Not circed teens and sex ed

[Gendenwitha]

I sent this Letter to sex ed curriculum producer and NOCIRC two organizations that I think could make this happen, because as of now, I don't know of any curriculum that address this issue. If anyone knows about sex-ed material for any age that talks about this, I'd love to hear about it.

Dear Sir/Ma'am:

I am writing this letter to both an organization that is made up of health care professionals promoting genital integrity for both genders called National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), and the creators of a Lifespan Sexuality Education Curricula called Our Whole Lives (OWL) used in the Unitarian Universalist Church.

I just came back from a parent's informational session about the sex ed program for my Jr. High School son. It seems like a really fantastic program overall, covering relationship and spiritual issues as well as the mechanics of birth control, various types of gay and straight lovemaking, and masturbation, and included several illustrations of couples and individuals of various ages, sizes, colors, and sexual orientations. However, as I pointed out after the class, about 95% or more of the penises shown were circumcised, and in this area, (Pacific Northwest--but generally true for all along both east and west coasts) for boys their age, the percentage of circumcised males is closer to 30% (and seems to be declining quickly).

The film only showed an uncircumcised penis when talking comparing the two, and briefly stated that you should retract the foreskin to clean under it. I know this to be outdated thinking, and only true if the foreskin has already retracted on it's own, which may not happen until a child is 16 to 18, so this didn't seem appropriate advice for a group of junior-high-schoolers. Also, the film mentioned the natural lubercation of the female when she gets aroused, but doesn't say anything about the natural lubrication of the uncircumcised male.

I said to the teachers, one of my questions is if a boy starts having sex before their penis has naturally retracted, or before it's retracted fully, how do they correctly put a condom on? (A question I have not been able to find addressed anywhere, on a medical or age-appropriate level.) And if this curriculum assumes an uncircumcised penis has retracted, I know that this question is not going to be addressed.

I have seen numerous publications that talk about the care of the uncircumcised penis for newborns, but I have yet to find any sex-ed type of program that addresses the care of the uncircumcised penis for young boys. It's great that I know how to care for my son's penis, but at some point in time--long before their penis retracts--my son no longer wants ME to care for his penis! Please, for those who are teaching OWL, would you please coordinate with pro-intact medical organizations like NOCIRC to come up with age appropriate instructions on care for the uncircumcised penis? And NOCIRC, would you please in addition to instructions to parents on how to care for a newborn, would you please add as a resource on your web-page, a page for children around age 5-7, with pictures on how to take care of their penis themselves, and how and when it's normal to retract, and what (redness, swelling) is not normal? And similarly, a page for children in the Jr. High to high school range that also addresses sex and the uncircumcised penis?

Thank you,

mother to three uncircumcised boys

[NSmomtobe]

I've been thinking about this too. With all the questions mothers seem to have here about the normal separation process, which doesn't always happen before puberty, teens have got to have their own questions.

[MommytoB]

Indeed would love to have more info like that on hands. Hope they get their gear together on that especially condom advice for intact males because my ex was sure confused about that when we were together

[Maiasaura]

Fantastic letter, OP! Maybe you can give permission for people to copy and paste it and there can be a mass letter campaign? I would love to see the result of this. I have a 9yo intact son, and I haven't ever thought of this!!

[HappyMommy2]

Forgive a dumb question from a newbie... why would putting on a condom be any different? I don't get it!

[MommytoB]

A condom and a intact penis can function slightly different when a foreskin is gliding it can make the condom move for some intact males . Others may assume you have to put the condom over the foreskin before dtd which when that happens intact guys may go way too quickly .

[brant31]

Originally Posted by HappyMommy2

Forgive a dumb question from a newbie... why would putting on a condom be any different? I don't get it!

Oh, there's an ongoing debate about whether intact guys are "supposed to" retract the foreskin all the way back over the glans before putting on the condom. For the first few years that anyone even bothered to mention it (late 1980's), the advice was to fully retract first.

