Ack! Pedi said the "c" word! Help! - Page 2

[jenP]

Originally Posted by earthmama369

The opening of the foreskin is a spincter . . . just like the anus. Not to be gross, but if you look at someone's butt, it doesn't at all look like poop can come out of there. But it does, regularly and without problem. That's the function of a sphincter. It can expand and contract to let waste out and keep anything else from getting in. The foreskin works the same way.

That was EXACTLY what popped into my head when I read the OP! But I scrolled down and you already said it. I mean, if you look at the anal sphincter it looks like there is no opening at all, but the SIZE of things that can come out with no problem whatsoever...

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

You know what I always wonder about these doctors? If, at least subconsciously, intact penises seem almost like a threat to them. After all (and here I go once again, talking about the social/psychological elements that tend to fascinate me), were they to completely accept foreskins as being right and natural, that requires them to see their own circed penises as less than right or natural, and that's a big can of worms to open (even more so if they have sons that they have circed).

So there has got to be a motivation (again, at least subconsciously) to look at foreskins as problems just waiting to happen. The more they can "spot" a "problem" that will "require circumcision", the more they can reassure themselves that it's just easier and better to get rid of the foreskin right away before it can cause all these problems they imagine they see popping up everywhere.

Understandable, but also understandable that we don't want our intact sons to be the pawns in this psychological drama!

Absolutely! I believe you have hit the nail right on the head. If a circumcised man can convince himself that foreskins are so problematic and unhealthy, then they can feel really, really glad that they themselves are not burdened with the awful things.

Jen

[serendipity22]

'if it doesn't enlarge he might have to have an elective circumcision at a later date'.

The USA circumcision industry is like a machine. It functions to circumcise as many boys as possible. It tries to catch as many later on as possible. By providing "boys who had to be done later" it increases neonatal circumcision
through fear of what might happen.

Countless boys have had 'necessary' circumcisions because every stage in normal development is considered pathological. I wonder how many circumcisions this guy has done?

"might have to have an elective" is an oxymoron. It could be a Freudian slip.
The Ped "knows" it isn't a reason for circumcision.

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by serendipity22

Countless boys have had 'necessary' circumcisions because every stage in normal development is considered pathological. I wonder how many circumcisions this guy has done?

Prbably gajillions...we are in a state w/ very high circ rates and this ped is one of the most popular pedis at the hospital where I work.

Originally Posted by serendipity22

"might have to have an elective" is an oxymoron. It could be a Freudian slip.
The Ped "knows" it isn't a reason for circumcision.

I thought the same thing!

[jenP]

Originally Posted by serendipity22

By providing "boys who had to be done later" it increases neonatal circumcision through fear of what might happen.

So true. How many, many people circumcise their baby because "he'll just have to have it done later... and it would hurt worse if he was older."
Both parts complete lies, of course, but even with all the bogus circumcisions done later, there are still JUST AS MANY boys who WERE circumcised at birth who have to have it RE-done later. So instead of being "spared" having surgery later, they just end up having TWO surgeries.

Originally Posted by serendipity22

Countless boys have had 'necessary' circumcisions because every stage in normal development is considered pathological.

Yep. I have a friend who kept her son intact but when he was three the doctor diagnosed phimosis and he was circumcised. I don't know if it was simply that he wasn't retractile, or if he really had problems (caused no doubt by the constant retracting and cleaning they had been told to do), but either way, if we had had this forum then, that's one circumcision that would have been avoided! (It happened about 16 years ago.)

Jen

[serendipity22]

I have a friend who kept her son intact but when he was three the doctor diagnosed phimosis and he was circumcised.

There are certainly cases of boys this age being diagnosed with phimosis when they have nothing but normal intractability.
(Though in that specific case, who knows.)

In those cases, if the doctors had been honest they would say
"I feel like circumcising your son, it makes me some easy money.
I understand you are conditioned to obey a doctor's orders,
so you will hand over your son and let me do it to him."

[RomanCarmelMom]

What it means is that you have a circ-happy doctor and need to switch to a new one if he's not open to the educational materials you take to him for the next visit.

[MyBoysBlue]

Originally Posted by serendipity22

There are certainly cases of boys this age being diagnosed with phimosis when they have nothing but normal intractability.
(Though in that specific case, who knows.)

In those cases, if the doctors had been honest they would say
"I feel like circumcising your son, it makes me some easy money.
I understand you are conditioned to obey a doctor's orders,
so you will hand over your son and let me do it to him."

That's exactly what happened to my little brother when he was 6. He had no issues like infection or anything but he did injure himself with the toilet seat as a toddler so my Mom believed the doctor. At the age of 6 he was probably just not retractable yet. That was the only reason my mom took him to the doc, he was her only boy so she didn't know what age he should have been retractable by.

[SlackerDad]

Originally Posted by serendipity22

The USA circumcision industry is like a machine. It functions to circumcise as many boys as possible. It tries to catch as many later on as possible. By providing "boys who had to be done later" it increases neonatal circumcision
through fear of what might happen.

Countless boys have had 'necessary' circumcisions because every stage in normal development is considered pathological.

Wow, you blew my mind with that one. Great insight!

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by fruitful womb

It means he knows NOTHING about the normal foreskin anatomy!