or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by LonelyPageTurnr

I think it's harmful because as long as he's peeing fine and not having problems, it's setting up a situation where he's going to say your child has phimosis, say...if he's not retractable by 3.  I doubt the retraction itself is causing any harm, is there redness, swelling, pain, problems with urination?    
The point of my post was that most people are pretty uneducated about FGC, and think that all or most of it is ex/inf, the most drastic kind.  Since this has been made such an issue over the last 20 years, and it's not a cultural norm, they have unreasonable feelings about it.  Some FGC is more invasive than MGC here, but some MGC elsewhere (penile subincision for instance) is much more invasive than many types of FGC.   The unreasonable feelings aren't that it's bad, but...
If this were the case, why can men get erections throughout puberty and most of their adult life?  Further, if this were the case, why do drugs like viagra and cialis (which work on the blood vessels) restore sexual function for so many men?    
I think one of the biggest reasons I'm a bit of an outsider here is because of my distaste for so many studies posted as evidence against circumcision.  This study size is too small to be relevant, and if someone pro-circ posted a study showing that the foreskin caused some kind of harm (cancer, for instance), then it would be dismissed because of the sample size. There's a lot of speculation on this issue, but not really any hard evidence.    
This is really unfortunate.  It sounds like she's totally out of her area of expertise, and further, utilizing her position with WIC (who a lot of people look to for advice) to advance a pro-circumcision agenda.  It sounds totally outside the scope of her job responsibilities. Personally, I think that's what you should focus on.  The number of children who die during circumcision is not really a firm number.  The best people have is an estimate, not an official study. ...
My point is that retraction is stressed as so harmful that I've seen women on here who are anxious about basically anything touching their child's penis.  I think clarification needs to be made abou tthis.  Not all retraction, even forceful retraction, causes harm.  It's unnecessary and CAN cause harm, but it's not a guarantee.  I've seen parents speculate every time their child gets any infection that perhaps they were retracted without the parents knowledge.  Retraction...
But they're not across the board horrified with all FGC.  They think that excision and infibulation is the most common type.  I remember that blog with the little girl getting circumcised, and there was so little tissue removed you could hardly see it.  I think that the people who think that's mutilation and RIC is fine are crazy, personally.  That doesn't mean that we can MAKE UP comparisons that aren't valid.  Period.  It's a lie, no matter how 'most' people feel about...
The issue is that the PP was trying to negate the association.  Whether it's a huge number or not, the association is there.  It's minor, and imo, irrelevant, but it does exist.    
Some men have more foreskin some have less.  Don't jump on her for calling it 'excess'.  It's not hurting anything.  The foreskin length is not 'for the penis to grow into', some men' penis grows past the foreskin, some men' foreskin is very very long, going far past the meatus.  Every person is different, every human body is different.    
I thought Brant's post was great, but I'd like to elaborate on this. While intactivists have been told over and over and over again that any sort of pulling on the foreskin is retraction and will cause incredible, unresolvable damage, the fact is that gently pushing the loose foreskin back until there's resistance is not going to hurt anything.  The kind of retraction that sometimes causes harm is where you break the synechiae (the physiological adhesion of the prepuce to...
New Posts  All Forums: