Did you or didnt you?

[Mischief]

I'm just curious to see if circumcision is done much anymore...if so why did you choose to do it?

We didnt, neither myself or my hubby see any point in it for the discomfort it causes to the little baby, and since we didnt have any religious reasons for wanting to do it there was no question.

I'd like to keep the post friendly. I'm not into objecting to others views. I'd just like to know....a few years ago it was routine pretty much!

[BlessedWithBlue]

We didn't with either of our boys, my df wanted to have them circ'd but he never mentioned anything about it when they were born so i didn't either. I didn't think it was necessary for us so i didn't have it done.

[Jem]

we didnt with our boys! :no:

[Mister Noodle]

No way in hell.

[JeSsIkA]

i told my partner it was up to him as he has had it done....he said he didnt want it done cos it would hurt too much..we left it at that and i havnt thought about it since.

[~Emmylou~]

We're having a boy and have already agreed he won't be circumcised even though hubby is. He sees no reason why he and his son need to be "the same". It's not like they will be comparing equipment on a daily basis. And on the odd occasion when the question is asked, which we're sure he will, it is not difficult to explain that "yes daddy looks different, but things were done differently when he was born".
That's how we plan to deal with it anyway.

[Sarie]

Yes twice already and if #3 is a boy he will also be done.

[damien's mum]

I had a VERY hard time, trying to come to the decision wether to do this with my DS or not.. 1st there is a huge limit on Dr's in WA that will acutally perform such an operation on babies, I was all for this, and my DH wasn't. I was more so, for when he reaches high school, and i have a 17yo old sister, and her and her friends, make fun of males that arent.. and etc, But after reading up on the internet about it, and some stories, from males that their parents had made the decision for the, i came to the same thoughts as my Dh, Who has the right to make the decision? The owner of the penis does... Alot of males had resented their parents from taking that right away from them...

[FourAngelKisses]

We didn't even think about it, it never ever crossed our minds. They are born with it there, so it is meant to be there. If it is cleaned properly, they will never have a problem.

[the_queen]

We didn't. I did lots of research, on both sides, and then realised that basically I couldn't do that to my bubby. I wouldn't circumcise my girls, so I won't circumcise my boys.

My hubby, on the other hand, had a much more.... uninformed...... basis for his opinion. I said "Dear, if the baby is a boy, what is your opinion on circumcision?" and his response was "oh my GOD no way!! That makes your penis SMALLER!! I'm not doing that to my son!!!!!" :laughing:

[FourAngelKisses]

lol@your hubby. :D

[the_queen]

:D ... I started to correct him but then I thought, nah I'll just let him beleive that!!!

[BubbaLicious]

I couldn't do that to my bubby. I wouldn't circumcise my girls, so I won't circumcise my boys.

My thoughts exactly....
needless to say we didn't with either of our boys, we don't think it's necessary

[cheezelkat]

I could never inflict pain on my son intentionally.

I have also had horror stories from people I know who had it done. Not very nice :(

[FourAngelKisses]

I remember watching a US current affairs show (20/20) when Brooke was a newborn....it was on at 4am or something and I was giving her a bottle, but stayed up to watch it after she went back to bed. Anyway, they had this thing on about circumcision and the Dr at the hospital was saying that a lot of boys over there are routinely done, even without the parents permission (I'd be suing!!) and they don't use anesthetic because they don't think newborns can feel pain etc. It was horrific to watch. :(

[~Danni~]

We are having a boy in Nov and wont be getting him done

I didnt even think about it, may as well have him look the same as Daddy!! Both DF and I agreed to start with:rolleyes:

[~Emmylou~]

cheeki - totally agree that sometimes it does need to be done. My cousin was done when he was 7 for similar reasons to your son. No one would have a problem with that (at least I don't ;) )

But doing it routinely at birth, when there is no evidence of a problem is a whole different can of worms.

[FourAngelKisses]

cheeki - totally agree that sometimes it does need to be done. My cousin was done when he was 7 for similar reasons to your son. No one would have a problem with that (at least I don't ;) )


No probs here. :)

[semazani]

:crying: Yes unfortunately we did circumcise our boys. If I were ever to have anymore they would not be circumcised.:shame: I am still coming to terms with inflicting an unnecessary procedure on my boys that will change their anatomy forever. I never even questioned the procedure until recently. I am kicking myself now for not looking further into the subject.

