Circumcision: a straightforward question, NOT a debate

[Peek a Boo]

Why would I when I agree with them?

 

 

I dunno -- if they started recommending routine circumcision because they uncovered a startling medical benefit, would you agree with them THEN?

 

I wouldn't fault you for going against the current medical practice if it became "current practice" to routinely circ infant males. I also don't fault parents who go against "current recommendations" and choose to circ. what the medical organizations recommend is a non-issue for me, but since so many do hold to their recs, i consider it important to know what the recommend and why.

[Spy Car]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

among other functions, It offers a lubricating effect and protects The One Eyed Warrior from outside forces. ;)

 

'sorry... couldn't resist. the tags are cracking me up.....

 

 

 

So let's see the "functions" include sexual function. The bottom line there:

 

"Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

 

And a putative protective function for the glands, however:

 

"some studies show that inflammation of the glans is more common when the foreskin is present".

 

So I'm still missing what (positive) function is lost :confused:

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

The foreskin does have it' own functions, it is just attached to the penis

 

Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions.

 

from the wiki above:

In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane

 

it's analogous to an eyelid or inside of your mouth: not considered its own organ.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Peek a Boo

[Slartibartfast]

I dunno -- if they started recommending routine circumcision because they uncovered a startling medical benefit, would you agree with them THEN?

 

If that ever happened I am sure my son would be old enough to make his own decision. If my son wants to be circed later in his life I will pay for it, my issue is that it is his body so I feel it is his choice.

 

I wouldn't fault you for going against the current medical practice if it became "current practice" to routinely circ infant males. I also don't fault parents who go against "current recommendations" and choose to circ. what the medical organizations recommend is a non-issue for me, but since so many do hold to their recs, i consider it important to know what the recommend and why.

I didn't choose not to do it for medical reasons, I chose not to because I believe it is his choice.

 

I am citing the medical recommendations because they back my assertions. Hee.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Peek a Boo]

So let's see the "functions" include sexual function. The bottom line there:

 

"Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

 

And a putative protective function for the glands, however:

 

"some studies show that inflammation of the glans is more common when the foreskin is present".

 

So I'm still missing what (positive) function is lost :confused:

 

Bill

 

the biggie [i believe] is ability to serve as a lubricating agent.

 

but maybe if the guys are a little more liberal w/ their :tongue_smilie: that wouldn't be an issue.

 

:D

[Slartibartfast]

from the wiki above:

In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane

 

it's analogous to an eyelid or inside of your mouth: not considered its own organ.

 

If we are talking about functions and your assertion is that is it not an organ I am only trying to point out that it has a function. :)

 

nothing is happening here

Aw crud Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

Oh..I just saw your last post. :lol:

 

Um yeah, some of the teadrinking advantages are actually on the woman's side, not the man's. I don't think people were really realizing that.

[Spy Car]

http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html

 

This one I think is funny reason for keeping a foreskin:

 

"Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal" :lol::lol::lol:

 

The only one that made any sense to me (and one I hadn't thought of previously) was:

 

"Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc." :D

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

If we are talking about functions and your assertion is that is it not an organ I am only trying to point out that it has a function. :)

 

 

I agree it has a function -- EVERYTHING in our body has a function. The functions of the entire breast vs the entire foreskin --and loss of said functions-- are simply not comparable.

nothing is happening here either.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Peek a Boo

[Slartibartfast]

This one I think is funny reason for keeping a foreskin:

 

"Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal" :lol::lol::lol:

 

Yeah cause we can't tell. :lol:

 

The only one that made any sense to me (and one I hadn't thought of previously was:

 

"Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc." :D

 

Bill

 

Not something I really plan for...but I suppose I don't plan for penile cancer either.

 

That site is really very very anti-circ but some of the other links I saw contained er...naughty pics.

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah cause we can't tell. :lol:

 

 

 

ROTFLOL! :lol:

 

speaking of being able to tell.... it ...uh....looks like I better get off here.....