Some men found this to be preferable for them, some didn't. Frankly, I think the advice was written by circumcised guys who figured that they and intact guys should be starting out from essentially the same "position" when using a condom. However, individual anatomy is not that simple. I have intact friends who basically said to me, "I was ready to give up on condoms altogether until I realized I could wear one very comfortably and safely without retracting first. I get much more natural feeling from my own foreskin if I just leave it in place to start with. It had never occurred to me the advice wasn't universal." In sum, it depends on various factors including how snug and how long your foreskin is and your frenulum is. Best to experiment cautiously.

What does seem to be consistent is that a greater percentage of circumcised guys detest/resist using condoms because it further reduces the already altered or reduced sensation they have.

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by brant31

Frankly, I think the advice was written by circumcised guys who figured that they and intact guys should be starting out from essentially the same "position" when using a condom. However, individual anatomy is not that simple. I have intact friends who basically said to me, "I was ready to give up on condoms altogether until I realized I could wear one very comfortably and safely without retracting first. I get much more natural feeling from my own foreskin if I just leave it in place to start with. It had never occurred to me the advice wasn't universal." In sum, it depends on various factors including how snug and how long your foreskin is and your frenulum is. Best to experiment cautiously.

Fascinating! So much of my (and most Americans') knowledge base about penises and sexuality comes from a circumcised point of view. It simply never occurred to me that "correct" condom use would be any different for intact vs circumcised males.

Unfortunately, I wonder if this is a little known/recognized problem with condom use to prevent HIV infection in African nations (and anywhere else with an HIV problem and low rates of circumcision). If there is no recognized "correct" way to use a condom, or if the "correct" way was devised by circumcised males and is uncomfortable for intact men, I can see that being a huge impediment to actually using a condom in those countries, and condom use to prevent HIV infection being less valuable. Still, with 85% of the world's males intact, you would think it wouldn't take long to come up with guidelines and solve this problem, no?

[Crunchy Frog]

There must be some intact condom use guidelines from European countries. I mean I've heard that they're more apt to use condoms than Americans and that would be consistent with their lower STD rates. They must have some idea what they're doing with them.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by Crunchy Frog

There must be some intact condom use guidelines from European countries. I mean I've heard that they're more apt to use condoms than Americans and that would be consistent with their lower STD rates. They must have some idea what they're doing with them.

TBH, it's not that hard to figure out. It's not something you need a manual for.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by brant31

Oh, there's an ongoing debate about whether intact guys are "supposed to" retract the foreskin all the way back over the glans before putting on the condom. For the first few years that anyone even bothered to mention it (late 1980's), the advice was to fully retract first.

Some men found this to be preferable for them, some didn't. Frankly, I think the advice was written by circumcised guys who figured that they and intact guys should be starting out from essentially the same "position" when using a condom. However, individual anatomy is not that simple. I have intact friends who basically said to me, "I was ready to give up on condoms altogether until I realized I could wear one very comfortably and safely without retracting first. I get much more natural feeling from my own foreskin if I just leave it in place to start with. It had never occurred to me the advice wasn't universal." In sum, it depends on various factors including how snug and how long your foreskin is and your frenulum is. Best to experiment cautiously.

What does seem to be consistent is that a greater percentage of circumcised guys detest/resist using condoms because it further reduces the already altered or reduced sensation they have.

I don't understand intact men who don't retracting when erect. If you don't retract, you don't expose the ridged band of the frenulum which is full of rich nerves.

And speaking first hand, even you don't retract manually, penetrative sex forces the skin back anyway.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by Crunchy Frog

There must be some intact condom use guidelines from European countries. I mean I've heard that they're more apt to use condoms than Americans and that would be consistent with their lower STD rates. They must have some idea what they're doing with them.

I'm intact and I use condoms and I don't see how they would work without retracting. Granted, I haven't had the conversation with my European relatives just because it would feel odd, but doing a search for information in Portuguese, most of the information makes no mention of retracting the foreskin. It seems to be presumed that that's what will happen.

I did come across this guide for kids:

http://www.educacao.te.pt/jovem/inde...111&id_art=147

Se não for circuncidado, puxar o prepúcio para baixo antes de colocar o preservativo; assim, o prepúcio pode movimentar-se sem danificar o preservativo.