[the_queen]

semazani - when you know better, you do better. Don't beat yourself up over something you can't change. :hugs:

[pookiesossige]

...the Dr at the hospital was saying that a lot of boys over there are routinely done, even without the parents permission (I'd be suing!!) and they don't use anesthetic because they don't think newborns can feel pain etc. It was horrific to watch. :(

Dr Sheila Kitzinger ("Pregnancy and Birth", 1998) has always said that while doctor's are quick to comfort parents subjecting their boy to the op that 'they didn't cry because they can't feel pain', they in fact 'withdraw' within themselves (and so are silent) as an escape and as a coping mechanism- much like adult survivors of various horiffic events throughout the world. That piece of info was on the fringe of being too much for me, but I didn't need to know it to decide that my boy is staying the way God made him.

As for cleaning ect- we don't live 2000 years ago when good male hygene was hard to come by, so there are no issues to consider, really. I have always been told by paed's ect that an uncircumsised penis (in an infant/toddler before it can naturally retract) requires about as much attention in the bath as an elbow.

[semazani]

semazani - when you know better, you do better. :hugs:

A friend of mine said the exact same thing to me today. I met him on another board and he has been helping me with my journey.

[skyejax]

i didnt do my son. i dont agree with it unless it is for medical reasons. although i dont look down on those who choose either cause it is everyones right to choose. i just personly wouldnt do it unless necessary. he can get it done when he is older if thats what he chooses. after all it does belong to him, not me. :)

[nelly75]

Yep had both my boys done - no religious or medical reason and no regrets either.

[twolittlegirls]

We don't have a boy, but if we do have one we WILL be having it done. Our decision though.

[Tisme]

I left the decision to my partner (only because I say yes and he was iffy) and when he chose yes, we couldn't afford the specialist to come in as my first was too old.

Then when Declan came along he chose not too as Ciaran wasn't done and that wasn't fair!!!:rolleyes:

[sugar n spice]

I wanted to with my first but asked at kemh and they dont do it unless there religous reasons behind it so we didnt push any further. The only reason i even considered it is because his dad is but both my boys arent.

[angcaltam]

We decided not to get our boys done. Then when our DS1 was 4 yrs old he had to be done for medical reasons. :crying: :banghead: I just didn't want to put them through any unnecessary pain.

[mumtok&z]

We are going to get our 2 boys done. We are Muslim and in our religion it is done for hygienic purposes. We will be doing it before they start school as it heals quicker and better when they are young. At about 4 or 5 years old when we can explain it to them better. The only problem is me getting off my behind to find a DR. to do it, but i still have a few years to wait so no rush yet.

[Sara's Boys]

I wouldn't alter a daughters genetalia, and so I wouldn't do it to my son. Not that I believe in God, but, why would we be born with some thing "unnatural" or dangerous. I would only consider if there was an actual present medical reason.

[Mamaduke]

We decided against it. Before I had children I always thought that I would have my sons circumcised, but after actually having them...couldn't do it.
DH had a circumcision (due to infections) at around 8 years of age and he barely remembers anything of the procedure (I even had to ask his mum why he went to hospital because he had no clue!) so our thoughts are that if there are problems in the future and a specialist recommends the procedure we'll do it but definately not before.

[Jax Tellers Old Lady]

i totally disagree with it if it wasnt meant to be there he wouldnt have been born with it

[damien's mum]

My sister is muslim and married to a turkish man, his nephew's were both done in turkey, and they came back to perth, and had nightmares for years, Apparently, they dont knock the children out, over there. Any one else heard of this??

[Milly]

Our son is intact and we felt that there was absolutely no reason to circumcise a perfectly healthy baby boy. We regard it as an unnessary procedure. His foreskin is there for a purpose and it is not our decision to take part of his body away from him without his consent either.