 

g'nite folks. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I agree it has a function -- EVERYTHING in our body has a function. The functions of the entire breast vs the entire foreskin --and loss of said functions-- are simply not comparable.

 

 

Well...obviously the loss of the breasts has a huge impact. I don't think anyone is trying to belittle that.

 

But there is something to be said about elective medical procedures. I think they are a bad idea. That's it. How is that bad? There is a HOST of nuances in that. I might think elective medical procedures are a bad idea but that doesn't mean I am trying to be mean at people who *choose* c-sections, breast reductions, or any other elective procedures.

 

But it is an elective procedure.

 

darn you! I was trying to edit my posts to cover your tracks! now go back and edit out the evidence! hurry! before she gets back and finds out WHAT YOU'VE DONE! :D

oops!

[Peek a Boo]

nothing is happening here

 

 

:lol:

[Joanne]

ROTFLOL! :lol:

 

speaking of being able to tell.... it ...uh....looks like I better get off here.....

 

g'nite folks. ;)

 

Naughty girl. Bad pun. Very bad.

[Impish]

I know of two boys that had to have it done at 3 and 5 yrs old.

 

It was incredibly traumatic for them, very painful.

 

The 3 yo's foreskin was twisting his penis, and hampering his ability to urinate properly.

 

The 5 yo's attached to the head of the penis. There was no way retraction was ever going to be possible, and it hurt him.

 

Comparing both of those recoveries, I'm glad my boys are circ'd.

[SonshineLearner]

The 5 yo's attached to the head of the penis. There was no way retraction was ever going to be possible, and it hurt him.

 

Comparing both of those recoveries, I'm glad my boys are circ'd.

 

Hmmm.... well, depends on how you look at it.... it had to be retracted to cut it off.... so it seems like you'd be able to retract and have it heal... if you actually wanted a choice. I'd wanna see what France would do with the same situation before I made a choice. Seems like when you want a certain outcome... it can sometimes happen:-)

[tdeveson]

:( I often wonder about people who say "the nurse said he did great" I mean the nurse is hardly going to tell them what you said eh. I think I would have been crying :(

 

I was.

[keptwoman]

What function?

 

The foreskin consists of mucus membranes that are a well documented gateway for disease and infection. The foreskin traps smegma, and leads to hygiene issues.

Bill

 

But a woman's labia traps smegma too. Perhaps we should start chopping those off our daughters? They also make UTIs more common, and they are much more common in girls than boys. So I definitely think basd on that that there is a case for removal of labia.

 

Oh..I just saw your last post. :lol:

 

Um yeah, some of the teadrinking advantages are actually on the woman's side, not the man's. I don't think people were really realizing that.

Yep. Very true. very very true. And I am so grateful that my DH is intact.

 

This one I think is funny reason for keeping a foreskin:

 

"Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal" :lol::lol::lol:

Bill

 

:lol: oooooh kay, would never know otherwise :lol:

 

The 5 yo's attached to the head of the penis. There was no way retraction was ever going to be possible, and it hurt him.

Well it often is at 5, but there is a steroid cream that you can use that usually fixes it. I just think that removing a part of a childs body because something extremely unlikely "might" happen is rather ridiculous. But then part of the issue that you have in a non-intact culture is that a doctor is more likely to recommend circumcision as a cure to an issue that a doctor in a country where intact is normal would sort out without removing the foreskin. So for that I do understand the concern, because we do like to trust our doctors to be well informed.

[SonshineLearner]

 

Well it often is at 5, but there is a steroid cream that you can use that usually fixes it. I just think that removing a part of a childs body because something extremely unlikely "might" happen is rather ridiculous. But then part of the issue that you have in a non-intact culture is that a doctor is more likely to recommend circumcision as a cure to an issue that a doctor in a country where intact is normal would sort out without removing the foreskin. So for that I do understand the concern, because we do like to trust our doctors to be well informed.

Oh... yes.. no longer have to think.... "I'd ask France.... I could ask a ton of spots about what to do. I just happen to have spoken 1st with my friend ... from France about this. She and my friend from Israel were talking about this all..." :-)

[tdeveson]

It always amazes me when people say it's ok to cut off healthy pieces of a child's penis without anesthesia because he won't remember it later. That's like saying it's ok to do do surgery without anesthesia on an Alzheimer patient because he won't remember it later.

