Wow; it's only circumcision..

[Chloejp91]

Before I get killed, I'm not suggesting it is only circumsion, that's just the title of this thread.

I'm due in less than 4 weeks and I'm having a boy. I'm definitely going to circumcise him. It's part of my culture and my partner's culture so it's going to be done. I just feel sad that it's seen as such a bad thing, where there are some benefits to it.

Anyone circumsised/circumsizing their sons?

Sorry for coming into this late, but I have a question for the OP.

Earlier, you said "Even if I did wait genevie untill he's older and he went ahead and did so, the pain would be too much and I'd feel guilty for not doing it earlier."

So do you think that pain is less as a baby? his simply isn't true. IT will hurt just the same amount, but he will not be able to express it. In fact, if he were to wait until he was older, he would be given proper anaesthetics, and although it would still hurt (a lot), it wouldn't be anywhere close to the excruciating amount of pain that a baby will experience.

Your baby will look for you to keep it safe. Please rethink this.

LoopyLoopsOfSparklyFairyLights I actually asked the OP the same question yesterday and to save you scolling back, here's how it went:

I said:

"I can't get my head around not feeling guity for inflicting pain and suffering on your baby son who can't yet articulate his feelings but feeling guilty for doing the same to an older child who is capable of doing so!

Please ChloeJP, tell me what sort of fucked up logic is behind that!"

To which the OP replied:

GenevieveHawkings I think it's because I feel that babies don't suffer as long as an adult would? That's probably why I'd feel guilty. Seems mad reading what you said, I know. I stopped and thought for a second there."

So, we see that it did make her think a bit.

I desperately hope she's still thinking and that together we might, just might, be able to save at least one poor child from suffering this vile and unspeakable abuse.

KickArseQueen, like you, the unnecessary ritual mutilation of a child's genitals is top of my list of things to make me feel so upset and get my blood absolutely boiling. There are few issues outside of what directly affects my own life that would genuinely motivate me to take direct action, such as marching the streets and stuff but if ever there was one, it's this.

Oh thanks Genevieve.

It really upsets me that people think babies don't feel pain just because thy don't express it as much. I can only assume anyone who thinks that way can;t have had the unfortunate sadness of having to spend time in NICU. :(

Genevievehawkings

I've seen too many of these threads now.

I don't want to post on them because it shows up in my i'm ons and I can't avoid the issue.

I am compelled to post because I can't not. :(

I have no idea how many times I've posted that video on here under various name changes over the last few years, and I have no idea how many mums/dads have changed their minds because of it, but it keeps coming back, this thread, where a parent "assumes" that it can't be that bad, because who in their right mind would do something that horrible to a defenseless babe?

A placard?? A demo??

Would that help? If so I'm there.

I ( probably misguidedly) have faith in the British Legal system to be fair, and protective.

I feel that it needs educating.

And changing.

I would like to do that through its own system. I don't know how to do that, but I'm fairly stubborn, so I guess I'll find out one way or another.

Nice to know I'm not alone in how I feel about this tho. :)

KickArseQueen, like you, I've spent hours raging about this subject on various internet forums until people are sick of hearing what I have so say.

What saddens me most is the whole "Oh FGS, it's not that big of a deal" approach that people seem to have. The way that mothers - women who we like to believe are more protective, compassionate and inherently caring than men - seem to be so willing to inflict this abuse on their children and to "justify" it with this whole "he's just a baby and he won't remember it when he's older and it's more hygenic anyway" nonsense.

Then you get the religious nonsense. The "he won't fit into our community/be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven if he's not" even bigger pile of shite nonsense.

I truly don't think that anything will change until and unless the unneccessary ritual mutilation of children's genitals is seen for what it is - CHILD ABUSE plain and simple. It can't be dressed up to be anything else.

You say that you (albeit misguidedly) have faith in the British Legal system to be fair and protective, well I'd like to say that I do too but when it protects dogs to a greater degree than human beings and ensures that people who cut parts of their tails off are sanctioned under the law but does not do the same to people who chop off parts of babies' penises then I'm afraid that we're both gravely misguided.

Full retraction often doesn't happen until puberty. If it hurts to retract it's not ready to retract.

KAQ, it is illegal, we just need to get the law enforced!

I love this http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pregnancy/1113607-Wow-its-only-circumcision/AllOnOnePage#22946714 there are some scenes of circ so you may want to be ready to scroll at those points so you can miss it.

Darn, not sure what happened there! It does go to the right link at least...

confuddled, That link is for this thread. Was that your intention?

I'd like to see proof that its illegal. :)

Ok thats weird, I'll go have a look :)

It is genital mutilation and physical and sexual abuse of an unconsenting child but hey if it's in your culture........

PATHETIC.

have no respect for your sorry, ineffectual mutterings. Grow a sense of fucking individual thought instead of following herd mentality you poor brainwashed fool.

Confuddled, I followed your link, Its an american site, I may not be looking hard enough, but where does it say its illegal please?

It is illegal to cause a doctor to perform unnecessary surgery on a child. As RIC is unnecessary this law can be used to cover it. I think though it's going to take these boys to grow up and take action for themselves - I have heard today that the first case is due to come to court.

I found it originally on a discussion between doctors about RIC and they were saying that doctors who do it leave themselves open to prosecution but I've not been able to find the link.

Sorry, the link is to Penn and Tellar which I thought I put as the description but somehow managed to put the thread url instead. It's a very interesting film, Penn gets quite worked up about RIC.