[talon]

unfortunately i had to have it done for medical reasons. i would never do it just for the sake of it. I wanted to choose "No - I don't agree with it" but selected "Yes, other reasons" instead. Thought it was the closer of the two to what I thought.

[mumtok&z]

My sister is muslim and married to a turkish man, his nephew's were both done in turkey, and they came back to perth, and had nightmares for years, Apparently, they dont knock the children out, over there. Any one else heard of this??


OMG, they don't knokc them out! Now that is cruel! I have heard of female circumsision in other countries being ******** (now that is a pointless practice, even in Islam it is not a practice), but no i haven't heard of males not being knocked out like that! Poor boys.

[Mister Noodle]

Note that circumcision is only mentioned in the hadiths, not in the Qu'ran. It would thus seem to me to be a cultural hangover (of which Mohammed was a part) rather than an actual religious requirement. I would have imagined that anything quite so drastic would have been mentioned directly, if it were truly important.

Note also that male circumcision is mentioned in the hadiths with exactly the same level of recommendation as female circumcision. If you consider the hadiths invoved to be authoratative, you would have a hard time not also mandating clitoridectomy.

Given that hygiene has improved beyond description since Mohammed's time, and given that there is Qu'ranic support for medical innovation (I forget the reference, but it's along the lines that for all diseases, Allah has created a cure, but it's up to us to find them), it would seem reasonable to suggest that perhaps circumcision for hygiene purposes is something that could well be relegated to history.

One thing that strikes me as a *possible* reason why routine circumcision might have been a good idea 1500 years ago in the middle east is the surprising (to me) degree of incidence of frenulum breve and phimosis. The former is having a foreskin too tight to be easily retracted for hygiene, and the latter is having a too-short frenulum to permit full retraction. The frenulum is the skin 'tie' between the foreskin and the glans, very much like the flap of skin up under your top lip.

The thing is, both these conditions are eminently treatable these days - steroid creams and a simple stretching regimen cover the vast majority of cases, and in more severe cases, there are surgical interventions that fix the actual problem without the wholesale destruction that circumcision entails. Google image search for 'frenuloplasty', though be warned: there are some rather graphic images involved.

The foreskin is an intricate, sensitive and important mechanism, serving several useful functions. It's not just a flap of skin. I do urge you to at least consider an alternative approach, and the actual intent behind the religious tradition. If there's a subtler, kinder and more effective approach, wouldn't that be the choice you'd want for your sons?

[SuperWoman]

We didn't and we wont be doing it to DS unless it is for medical reasons.

[vanillabean]

No way. Don't agree with it.

[mumtok&z]

Note that circumcision is only mentioned in the hadiths, not in the Qu'ran. It would thus seem to me to be a cultural hangover (of which Mohammed was a part) rather than an actual religious requirement. I would have imagined that anything quite so drastic would have been mentioned directly, if it were truly important.

Note also that male circumcision is mentioned in the hadiths with exactly the same level of recommendation as female circumcision. If you consider the hadiths invoved to be authoratative, you would have a hard time not also mandating clitoridectomy.

Given that hygiene has improved beyond description since Mohammed's time, and given that there is Qu'ranic support for medical innovation (I forget the reference, but it's along the lines that for all diseases, Allah has created a cure, but it's up to us to find them), it would seem reasonable to suggest that perhaps circumcision for hygiene purposes is something that could well be relegated to history.

One thing that strikes me as a *possible* reason why routine circumcision might have been a good idea 1500 years ago in the middle east is the surprising (to me) degree of incidence of frenulum breve and phimosis. The former is having a foreskin too tight to be easily retracted for hygiene, and the latter is having a too-short frenulum to permit full retraction. The frenulum is the skin 'tie' between the foreskin and the glans, very much like the flap of skin up under your top lip.

The thing is, both these conditions are eminently treatable these days - steroid creams and a simple stretching regimen cover the vast majority of cases, and in more severe cases, there are surgical interventions that fix the actual problem without the wholesale destruction that circumcision entails. Google image search for 'frenuloplasty', though be warned: there are some rather graphic images involved.