Edited January 13, 2010 by tdeveson

[EthiopianFood]

It always amazes me when people say it's ok to cut off healthy pieces of a child's penis without anesthesia because he won't remember it later. That's like saying it's ok to do do surgery on an Alzheimer patient because he won't remember it later.

 

I'm definitely using this one in the future!

[Veritaserum]

It's removal does nothing to male sexual pleasure.

Bill

 

I don't know any intact males that would be willing to test that assertion. It is logical to expect that more nerve endings in sexual tissue would increase the overall capacity for pleasure. Fewer nerve endings would reduce capacity. This doesn't mean that circumcised men don't experience pleasure. I just don't see how removing sexual tissue could have no negative sexual impact. :confused:

 

WRT to breast removal, you could argue that prophylactic removal of male breast tissue would reduce the risk of male breast cancer without loss of function. Should we start doing that?

 

If we are into sharing anecdotes, the only boy I've known to have problems is my circumcised nephew. He had his circumcision revised because he developed adhesions, which are one of the more common complications of circumcision. That reinforced my stand on only doing surgery when/if it is truly needed for medical reasons and not because it is common or culturally expected.

[Spy Car]

I don't know any intact males that would be willing to test that assertion. It is logical to expect that more nerve endings in sexual tissue would increase the overall capacity for pleasure. Fewer nerve endings would reduce capacity. This doesn't mean that circumcised men don't experience pleasure. I just don't see how removing sexual tissue could have no negative sexual impact. :confused:

 

Well there was just a huge study in Uganda (circumcision is on the rise in Africa because it reduces [but does NOT eliminate] the risk of infection with HIV) and that study show a slight "increase" in pleasure.

 

There are studies that show a slight increase in pleasure, no difference, and a slight decrease in pleasure. A fair-minded assessment of the data would suggest there is very little to no difference one way or another.

 

Bill

[Laura Corin]

Because we DO have medical research showing benefit wrt uti on men and the penis. Logic relies on facts, not wrong analogies.

 

 

As a Brit, I have mostly know intact men. My sons are intact. The only man I ever knew who had a UTI was American and Jewish. I don't think a surgical procedure is appropriate for such a remote risk as a serious UTI in a man.

 

Laura

[Sputterduck]

but a male circumcision can be done AS AN INFANT and have no negative effects on the function of the organ and still offer medical benefits. Your analogy only holds up if a breast removal can still result in normal function of the breast.

 

The foreskin has function. The glans is like the tongue. It's meant to be wet all the time. The lack of the foreskin means it dries out and keratinizes and loses some feeling in the process. The foreskin also has specialized sexual cells which don't exist anywhere else on the body. It also protects the glans and has a muscle, called the phimotic ring, that keeps the opening of the foreskin closed. The foreskin is very much *not* just skin you are cutting off.

[Sputterduck]

Circumcision doesn't remove muscle :confused:

 

Bill

 

Yes, it does. There is a sphincter type muscle at the end called the phimotic ring. If you looked at your son before his surgery (which I'm sure you did), you would have seen that the foreskin tapers down at the end. That is because the phimotic ring keeps the end of the foreskin closed.

[Spy Car]

As a Brit, I have mostly know intact men. My sons are intact. The only man I ever knew who had a UTI was American and Jewish. I don't think a surgical procedure is appropriate for such a remote risk as a serious UTI in a man.

 

Laura

 

Since we are sharing anecdotal evidence, growing up in an area where almost all the native born boys were circumcised I never even heard of UTIs in men.

 

It wasn't until I had an uncircumcised roommate in college that I men a man who had a urinary tract infection, and while the details of their frequency escapes me after all these years, I do know it was not an isolated infection.

 

If we move to scientific studies, UTIs in circumcised male infants are virtually unheard of (it's a ten-fold decrease in incidence over uncircumcised infant) which is significant because a UTI in a baby can be fatal.

