or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › "Naturally circumcised" penises?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Naturally circumcised" penises?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I recently heard a friend of mine talk about a "naturally circumcised" penis. Turns out he was describing aposthia (being born without a foreskin). Has anyone else on here heard of a "natural circ" before?
post #2 of 22
It does happen, it's fairly rare though. I think I read that in some cases it was actually misdiagnosed or caused by hypospadious. It can appear that there is no foreskin.

I find it fascinating that when a child is born without a foreskin it's considered a birth defect, but when it's surgically removed, it's normal
post #3 of 22
My son has very mild hypospaedia and from the bottom side it kinda looks like he's circumcised a bit, even though he totally isn't. however, the foreskin is actually still there, it just doesn't cover all the way. So I guess it wouldn't surprise me that it could happen, although I'm curious as to whether or not it actually isn't there at all, or just looks different because it doesn't come down all the way? Interesting!

I like Fyrestorm's comment...
post #4 of 22
I saw a little newborn who had a really short forskin. It only went half way up the glan. The mother went out of her way to inform us that he was not circumcised.
post #5 of 22
No, never heard of that, but I have heard people refer to plastibell as "natural circumcision, because it crushes and "lets the foreskin fall off naturally" (*shiver*) vs cutting.
post #6 of 22
I wonder if the whole foreskin nerves,ridged band,frenulum etc. is there but it is just so short that it doesn't cover the glans?
post #7 of 22
My mom recently told me her brother had this. She fought hard about her sons being intact, and then all these years later, she learns that her dad is intact and the docs said her brother didn't "need it."
post #8 of 22
Yes, I've heard of it. Mohamed is probably the most famous person with this condition.

What happens with hypospadia is that the foreskin is present, but is often hooded.
post #9 of 22

.


Edited by Lucy Alden - 4/4/13 at 3:48pm
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by frontierpsych View Post
No, never heard of that, but I have heard people refer to plastibell as "natural circumcision, because it crushes and "lets the foreskin fall off naturally" (*shiver*) vs cutting.
I have heard someone say this once. I had to inform them that, yes in fact plastibell requires cutting, first a dorsal cut is made on the foreskin, then after they tie the foreskin, they cut off most of what is beyond the string. Creating a tourniquet around the foreskin, forcing it to die and fall off doesnt sound to "natural" to me
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ursaminor View Post
I have heard someone say this once. I had to inform them that, yes in fact plastibell requires cutting, first a dorsal cut is made on the foreskin, then after they tie the foreskin, they cut off most of what is beyond the string. Creating a tourniquet around the foreskin, forcing it to die and fall off doesnt sound to "natural" to me
The Plastibell does require tearing the fused foreskin from the glans, risking pits and gouges. And note that anesthetic creme can not be applied to the interior of the foreskin or the glans until the painful tearing has been done. Then the doctor would have to wait 20 minutes for EMLA to work for the cutting and crushing phase. I'd wager a week's salary that the waiting part happens fewer than 10 times in a million circumcisions.
post #12 of 22
My dh's brother has this, I've never asked about the details though, I just know that he was born without his foreskin.
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron_Low View Post
The Plastibell does require tearing the fused foreskin from the glans, risking pits and gouges. And note that anesthetic creme can not be applied to the interior of the foreskin or the glans until the painful tearing has been done. Then the doctor would have to wait 20 minutes for EMLA to work for the cutting and crushing phase. I'd wager a week's salary that the waiting part happens fewer than 10 times in a million circumcisions.
Sad but true.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlh View Post
I wonder if the whole foreskin nerves,ridged band,frenulum etc. is there but it is just so short that it doesn't cover the glans?
I believe this is quite true. The unique horizontal nerve system of the penis is intact regardless of the natural length of the foreskin, as long as there is no cutting to short-circuit the system. Natural frenula range from prominent and breve to virtually invisible. (For parents who want to take this to email, I can explain this with examples.) Nevertheless, the frenular artery still runs under that area and does its job or delivering blood to the glans/meatus unimpeded since there has been no perpendicular cut from circumcision.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Alden View Post
Just had to chime in. My DS2 was born with a very very very short foreskin.