The foreskin is an intricate, sensitive and important mechanism, serving several useful functions. It's not just a flap of skin. I do urge you to at least consider an alternative approach, and the actual intent behind the religious tradition. If there's a subtler, kinder and more effective approach, wouldn't that be the choice you'd want for your sons?


I just want to clarify the " religious " reasons for circumsision in Islam. Firstly it was a religious duty performed by prophet Ibraheem, which as muslims we are instructed to follow. Secondly because the skin that covers the forehead of the penis prevents water to reach the inside when cleansingit. When a Muslim prays they need to be clean and this includes that region of the body. It is stated in the Quran as a natural instinct in man ( which there are 5) which are : curcumsision, shaving of the pubic hair , trimming of the moustache, clipping\ cutting the nails and removing the hair from the armpits. These help with the cleanliness of the body in order to pray.

I really do not want to start a religious debate but i felt there was a need to explain my reasons for curcumsising my sons under "religious reasons"

[Mister Noodle]

I just want to clarify the " religious " reasons for circumsision in Islam. Firstly it was a religious duty performed by prophet Ibraheem, which as muslims we are instructed to follow. Secondly because the skin that covers the forehead of the penis prevents water to reach the inside when cleansingit. When a Muslim prays they need to be clean and this includes that region of the body. It is stated in the Quran as a natural instinct in man ( which there are 5) which are : curcumsision, shaving of the pubic hair , trimming of the moustache, clipping\ cutting the nails and removing the hair from the armpits. These help with the cleanliness of the body in order to pray.

I really do not want to start a religious debate but i felt there was a need to explain my reasons for curcumsising my sons under "religious reasons"

Okay, couple of factual errors there.

First, circumcision is not mentioned in the Qu'ran. There's a searchable archive of the Qu'ran [url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/]here[/i] in three separate translations (along with the original Arabic), and I guarantee you will not find a single reference. (Or of course, look it up in your own Qu'ran).

As muslims, therefore, you're not actually instructed to follow Ibrahim's example in this. It is alleged that the Prophet recommended it (though the reliability of the relevant hadiths does vary), but there is no certainty that this was not simply his opinion. Certainly it was Mohammed's opinion that the clitorises of girls should be cut off (I'll dig up the actual hadith if you like) - if you deny that that is Allah's intention, then surely you should question the very same hadith that reommends the circumcision of males.

I therefore disagree that it's a definite religious requirement. According to Islam, the Quran was revealed in order to correct the ongoing corruption of scripture and religious practice known to man. If mankind already had it right, there would surely have been no need of it. Thus any religious prescription not confirmed in the Quran (and it does get into precise detail on the smallest of matters) cannot simply be assumed to be a true requirement. Who is to say that the reports of the requirement from Ibrahim's time were not merely another corruption that the Qu'ran was sent to correct?

Second, it's untrue that having a foreskin prevents water reaching anywhere at all. It retracts as easily as pushing back your sleeve to look at your watch, completely exposing the glans and underlying sulcus exactly as much as if you were circumcised. Washing in the shower, after urinating or after sexual activity is not impeded in any way.

Even if if you assume that circumcision was mandated at the time, you have to ask about the intent of the prescription. The only reason that makes sense was the inadequate hygiene at the time and the inadequate treatments available for phimosis and frenulum breve (which would indeed pose a hygiene problem). A bit of a one-size-fits-all approach, but understandable. With the development of running water and soap, however, and the development of medical techniques to actually fix the problem, you do have to ask if a just god would still require the most drastic and least specific approach to a potential problem that is becoming increasingly rare.

[Mum2Bug]

Okay, couple of factual errors there.

First, circumcision is not mentioned in the Qu'ran. There's a searchable archive of the Qu'ran [url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/]here[/i] in three separate translations (along with the original Arabic), and I guarantee you will not find a single reference. (Or of course, look it up in your own Qu'ran).

As muslims, therefore, you're not actually instructed to follow Ibrahim's example in this. It is alleged that the Prophet recommended it (though the reliability of the relevant hadiths does vary), but there is no certainty that this was not simply his opinion. Certainly it was Mohammed's opinion that the clitorises of girls should be cut off (I'll dig up the actual hadith if you like) - if you deny that that is Allah's intention, then surely you should question the very same hadith that reommends the circumcision of males.