 

Reducing UTIs (which circumcision clearly does) is not the SOLE reason to perform one, but is just another benefit that has to be stacked up and measured against the risks. Reasonable people can differ on the risks and rewards, and act accordingly.

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

What function?

 

The foreskin consists of mucus membranes that are a well documented gateway for disease and infection. The foreskin traps smegma, and leads to hygiene issues.

 

It's removal does nothing to male sexual pleasure. So what positive "function" is lost when the foreskin is removed?

 

Bill

 

The foreskin *makes* smegma. Circumcised men don't have it at all. Smegma is like the healthy discharge in a woman. Smegma has antibacterial and antiviral properties, keeps the glans moist, and is a sexual lubricant. Yeah... men were meant to lubricate, too. Smegma is part of a healthy functioning intact male.

[Sputterduck]

I know of two boys that had to have it done at 3 and 5 yrs old.

 

It was incredibly traumatic for them, very painful.

 

The 3 yo's foreskin was twisting his penis, and hampering his ability to urinate properly.

 

The 5 yo's attached to the head of the penis. There was no way retraction was ever going to be possible, and it hurt him.

 

Comparing both of those recoveries, I'm glad my boys are circ'd.

 

It's often attached to the head at 5. :confused: Some idiotic urologists think that's not normal. Go over to the UK or anywhere else where circumcision is not routinely done and they'll say , "So what. It's supposed to be that way."

 

Poor kid put through all that for no reason at all.

 

How in the world would a foreskin twist a penis??

[Sputterduck]

WRT to breast removal, you could argue that prophylactic removal of male breast tissue would reduce the risk of male breast cancer without loss of function. Should we start doing that?

 

Ha. Maybe we should. Breast cancer is more common in males than penile cancer. And male breast tissue is useless. So why don't we start removing it on our day old baby boys? They don't need and it would save lives. Oh wait... it doesn't seem right to cut something of a tiny baby to prevent a small amount of future risk. Right.

[Joanne]

Well there was just a huge study in Uganda (circumcision is on the rise in Africa because it reduces [but does NOT eliminate] the risk of infection with HIV) and that study show a slight "increase" in pleasure.

 

Bill

 

You keep saying that, Bill. But a simple google search produces results that are not definitive and clearly mixed. The first 2 results refute your claims and the rest of the entries on the page all list concerns with the research, the efficacy of circ in preventing HIV infection and variety of other issues around the conclusion.

[Spy Car]

You keep saying that, Bill. But a simple google search produces results that are not definitive and clearly mixed. The first 2 results refute your claims and the rest of the entries on the page all list concerns with the research, the efficacy of circ in preventing HIV infection and variety of other issues around the conclusion.

 

The reduction in the rates males contracting HIV is not disputed. From your Google search:

 

"Trials in Africa, where there are several countries with severe AIDS and HIV epidemics, have shown that male circumcision reduced HIV infection risk by 50 per cent in heterosexual men who were at high risk of infection from women with HIV."

 

There is a suggestion that women are not protected by male partners (who have HIV) being circumcised.

 

Anti-circers argue that the far less than complete elimination of risk afforded by circumcision will cause men not to use condoms, thinking they are "protected" completely. I'd rather give a child an education and the risk-reduction.

 

Bill

Edited January 13, 2010 by Spy Car
spellin errs

[Spy Car]

The foreskin *makes* smegma. Circumcised men don't have it at all.

 

That's simply inaccurate.

 

Smegma has antibacterial and antiviral properties, keeps the glans moist, and is a sexual lubricant. Yeah... men were meant to lubricate, too. Smegma is part of a healthy functioning intact male.

 

All highly disputed assertions. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

Bill

Edited January 13, 2010 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

The foreskin has function. The glans is like the tongue. It's meant to be wet all the time. The lack of the foreskin means it dries out and keratinizes and loses some feeling in the process. The foreskin also has specialized sexual cells which don't exist anywhere else on the body. It also protects the glans and has a muscle, called the phimotic ring, that keeps the opening of the foreskin closed. The foreskin is very much *not* just skin you are cutting off.

