Are mothers or fathers more influential in circumcision decision?

I can't speak for literally anyone else BUT my mother was the sole reason I lack a foreskin...

My parents ended up getting divorced when I was 8yo and once Momma got custody she'd penciled me in for a trim...

In my case, the decision was made by both of them, after a recurring series of infections. My dad was more against the operation, my mom on the other hand assimilated it faster.

Neither my father, brothers nor any of the men in my family are circumcised.

In the case of my children, I was sure from the beginning that none of them would go through the process, my wife on the other hand was not so much because she was more influenced by members of her family and some friends.

To this day they have never had any problems. The secret is to teach them self-love so that they have self-confidence

Based on my experience in the US, fathers often decide whether their sons will be circumcised. The father's circumcision status is a significant factor in this decision. Additionally, if older siblings were previously circumcised, it is very likely that their younger brother will also undergo circumcision.

Because male circumcision is so common in the US, it is often performed unless there is a strong reason against it. However, even if a child is not circumcised at birth, his pediatrician will typically explain the benefits and encourage the parents to consider having it done.

My brother, like me, was left uncut when he was born and remained as such until he left home. He had two sons and left them both intact as I understand. Unfortunately, he and his wife divorced after 11 years of marriage. His wife gained custody of the two boys. As I understand, she took both boys to the doctor and had them circumcised. The boys were ages 10 and 12. My brother disapproved of such but could do nothing as the deed was done.

I wonder what prompted this woman's decision. Was it an adaptation to the environment? or maybe an unconscious desire to spite her ex-husband?

I wonder what prompted this woman's decision. Was it an adaptation to the environment? or maybe an unconscious desire to spite her ex-husband?

In the US, when parents strongly disagree, fathers typically have the final say. This means that even if a mother has a strong opinion either for or against circumcision, the decision rests with the boy's father (unless he has specifically delegated the decision to his wife beforehand). After a divorce, the custodial parent assumes responsibility for all medical decisions, while the opinion of the other parent becomes irrelevant.

If, after the divorce, the children's father relinquishes his rights and the children are adopted, the decision regarding circumcision is likely to be made by their stepfather rather than their mother.

In the states, it is the mom. She is in the hospital with the baby. Someone walks in and asks you want the baby circumcised? She says Yes and snip snip. The boy is done.

In the states, it is the mom. She is in the hospital with the baby. Someone walks in and asks you want the baby circumcised? She says Yes and snip snip. The boy is done.

Hmmm ... my mother, back in 1958, would have strongly disagreed with this. She was from Belgium and wanted nothing to do with circumcision. My father, American, was all for it. He was also away at sea when my younger brother was born.

But despite my mother having told the doctor over and again that she did not want her new born circumcised, he was cut anyway, much to her anger. It was something that rankled her afterwards, even when in her 80s, she'd bring that up again when it came to recrimination time with my father.

Perhaps now a mother has more say in the matter, but back in the 1950s I think it was still what a husband wanted that counted, especially so when his wife was foreign born.

I never heard that my father had anything to do with it. My mother told me that the doctor asked her if she wanted me cut and she emphatically told him "you're not cutting anything off my baby boy".

I actually got into a conversation about this recently with some friends. One of them said that her dad was very pro circumcision and she was glad she wasn’t a boy because she thinks it is unnecessary and, and joked that she thinks she “…would have had more fun with my penis if I wasn’t cut”, tongue in cheek.

She told the story that a few years ago (she would have been like 21) her family were all together and somehow the topic of circumcision was bought up and her dad shared his view that circumcision is much “healthier” “safer” “cleaner” “less risk of disease”, and a bunch of other cliche arguments about it.

My friend is pretty fierce if she wants to have a debate about something and she was countering his arguments when he said “Women get so caught up on it. When a baby is born it should be circumcised before the mother gets to see it because they get way too attached to their baby’s foreskin.” As if the baby isn’t the one attached to their own foreskin.