...

Fast forward, he's now 17mo and has a foreskin! Its the weirdest thing. Its like he's a lizard that re-grew a tail. His foreskin completely covers his glans.
We know enough about normal embryonic development to see that the glans is not covered in early fetal development, but the foreskin grows over and attaches to the glans in the second and third trimesters. We also know that the penis is not done "incubating", if you will, until puberty in some boys when the natural adhesions resolve. So, perhaps this is a case of your second son just experiencing some of his natural preputial development outside of the womb rather than before birth? Simply more reason that parents should not interfere with the natural development of the penis by performing surgery early-on. It's not done being what nature wants it to be!
post #15 of 22
.

Edited by Lucy Alden - 4/4/13 at 3:48pm
post #16 of 22
This thread is very encouraging to me. My third child, second son, was born four days ago. He was diagnosed with mild hypospadias and has a hooded foreskin. He looks like he's circumcised, but I am able to pull the foreskin down to nearly look normal - it's just not connected on the bottom.

I am a childbirth educator and labor doula who finds it very important to advocate for the baby boys of my clients - it is the one topic I am clear on my position and bias, without apology. I pride myself on how many parents have chosen to leave their boys intact after we discuss it.

My husband is intact (he's half Indian) and my older son (2.5) is intact. It is heartbreaking to me that my new boy was born this way - even more so when I learn that it's commonly caused by environmental toxins. There is nothing to be done now for him, and I'm not sure what could be done in the future.

This thread has reminded me that no injury has occurred and it's not so uncommon. And perhaps the appearance and function will change over time.
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by HollyRhea View Post
There is nothing to be done now for him, and I'm not sure what could be done in the future.
If the hypospadia isn't severe enough to cause problems with function then it can simply be ignored. If it is severe enough to cause fertility problems, then look around for a Dr who is willing to repair it while preserving the foreskin (most US urologists use the foreskin as a graft during the repair.
post #18 of 22

Newborn w/aposthia

My son, who is 7 weeks tomorrow, was born with what the hospital called a "natural circumcision." He has some foreskin, but it is short & loose. Also, the ped at the hospital did us the "favor" of retracting him , and I'm wondering if this could be why it's so loose now? It's encouraging to hear about the pp's son whose foreskin grew later! I'm hoping his will, any advice or recommendations on this? (btw, he does not have hypospadias)
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by GISDiva View Post
My son has very mild hypospaedia and from the bottom side it kinda looks like he's circumcised a bit, even though he totally isn't. however, the foreskin is actually still there, it just doesn't cover all the way. So I guess it wouldn't surprise me that it could happen, although I'm curious as to whether or not it actually isn't there at all, or just looks different because it doesn't come down all the way? Interesting!
This is exactly how my son's is, too. If someone just glanced, they might think he was circumcised since the foreskin doesn't hang down over the top of the penis. When he was born, it didn't quite go to the top, but now it does. The foreskin just doesn't cover the underside because of the mild hypospadius.
post #20 of 22

hypospadia info would be appreciated!

my son is only a week old, and when he was first born it looked like he had been circ'd. We have an older intact son and have had no intention of doing things differently. This baby has hypospadia-but seems to be mild. some other mamas mentioned this too...would love more info on this, as I am not finding much info that is useful to me. He also has an undescended testicle (which I have heard is not to be worried about as it often will descend on it's own). Just wondering about others who have encountered this. Also if anyone has had the combo...don't know if it means other issues in that area, or testosterone problems etc. We will meet again with the pediatrician next month and get a referral to a urologist to see at about 3 months, but trying to figure out what questions to ask etc. Any advice/suggestions/links to good info appreciated.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › "Naturally circumcised" penises?