 

Disputed as an invention of anti-circers.

 

Do you have a citation for these assertions from a credible source?

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

That's simply inaccurate.

 

 

 

All highly disputed assertions. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

Bill

 

"

Preputial Sebum (Smegma) and Its Important Antibacterial Properties

Preputial sebum, or smegma, is the creamy white emollient that can sometimes be found coating the inner lining of the foreskin. It is a combination of secretions from many glands around the penis and urethra.

Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean rather than dirty. It is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All normal male and female mammals produce smegma. Dr. Thomas J. Ritter underscored its importance when he commented, “The vertebrate animal kingdom would be depleted without smegma.”

Children produce very little smegma. During adolescence, the production of smegma markedly increases as the glands of the penis develop, perhaps in response to elevated testosterone levels. In adulthood, much less smegma is produced. It is natural that smegma would be most abundant during adolescence and young adulthood, since this is the time when males are at their peak of sexual drive and when human males are biologically programmed to engage in mating. Smegma is most needed at this time to facilitate the smooth operation of the penis.

Apart from its lubricating function, smegma has antibacterial effects, most especially during infancy. Antibacterial substances are passed from mother to child during breast-feeding and are secreted in the baby's urine. Breast-fed babies receive substantial amounts of beneficial compounds called oligosaccharides. When ingested, these compounds are secreted in the urine where they prevent certain types of bacteria from adhering to the urinary tract and the inner lining of the foreskin. Animal experiments have found that special cells called plasma cells in the inner fold of the foreskin secrete a compound called immunoglobulin. These secretions protect the penis against harmful bacteria. It is interesting to note that these antibacterial secretions increase in response to bacterial invasion."

 

And this from Ireland, where men are intact, so they actually know what they are talking about.

 

http://www.irishhealth.com/askdoc.html?q=6575

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sputterduck

[Sputterduck]

Warning on this. There are medical pictures here that are not appropriate for lots of people.

 

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8054982/Anatomy-And-Physiology-Of-Penis

[tofuscramble]

The reduction of a male contrasting HIV is not disputed. From your Google search:

 

"Trials in Africa, where there are several countries with severe AIDS and HIV epidemics, have shown that male circumcision reduced HIV infection risk by 50 per cent in heterosexual men who were at high risk of infection from women with HIV."

 

There is a suggestion that women are not protected by male partners (who have HIV) being circumcised.

 

Anti-circers argue that the far less than complete elimination of risk afforded by circumcision will cause men not to use condoms, thinking they are "protected" completely. I'd rather give a child an education and the risk-reduction.

 

Bill

 

Why don't you consider that the people who go in for circumcision are taught good hygiene and safe sex practices and the others aren't? The biggest problem in countries where STD's are rife, is lack of education, second is lack of condoms, 3rd is outdated rituals and practices that are unsafe (for example: the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV). Why is it that people are so quick to take statistics at face value without stopping to think about ALL the variables?

 

The only medical benefit to chopping off a foreskin is that you can't get a disease in the foreskin. Well if we were to follow that logic... you know the rest.

[Spy Car]

Warning on this. There are medical pictures here that are not appropriate for lots of people.

 

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8054982/Anatomy-And-Physiology-Of-Penis

 

Your link says:

 

"Some studies showed uncircumcised males have an increased risk of Balanitis [which is an inflammation of the penis glans, my note], UTI, penile cancer and HIV infection."

 

This seriously undermines their claim that smegma and a foreskin helps keep the penis clean and healthy. They also failed to mention They didn't mention the higher rates of HPV or other STDs.

 

They also mention (as an apparent "positive") that 90% of uncircumcised foreskins are fully retractable by age 3, which of course means that 10% are not. That's not a small deal.

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

They also mention (as an apparent "positive") that 90% of uncircumcised foreskins are fully retractable by age 3, which of course means that 10% are not. That's not a small deal.