And this guide for citizens of the Alentejo state in Portugal:

http://www.alentejolitoral.pt/Portal...servativo.aspx

Coloque o preservativo só quando o pénis estiver erecto e antes de qualquer contacto genital. Se não for circuncidado, deve puxar para trás o prepúcio (pele que cobre a ponta do pénis) antes de colocar o preservativo;

And this for Spanish citizens:

http://www.euroresidentes.com/amor/l...-un-condon.htm

Poner bien el condón. Una vez tengas uno, tira hacia atrás su prepucio antes de ponerlo. Desenrolla el condón un poco para encontrar cual es el sentido correcto.

Oddly, both of the Portuguese advices use the phrase "If you are not circumcised," as though circumcision were the norm, when it's not in Portugal. The Spanish advice presumes the reader is intact, which is more like it. All three recommend retraction. Let me see if I can dig up some British resources.

[Papai]

Yikes. I just found an explicit demonstration of putting on a condom from a NZ HIV/AIDS site and yep, the guy retracts before putting on the condom. Interestingly, they address they list an acception to retraction. I would post the link but it's an obvious UAV. Here's what they said:

If you have a long foreskin (the skin covers most of the penis when hard) don't pull the foreskin back because the condom will slide off when your foreskin slides back into place.

So I guess if you don't retract naturally when erect, or have trouble staying retracted when erect, you shouldn't worry about it. I have a hard time wrapping my head around how that works but that's what I came across.

[brant31]

The majority of guys' foreskins don't retract behind the head on their own when erect. The percentage of those that do is probably higher in the US because of our culture of retracting boys at an early age. Not so much in Europe and elsewhere. I've mentioned this before, but I have a friend (intact) who works at the University of Oxford and he wanted to settle this question to his own satisfaction. Purely unscientific, but he asked friends, coworkers, pub buddies, etc over a period of about 5 years. The result was that about 70% of guys had partial or complete foreskin coverage when erect, but could manually retract. Somewhat more than a quarter had a foreskin that retracted to more or less a "ridged band" state on its own (most of the time) and a small percentage, 2-3% couldn't comfortably retract when erect -- though almost all of these had no problem retracting and cleaning when soft, like in the shower.

Papai, it sounds like the Portuguese instructions were directly lifted from the materials that were written in the US 20+ years ago. The Americans were the first out there with information, and unfortunately some countries adopted it verbatim. Trust me; the advice has moved forward since those early days.

The Terrence Higgins AIDS Trust in the UK doesn't specifically say anything about pulling back your foreskin in their condom use guide. Interestingly, quite a few sources in the US suggest putting some lubricant inside the tip of the condom before putting it on, to lubricate the glans (or at least they used to). THT specifically says not to get any lube inside the condom. Of course, if you wear the condom in such a way that your glans can still move within your foreskin, there is no need for additional lubricant. That would apply primarily to circumcised men.

I'll say it again: no right way. The only right way to wear a condom is the way that you have found works for you. As for the position of the foreskin for DTD, again there is no right way. It is a myth that for "proper functioning" or "ideal sensation" the foreskin must be locked into the sulcus with the ridged band in place. And intercourse itself does not always pull the foreskin back -- trust me. It is a factor of many things, including frenulum length and flexibility, preputial sphincter tightness, glans size change when erect, and much more. I think we do a real disservice to both men and women and create needless anxiety to suggest "it should be this way". Far better to describe in the literature (or sex ed, or YouTube, or wherever) what the normal variants are and let folks discover for themselves.

Too much of American medical and sexual advice is fixated on right and wrong, black and white: you should circumcise, you should retract to clean, you should retract automatically when erect, you should wear a condom only this way, you should always orgasm if you're doing it "right", you must find your G-spot, etc. We're not so good at just giving pros and cons and emphasizing that there are options and healthy variants.

[Pirogi]

If I understood correctly though, the OP was specifically looking for information for males who may become sexually active before they are fully retractable (understanding of course that some men don't ever fully retract, and that if they are comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that). What then?

I think the real issue is the silence on this issue in sex ed courses, at least in America. The foreskin doesn't exist here, and if it does, it's only because the poor chap hasn't gone in for his circumcision yet, which he of course needs immediately. This needs to change. Maybe it isn't rocket science to use a condom when you are intact, but there are subtle differences, and having no dialogue on the issue is doing a disservice to a growing percentage of American sexually active males, and reinforcing circumcision as the default.