Excellent news, confuddled. Lets hope that the test case is decided soon. UK law should indeed step in to protect children in situations where parents are abusive.

Lots of cross posting, I must apologise.

DS (neither Jewish, Muslim, or African) was circumcised at birth in the US almost 18 years ago, where the procedure was done routinely at the time. You would really have had to argue with your OB/GYN to avoid it.

He had pain relief only in the form of Tylenol drops , administered by me beforehand and again at the recommended intervals afterwards. I took it upon myself to do this, having found a sample of infant tylenol in the take home samples packet that the hospital provided. DS was gone for all of 15 minutes having the procedure done -- he left my room awake and came back asleep. He had the little vaseline bandage afterwards for a week and showed no signs of discomfort at all when I changed the gauze; I saw no sign of pain or discomfort from the outset, and he had no complications.

One of the main reasons presented to me and exH to have it done was the ease of hygiene for DS -- as mentioned in Confuddled's excerpt from Man Nurse, the idea of penile hygiene in the US at that time involved retraction of the foreskin in order to be thoroughly clean (as the nurses were trained to do). It was impressed upon exH and me that this would be our duty until DS could do this for himself whether the foreskin was readily retractable or not, a horrific prospect. There was also mention of potentially having to have it done at puberty if it hadn't retracted by itself by then. So as far as retracting, I suspect that nobody actually knew what they were talking about and I was fed a line based on very little in the way of facts, since very few in the US medical community of the time would have actually experienced life with an intact foreskin or would have seen one in the course of their work (especially since the procedure is done by obstetricians and not pediatricians). IIRC, the other main advantage of circumcision the doctors and American babycare books of the time mentioned was prevention of penile cancer.

However, I have a feeling that the main issue American culture had and maybe still has with the foreskin is that, having set up boys to have to fiddle with their penises due to all that retraction allegedly necessary in order to be thoroughly clean, there is the horrible possibility (to some minds) that masturbation will ensue (thanks to all that touching) so far better to kill two birds with the one stone and circumcise.

I don't think I would do it again to DS; in fact I'm certain I wouldn't, but he has never brought up the subject and it's too late now anyhow. What's done is done.

Circumcision is a routine practice to carry out on newborn males in many American hospitals. Odd, seeing as America likes to see itself as a modern and enlightened civilised society with protection of human rights high on its list of priorities (LOL!)

However, having researched the issue a bit, I've found that some of the major healthcare companies are now no longer allowing circumcision as standard practice in their hospitals.

It's also heartening to hear that there is a growing groundswell of opinion that is opposed to unnecessary circumcision of infants and an increasing number of parents are not allowing their children to be circumscised.

And yes mathanxiety, you are right that back in the day in America circumcision was seen as a solution to stop boys masturbating.

The OB/GYNs in USA do the procedure for money.

Paediatricians do not do it.

That speaks volumes IMO.

It cost very little actually. Less than the hospital charged me for changing the sheets on my bed.

It might not cost much math, but they make a heck of a lot selling them on.

I first started using parenting forums over 5 years ago and was using an American site then. I didn't know before then that it was routinely done and I was as shocked and horrified as most Brits are. Most of the mothers then were doing it. It dropped down a few years ago to 50% done and more recently the figure is down to 30% - of course that's only in one year so the amount of circ'd boys is higher - and it does seem to be in decline.

Imarriedafrog, my baby was born very prematurely and went through some horrible things. I tried to stay as much as possible but one day she got ill and no one could say why. They eventually decided to do an LP. I told them to give me five minutes to leave the hospital first. I knew it was necessary and needed to be done but I could not witness my child go through that. Every time I think of RIC or anything else that deliberately harms a baby I think back to that. If I couldn't even be in the same hospital as my baby going through a necessary LP, how do people choose to harm their child?

I realise that thread has moved on but I am still reading page 3 and an at sum04. So she spared her own tender feelings around blood and pain but condoned the mutilation of her baby son. And does she realise that babies don't always cry when in pain or distressed, they actually often go into a catatonic shocked state.

Also aghast at other poster who said the grandfather's held the babies down.

You are both disgusting . Culture does not excuse such cruelty.

I got angry when I first read that post, I mentioned on the other thread about grandfathers and thought you were talking to me (I'm getting confused between these threads!)

I'm not defending Jewish circumcision but the fact that Jewish boys are held by the grandfather does demonstrate that what's being done in the USA (total amputation of the foreskin) is a far cry from the religious circumcision because a. you wouldn't be able to hold a boy in your arms with just a drop of alcohol as pain relief and b. boys would have died in the desert (one boy dies every 3 days in the USA because of it, not to mention the complications and sex changes because of it) if it was done like that. The only reason I highlight this difference is because I want people to realise that what's being done is barbaric and is done for totally different reasons for what it started off as.

MumNWLondon posted about the grandfathers holding her babies legs whilst circumcision being done. I hope that all concerned are very proud of themselves.

confuddledDOTcom I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you're tying to make there but if you are for one second trying to justify one form or method of ritual genital mutilation as being "kinder" "more humane" or in some way "more civilised" than another then please don't insult our intelligence by even bothering to do so.

If you think that any form or method of ritual genital mutilation is ever anything other than the most vile, unspeakable, monsterous and barbaric child abuse then you are seriously deluded and just as sick in the head as those who practice it.