I therefore disagree that it's a definite religious requirement. According to Islam, the Quran was revealed in order to correct the ongoing corruption of scripture and religious practice known to man. If mankind already had it right, there would surely have been no need of it. Thus any religious prescription not confirmed in the Quran (and it does get into precise detail on the smallest of matters) cannot simply be assumed to be a true requirement. Who is to say that the reports of the requirement from Ibrahim's time were not merely another corruption that the Qu'ran was sent to correct?

Second, it's untrue that having a foreskin prevents water reaching anywhere at all. It retracts as easily as pushing back your sleeve to look at your watch, completely exposing the glans and underlying sulcus exactly as much as if you were circumcised. Washing in the shower, after urinating or after sexual activity is not impeded in any way.

Even if if you assume that circumcision was mandated at the time, you have to ask about the intent of the prescription. The only reason that makes sense was the inadequate hygiene at the time and the inadequate treatments available for phimosis and frenulum breve (which would indeed pose a hygiene problem). A bit of a one-size-fits-all approach, but understandable. With the development of running water and soap, however, and the development of medical techniques to actually fix the problem, you do have to ask if a just god would still require the most drastic and least specific approach to a potential problem that is becoming increasingly rare.
This is supposed to be a forum about expressing peoples opinions on the choices they make for their kids, not a debate pn history. People have made the choice to circumcise for many reasons over the years and that is THEIR choice as a parent. Do we really need to have all of this thrown at us in a way to try to make us feel guilty about our choices?

[mumtok&z]

I said I didn't want to get into a debate and i meant it.

[mumtok&z]

This is supposed to be a forum about expressing peoples opinions on the choices they make for their kids, not a debate pn history. People have made the choice to circumcise for many reasons over the years and that is THEIR choice as a parent. Do we really need to have all of this thrown at us in a way to try to make us feel guilty about our choices?


I was about to say something along those lines too. Thank you deanne.

[Mum2Bug]

Your welcome mumtok&z. Expression of our views in a friendly manner is what this forum is about and i believe you were just asking for general opinions, of which many people gave

[reAllytee]

Mr N seriously !
I get so frustrated when people judge others on things & this really gets my goat up when someone starts telling another what their religion does or doesnt do, say, state.
Sorry but if you dont agree dont make a comment !
Plus the OP even asked for this to stay friendly & for no-one to judge so please try to keep it that way !

[Mamaduke]

:eek: ...and here I was thinking Mr.N only had it in for the Christians!!

[Mister Noodle]

Mamaduke, I don't "have it in" for anyone.

Allyoo, I have a great deal of close personal experience with Islam, and I have done a *lot* of homework on the subject. Trust me when I say that I do actually know what I'm talking about here, and not only from reading the actual scripture involved, either.

Deanne, I'm doing no such thing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the issue is not as cut-and-dried as many assume - and that all but the most conservative possible interpretations would admit of a choice in the issue. This is not common knowledge, and in the face of actual factual error, it seems a shame for people not to make an informed choice. Aren't informed choices what this board is all about? How you turn this into "trying to make people feel guilty", I'm not sure. I certainly haven't got personal, emotional or heated.

Granted, this is a thread about past events, not the relative merits, so I'll leave it alone. But it is so frustrating when people take "actually, it says X" as an attack.

[Tam-I-Am]

okay, hold our horses for a second.

In answer to the OP - we dont' have a son, if we did, he would be remaining 'intact' unless there was some medical reason that would preclude this.

I also just wanted to say that I've read through all the posts on this thread. No-one has been attacked. Mr Noodle did not actually say anything like "You are wrong and your decision is disgusting". What he did say was something along the lines of "I believe you have been misinformed. The true facts of the situation are.....". This kind of statement is not, in actual fact, an attack - although I do believe that those posts did actually contain some inflamatory statments....

Yes, this is a thread for people to post their opinions in - so EVERYBODY should be able to post an opinion.

[Mischief]

Since this thread is getting a bit off topic and turning into a fight over religion (not its purpose) I'm going to close it down.

Thank you to everyone for their input.