 

Bill

 

 

You know what? Some males aren't retractable until the teen years. You realize that this is considered normal, right? My son was retractable at 5. So what? It doesn't matter. It does it in it's own time.

[Spy Car]

Why don't you consider that the people who go in for circumcision are taught good hygiene and safe sex practices and the others aren't?

 

Why don't I?

 

Are you arguing that males who've been circumcised are well-educated and clean, and the uncircumcised are dirty and ignorant? Because I don't think that's the case.

 

The only medical benefit to chopping off a foreskin is that you can't get a disease in the foreskin. Well if we were to follow that logic... you know the rest.

 

Trust me, there is no "chopping" involved in a circumcision. One can attempt to use inflammatory language as an appeal to emotion, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the procedure.

 

Countless medical studies have been liked to in this thread and the other concurrent one that do show clear medical benefits. Repeating things that aren't true don't make them true by their reiteration.

 

A parent might decide the benefits are not worth the risk. But to say there are no medical benefits simply isn't true.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

You know what? Some males aren't retractable until the teen years. You realize that this is considered normal, right? My son was retractable at 5. So what? It doesn't matter. It does it in it's own time.

 

What you call a "normal" condition is one reason civilizations around the world have practiced circumcision since ancient times .

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

What you call a "normal" condition is one reason civilizations around the world have practiced circumcision since ancient times .

 

Bill

 

Uh. It's not a condition. If you take your boy who isn't retractable to a doc in well... any country other than the US... freaked out because hes5 year and isn't retractable, they'll think you're one of those crazy parents.

[Sputterduck]

And, Bill, when I took my intact son home at 24 hours old, the paper work Kaiser sent with me told me to never retract my son's foreskin and it's fine if it doesn't retract until he's a teen. At least they have it right. I don't have a lot of respect for Kaiser, but they got that right at least.

[Spy Car]

Uh. It's not a condition. If you take your boy who isn't retractable to a doc in well... any country other than the US... freaked out because hes5 year and isn't retractable, they'll think you're one of those crazy parents.

 

Wrong again. A physician (and a parent) might very well be concerned that the child had a case of Phimosis (a condition where the foreskin was incapable of retraction). Because adhesions are not uncommon it's hard to tell if the retraction issues are Phimosis or "normal" issues of unretractability.

 

If the foreskin won't retract I don't know how one employs the "retract, rinse, and replace" hygiene regimen? :confused:

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

Wrong again. A physician (and a parent) might very well be concerned that the child had a case of Phimosis (a condition where the foreskin was incapable of retraction). Because adhesions are not uncommon it's hard to tell if the retraction issues are Phimosis or "normal" issues of unretractability.

 

If the foreskin won't retract I don't know how one employs the "retract, rinse, and replace" hygiene regimen? :confused:

 

Bill

 

You start that once the foreskin is retractable.

 

The foreskin is adhered to the glans when a child is born and gradually becomes detatched and the muscle and skin at the opening gradually become stretchable.

 

Retract, rinse, and replace in an infant or small child who is not yet retractable can cause tearing and serious adhesions and, frankly, is really, really stupid.

 

I know you've never dealt with the care of an intact penis, but for some reason I'd have thought you'd know that since you participate in debate on the subject. That's just... common knowledge and has be repeated to me by every ped. my son has been to at every well child appointment.

 

It's no harder than washing a finger or a toe.

[Spy Car]

And, Bill, when I took my intact son home at 24 hours old, the paper work Kaiser sent with me told me to never retract my son's foreskin and it's fine if it doesn't retract until he's a teen. At least they have it right. I don't have a lot of respect for Kaiser, but they got that right at least.

 

Yes. From what I understand (no first-hand knowledge, thank goodness :D) a parent (or others) should never forcibly retract a foreskin. And sometimes a foreskin does not retract until the teen years, and sometimes it never retracts (and results in medical interventions, surgery, or alternative modalities to deal with the problem).

 

We may differ on our conclusions over whether a boy living with an unretractible foreskin into his teen years is a great situation (or not), but it is true that that's the situation many uncircumcised boys face this prospect.

