Adhesions = circumcision?

[Heavenly]

I was just thinking about this and wondered why people (aka doctors) think that a boy having adhesions is a reason to circumcision? Why would going to something as drastic as surgery be the first step instead of trying all less invasive methods first? My youngest daughter had labial adhesions. They were quite extensive and started interfering with her ability to pee. We actually treated them with emu oil for about a year and they've never come back. Never once did it cross our mind to get her circumcised, to have her labia removed because of the adhesions. So why in the world would it even be seen as an option to circumcise a boy because of this minor problem?

[MyBoysBlue]

Adhesions in a prepubesent child are not even a minor problem, it's normal. It means they are just not ready to retract yet. Unfortunatly, Docs aren't trained in normal when it comes to the forskin. Most only seem to know how to cut it off.

[BlessedMommy2006]

Maybe I'm off base here, but why would an intact boy have adhesions? Wouldn't he only get them if people were retracting him?

[Anastasiya]

Originally Posted by BlessedMommy2006

Maybe I'm off base here, but why would an intact boy have adhesions? Wouldn't he only get them if people were retracting him?

Lots of doctors don't realize that the tight bond the foreskin has with the glans penis is normal. They think it's an adhesion - as though something's wrong, rather than seeing it as something proper for that stage of development.