons.

Most people do it as soon as possible after the birth of the baby.

My DH is literally laughing at some of these comments about circumcised men having lack of sensation. He got circumcised when he was a little older and he and I can both definitely attest to his sensitivity. A little too sensitive sometimes even.
I do notice it's mostly people who aren't circumcised who get so up in arms about this, I know so, so many guys who've been circumcised, even a couple who were circumcised as adults, and it really is no issue for them and they definitely don't have lack of sensation.
The skin isn't torn off either. It is cut. Lots of scare mongering here.

If this is what you've decided, then do it. But don't come on sites like this asking because you won't get many helpful answers. Go and speak to a professional in real life instead.

My brothers had it done at just over a week old...

Fastmako, that's just coincidence though. This lack of sensitivity thing is bollocks. Most men my age in North America are circumcised and they will tell you they are perfectly sensitive thanks very much. I've only had one uncircumcised partner and he was pretty useless in bed. One has nothing to do with the other.

I've heard medically that around a week is the right time in terms of ease of healing. The brit millahs I've been to (circumcisions) the babies barely murmur, one slept through the whole thing, so it can't be too awful for them. Both my kids cried their infants heads off when getting inoculated and certainly cried more than the few circumcisions I've been present at.

Well, the answers are helpful, just not what anyone who wants to chop bits off their baby wants to hear...

I thought no the debate about how it effects sex isn't relevant. Even if it 100% definitely improved sex it is still chopping something off a baby without their permission because of the parents traditions and religion. Babies are not 'property' and circumcision is not reversible.

If the child would like to be circumcised when they are older for their religious beliefs then they can.

Sorry for garbled post.

It was meant to start - I don't see how the discussion ....

Flowers - your empathy does you credit! It's little more than virtue signalling, though. Jewish kids have among the best life chances of any group in the UK, so perhaps there's another group more deserving of your concern....

I don't think that sensitivity, pain and length of recovery are key to this debate (although each incidence of a poor outcome is horrific). They seem to be variable.

What's relevant in every case of child/infant circumcision is the child being subjected to the medically unnecessary removal of a body part without consent. The parents' beliefs or culture should not make this acceptable IMO. Especially when an ethical alternative is available: circ consenting adults instead.

Yes, mutilating genitals at an early age is proven to give children the best start in life.
I just can't understand how this is legal - nobody brave enough to take it on I suppose.
Having said that if it WAS illegal people would probably still get it done and it would become more dangerous.

What are the disadvantages of NOT having it done to babies? Are the parents then 'less' religious or are they then subject to dissaproval from their communities? Does it mean there would be a chance of the child NOT wanting to do it when they are older and so would be cause of 'shame' or 'dissapointment' or something? Would it mean the child couldn't be Jewish or Muslim?

Are you able to have some sort of ceremony when they baby is young that leaves out the actual circumcision?

Nownownow - the disadvantages are that you would be committing a serious breach of the rules and no-one would take you seriously as a Jew. You could still be one of the people who signs asajew letters to the Guardian saying what an honourable person Ken Livingstone is, I suppose, but it would be the end of your participation in any religious community life.

I suppose your child would look a right prat if they were the only ones in school who hadn't had it done. And the rabbi would hit the roof. But I've no idea really, as i don't know any community members who have risked it. There's no bloodless ceremony in RL. On the internet I understand there is something available involving an aubergine(!), but I've never heard of anyone doing it, even on a "friend of a friend" basis.

"I suppose your child would look a right prat if they were the only ones in school who hadn't had it done."

Under what circumstances would anyone know?