Also Brant, just for my own information, you mention that you have to find what works for you. Doesn't this inherently mean that there will inevitably be some failures in the process? Wouldn't that be dangerous in terms of STDs, pregnancy, etc, even if there is no ejaculation? Sorry to be such a stickler, but I am completely ignorant, and this really is important information.

[brant31]

Well, "find what works for you" doesn't always mean trial and error. If the condom is uncomfortable the first couple of times you put it on by completely retracting, try it another way. A guy definitely knows when it doesn't fit right, and that usually means when it's slipping, too. Maybe it goes without saying, but I always assume that DTD shouldn't be a guy's first experience using a condom. If I can be blunt, he should probably go through a box of them first just for his, ahem, alone time.

When I saw the OPs message I was immediately conflicted. I have been trying to find the right "voice" for a book on this subject that has sat half-written for about 10 years now. One big thing that is stopping me is whether it should be primarily for parents, doctors, educators or - for lack of a better term - owners. My impetus to write was the rise in intact boys in the US, and how vital it is for foreskin development and function to be correctly understood. If it's not, and parents have a bad experience with sons they are retracting all the time, and guys reach puberty and adulthood not knowing why this "thing" (this wondrous, complex, incredibly capable thing) is on the end of their penis, the US may just ditch its progress and revert to the last thing we knew -- routine infant circumcision.

I know what I would write in a perfect world. But the reality of the US is that even as we open to the idea of eschewing infant circumcision, we seem to be becoming more prudish as a society (if that's possible). Heck, less than 2 generations ago it was customary in the US to always swim nude at the YMCA and in college swim classes. My school only changed that the year before I matriculated. Now, guys "towel dance" at the gym so others won't see them change into or out of their swimsuit -- or even in their underwear!

Back to my point -- the perfect guide to being intact wouldn't mince words about the physiology and function of the foreskin at each stage in a man's life, from infant to child, from puberty to young adulthood to maturity. But at some point that involves talking about actually starting to give this part of your body a calculated "workout" so it properly transitions from snug "male hymen" to fully pliable sexual organ. Nature does a lot of the resolving of natural adhesions and phimosis, but it's naïve to think anyone achieves the optimal results without uninhibited exploration and some very real practice. That is the danger of sex-negative messages; the intact penis doesn't do well when it's ignored, since the foreskin has smooth muscle tissue that can atrophy and tighten with inattention. IMHO, this is another reason that circumcision proved so popular in the USA... yes, it diminishes function and protection, but once you get through infancy you can basically tell DS to ignore it (not think about it and certainly not touch it, even to urinate).

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by brant31

When I saw the OPs message I was immediately conflicted. I have been trying to find the right "voice" for a book on this subject that has sat half-written for about 10 years now. One big thing that is stopping me is whether it should be primarily for parents, doctors, educators or - for lack of a better term - owners. My impetus to write was the rise in intact boys in the US, and how vital it is for foreskin development and function to be correctly understood. If it's not, and parents have a bad experience with sons they are retracting all the time, and guys reach puberty and adulthood not knowing why this "thing" (this wondrous, complex, incredibly capable thing) is on the end of their penis, the US may just ditch its progress and revert to the last thing we knew -- routine infant circumcision.

I know what I would write in a perfect world. But the reality of the US is that even as we open to the idea of eschewing infant circumcision, we seem to be becoming more prudish as a society (if that's possible). Heck, less than 2 generations ago it was customary in the US to always swim nude at the YMCA and in college swim classes. My school only changed that the year before I matriculated. Now, guys "towel dance" at the gym so others won't see them change into or out of their swimsuit -- or even in their underwear!