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

Yes. From what I understand (no first-hand knowledge, thank goodness :D) a parent (or others) should never forcibly retract a foreskin. And sometimes a foreskin does not retract until the teen years, and sometimes it never retracts (and results in medical interventions, surgery, or alternative modalities to deal with the problem).

 

We may differ on our conclusions over whether a boy living with an unretractible foreskin into his teen years is a great situation (or not), but it is true that that's the situation many uncircumcised boys face this prospect.

 

Bill

 

 

Actually, I saw a study where unretractable teen boys were fixed by masturbation. 100% of them in that study, in fact.

 

Anywho, of the 10% percent who aren't retractable at 3, that vast majority are by the teen years. There is a decade in between the two. Not being retractable as a teen, although rare, is considered on the far end of normal. When an adult is unretractable, then you have abnormal. That is when some (but it's getting fewer and fewer) US docs jump to circumcision. Docs in other countries have a lot of less invasive, and quite simple, fixes for that.

 

(of course, there are stories about US docs circumcising infants for not being retractable but I've never met a doc who wouldn't be horrified at that idea. But then again I live in a state where the circumcision rate is apparently only 21% now. When I studied this issue, it was higher here, but still not the norm.)

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sputterduck

[Spy Car]

You start that once the foreskin is retractable.

 

The foreskin is adhered to the glans when a child is born and gradually becomes detatched and the muscle and skin at the opening gradually become stretchable.

 

So you go 15 years (or so) without washing?

 

Retract, rinse, and replace in an infant or small child who is not yet retractable can cause tearing and serious adhesions and, frankly, is really, really stupid.

 

No argument there. But that is what anti-circers on the threads here have offered as a hygiene solution.

 

I know you've never dealt with the care of an intact penis, but for some reason I'd have thought you'd know that since you participate in debate on the subject. That's just... common knowledge and has be repeated to me by every ped. my son has been to at every well child appointment.

 

I do know that.

 

I'm not the one offering "retract, rinse, and replace" as a hygiene solution for uncircumcised boys. KWIM?

 

Bill

Edited January 13, 2010 by Spy Car

[tofuscramble]

Why don't I?

 

Are you arguing that males who've been circumcised are well-educated and clean, and the uncircumcised are dirty and ignorant? Because I don't think that's the case.

 

WOW! No I didn't say any such thing. I said that in poorer countries, the people who get circumcised are the ones who are more likely to have access to education regarding safe sex practices. The poorer people don't have access to tools and resources to perform circumcision or be educated about safe sex.

 

 

Trust me, there is no "chopping" involved in a circumcision. One can attempt to use inflammatory language as an appeal to emotion, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the procedure.

 

Cutting, slicing, severing, incising... take your pick.

 

Countless medical studies have been liked to in this thread and the other concurrent one that do show clear medical benefits. Repeating things that aren't true don't make them true by their reiteration.

 

A parent might decide the benefits are not worth the risk. But to say there are no medical benefits simply isn't true.

 

Bill

 

There are none at all that aren't related to there simply being no foreskin to ever become infected, diseased or problematic in one way or another. Any body part, small or large, can become infected, diseased or problematic, but thankfully we don't cut them off at birth, or there would be nothing left of us.

[CAMom]

 

 

No argument there. But that is what anti-circers on the threads here have offered as a hygiene solution.

 

 

 

 

 

Ummm...hello...Bill? :) I was the one who used the retract, rinse, replace solution to hygiene and I am not anti-circ!;)

 

I have one son who is circumcised and one who is not. At the time the first was done, I was 23 years old and didn't know any different. I didn't even know that people didn't circ and I certainly hadn't researched it.

 

By the time my 4 year old was born, I was 36 and had a lot more life experience. I knew that there was a trend towards not circ'ing. I researched it and my husband and I made a decision based on our research. We felt that the slim health benefits did not justify altering our son.

 

I am in complete support of whatever parents decide to do regarding circumcision. I hope they all research and make an educated decision and it bothers me when false info abounds on either side.