At the same time her mother didn’t really have any argument either way…

I think it is pretty safe to say in that instance, if my friend was born with a penis I think we know which would have been the one advocating for circumcision.

I believe my mom had the ultimate decision on it but my dad is circumcised as well so he may have had some influence as well tho.

My dad and my uncle were both circumcised as infants. My mother and father were not in favour of circumcision for my brother, they felt that it was not required.

My uncle felt that my cousins should be circumcised like him, and my aunt says she did not have strong feelings either way, and felt that my uncle should have the decision as he is also male.

I remember my uncles complaining how difficult it was to find a circumcision doctor for thier sons. As for me I think it was jointly Mum and Dad

Well 31 years ago when my son was born I don't remember the conversation. I am circumcized my wife's brothers are. She is a nurse and has probably seen both but back then uncircumcised in our general circles wasn't very popular. I wish I would have insisted on keeping him intact.

I assume nurses tend to be more pro-circumcision than the average person.

I assume nurses tend to be more pro-circumcision than the average person.

Why would that be? Circumcision is in the main a social/religious convention and tradition. Very seldom a medical necessity.

I would actually think that, in European countries at least, nurses would see past the religious/social stuff and know very well how little call there is for medically validified circumcision. They should know about the discomfort, healing, adjustment and lessened sexual sensitivity that circumcision brings with the procedure.

@agracier I'm tempted to say that medical personnel favors the procedures that they are used to participating in, otherwise they are in cognitive dissonance; so a nurse who attends routine circumcisions will tend to favor them. There is of course a cultural difference between the US and Europe, but bear in mind that in Europe it was long the case (and still is, to some extent) that a diagnosis of "phimosis" would quickly lead to pressure on parents to circumcise the boy.

@agracier I'm tempted to say that medical personnel favors the procedures that they are used to participating in, otherwise they are in cognitive dissonance; so a nurse who attends routine circumcisions will tend to favor them. There is of course a cultural difference between the US and Europe, but bear in mind that in Europe it was long the case (and still is, to some extent) that a diagnosis of "phimosis" would quickly lead to pressure on parents to circumcise the boy.

You are talking about a medical necessity, a medical condition.

The overwhelming majority of circumcisions are however done for religious and/or social reasons, out of tradition.

A nurse who sets social or religious reasons above actual medical necessities, is not really worthy of being called a medical professional. They should know better than to let a social preference take precedence over a medical necessity. I'd say that a nurse/medical professional who regularly attends routine (aka unnecessary) circumcisions should most certainly know they serve no medical purpose.

Related to that, I recently read that the Belgian government/ministry of health has decided that circumcisions will from now on only be reimbursed through the national health insurance if thy are truly medically necessary. Otherwise if you want your newly-born cut, then you pay the full cost yourself.

@agracier The same applies in countries where circumcision is done for social or cultural or religious reasons. Medical personnel applying these procedures, or having colleagues who do, will rationalize them by claiming that this is more hygienic, that it prevents possible future problems (just see how all US doctor or nurses on this forum talk about circumcision). Otherwise they would be in cognitive dissonance.

Actually, I think that decision should be left up to the child in question and when he becomes an adult (21 years old), the person to be circumscribed should make his own decision whether or not to go ahead and do it. Whether health insurance should cover the procedure or not is not an appropriate discussion in zity. Denise

@Denise: +1

@agracier :

As Jacana mentioned, some of them rationalize the procedure and are just "used to it". That doesn't mean that they encourage or promote the procedure actively, but they - at least my experience - perceive it as a minor procedure curing a problem like lichen sclerosis, phimosis etc. It is part of their work. Even if they aren't involved in the operation itself, they tend to see more naked dudes than the average person, hence being exposed to the topic.

In contrast, the average person in my country - as long as they don't have a circumcising religious or ethical background - has most likely never thought or talked about the procedure because of not being exposed to the topic.