Back to my point -- the perfect guide to being intact wouldn't mince words about the physiology and function of the foreskin at each stage in a man's life, from infant to child, from puberty to young adulthood to maturity. But at some point that involves talking about actually starting to give this part of your body a calculated "workout" so it properly transitions from snug "male hymen" to fully pliable sexual organ. Nature does a lot of the resolving of natural adhesions and phimosis, but it's naïve to think anyone achieves the optimal results without uninhibited exploration and some very real practice. That is the danger of sex-negative messages; the intact penis doesn't do well when it's ignored, since the foreskin has smooth muscle tissue that can atrophy and tighten with inattention. IMHO, this is another reason that circumcision proved so popular in the USA... yes, it diminishes function and protection, but once you get through infancy you can basically tell DS to ignore it (not think about it and certainly not touch it, even to urinate).

Well, I think you should write it, and be brutally honest. There are a lot of unprudes out there too. It may not be a hit with everyone, but it would be very helpful to some. I would buy it.

[Maiasaura]

Originally Posted by brant31

Maybe it goes without saying, but I always assume that DTD shouldn't be a guy's first experience using a condom. If I can be blunt, he should probably go through a box of them first just for his, ahem, alone time.

Wow! It does not go without saying! This is good info, especially as a single mom to one pre-pubescent intact boy. I'm glad you said that, because he and I have a great, open relationship-- at least for now-- and I'm surely going to pass on the information! Thank you!

When I saw the OPs message I was immediately conflicted. I have been trying to find the right "voice" for a book on this subject that has sat half-written for about 10 years now.

Write it. And write it how you think it should be written. There is an audience, and it is growing.
Maybe even a comic book version for the not-so-literate. Back in college, I had a sex-ed class with Sol Gordon, who also published his books in comic form, and also in Spanish. Not so popular back in the late 70s-early 80s, but maybe very timely now!

Originally Posted by Pirogi

Well, I think you should write it, and be brutally honest. There are a lot of unprudes out there too. It may not be a hit with everyone, but it would be very helpful to some. I would buy it.

Me, too.

[MommytoB]

Totally thanks for all this brant . This will sure serve good information for when my boy gets old enough and since i'm a single mom . I'm hoping it will be not embrassing for him.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by brant31

The majority of guys' foreskins don't retract behind the head on their own when erect. The percentage of those that do is probably higher in the US because of our culture of retracting boys at an
early age.

Not so much in Europe and elsewhere. I've mentioned this before, but I have a friend (intact) who works at the University of Oxford and he wanted to settle this question to his own satisfaction. Purely unscientific, but he asked friends, coworkers, pub buddies, etc over a period of about 5 years. The result was that about 70% of guys had partial or complete foreskin coverage when erect, but could manually retract. Somewhat more than a quarter had a foreskin that retracted to more or less a "ridged band" state on its own (most of the time) and a small percentage, 2-3% couldn't comfortably retract when erect -- though almost all of these had no problem retracting and cleaning when soft, like in the shower.

Interesting. I guess I should be a bit more nuanced. On occasion, I don't have to manually retract, but that's when the erection is really strong. So I guess level of arousal has something to do with it as well.

Papai, it sounds like the Portuguese instructions were directly lifted from the materials that were written in the US 20+ years ago. The Americans were the first out there with information, and unfortunately some countries adopted it verbatim. Trust me; the advice has moved forward since those early days.

YES! I too thought it sounded quite American. Very strange.

The Terrence Higgins AIDS Trust in the UK doesn't specifically say anything about pulling back your foreskin in their condom use guide.

Yeah, the vast majority of resources, even European ones, make no mention of it. I only found the ones I did by specifically adding the words "Prepucio" and "foreskin" to the phrase "How to put on a condom." Wonder why that is? Guess everyone just "figures it out" themselves?

I'll say it again: no right way. The only right way to wear a condom is the way that you have found works for you. As for the position of the foreskin for DTD, again there is no right way. It is a myth that for "proper functioning" or "ideal sensation" the foreskin must be locked into the sulcus with the ridged band in place. And intercourse itself does not always pull the foreskin back -- trust me. It is a factor of many things, including frenulum length and flexibility, preputial sphincter tightness, glans size change when erect, and much more. I think we do a real disservice to both men and women and create needless anxiety to suggest "it should be this way". Far better to describe in the literature (or sex ed, or YouTube, or wherever) what the normal variants are and let folks discover for themselves.

I suppose you're right. I'm obviously biased and colored by my own experiences. Good food for thought.