? about circ as an adult

[dnr3301]

I keep hearing (not IRL, just on the boards) about the idea that circ-ing will have to be done later anyway, we may as well do it as a baby, I've read people say that it's more complicated a procedure for an adult, stuff like that.

Is this true? Not the apparent inevitibility of circing, because I know that's a load of crap, but what is circ like for an adult man?

Here's my thinking: Even if, and that's a big if, even if circumcising was inevitible, even if 100% of men had to have it done sometime in their lives, I would still not circ my newborn. Why wouldn't I wait until there was the (inevitible) problem and then do it? We don't cut out tonsils and appendices at birth and the chance of those getting infected is a lot higher than normal foreskin. We don't give newborn girls radical masectomies to prevent breast cancer, which is a lot more common than foreskin problems. I would at least wait until my son was fully retractable and out of diapers. I had very minor surgery on my hand when ds was a few weeks old, and the doctor basically forbid me to change diapers until it healed, on the grounds that any fecal matter could introduce a potentially arm-threatening infection. Why would I put my son's open wound in a diaper? And as far as retractablity goes, wouldn't that make the procedure easier in an adult? Plus, they would have a better idea about how much to cut, since there wouldn't be that arbitrary "room to grow" issue. Why would circ in an adult be more complicated? Is it because of the psychological issues? I would much rather have my breasts removed because there was cancer there than removed at birth because there might be cancer there someday. If I have appendicitis, I have no issue removing that unhealthy tissue.

So that agrument seems really weak to me, but I've never heard anyone else aruge it from this standpoint. Obviously, I know that the chances of an intact man needing circ is zilch.

Sorry for the rambling, I never know how much time the kiddos will allow me to type.

[the_lissa]

I agree with you. Also, they say it is more painful as an adult. How do they know? At least an adult can understand why he is pain and get hardcore painkillers.

[amj'smommy]

I agree also As an adult it will be a decision they will make for themselves. Just as adult males make the decision to tatoo or pierce themselves (in no way am I likening circ to these just using as an example) he can make his own decision to MUTILATE his penis.

[dnr3301]

oooh! How could I forget about the pain aspect? that's huge for me. An adult can get adequate pain relief, both during and after. I still don't see how circ on an adult is more complicated or worse than on a baby.

[the_lissa]

Originally Posted by dnr3301

I still don't see how circ on an adult is more complicated or worse than on a baby.

Me neither, especially as there is a larger surface area to work with.

[~Megan~]

at least an adult understands why, at least they are asleep and don't feel the procedure as its happening, at least their foreskin isn't attached....

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by dnr3301

I keep hearing (not IRL, just on the boards) about the idea that circ-ing will have to be done later anyway, we may as well do it as a baby, I've read people say that it's more complicated a procedure for an adult, stuff like that.

Is this true? Not the apparent inevitibility of circing, because I know that's a load of crap, but what is circ like for an adult man?

The main difference is that infant circumcision is more of a hack and slash procedure while it is a much more precise procedure for an adult. As far as complicated, that's only so for the surgeon. An infant circumcision is just a guessing game but for an adult, the doctor will make marks on the penis while it is erect after discussing it with the man for the style of circumcision the man wants. Two marks will be made on the penis where the incisions will be made, one where the mucosal skin will be cut and the other where the shaft skin will be cut with attention paid to the final outcome and appearance. During the procedure, the doctor will cut at these two marks and make a longitudinal cut between the two marks. The foreskin will then be unwrapped and lifted away and the two edges will be sutured together edge to edge. It's really pretty simple stuff as evidenced by the fact that men are often circumcised in the bush or at parties in African or Muslim countries. In a doctors office, it takes about 45 minutes from the administration of anesthesia to finish.

Here's my thinking: Even if, and that's a big if, even if circumcising was inevitible, even if 100% of men had to have it done sometime in their lives, I would still not circ my newborn. Why wouldn't I wait until there was the (inevitible) problem and then do it? We don't cut out tonsils and appendices at birth and the chance of those getting infected is a lot higher than normal foreskin.

For any medical problem except the mythical penis problems, the standard is that prophylactic surgical procedures are not done unless the probability of the necessity of the procedure is approximately 30%. The probability of an indicated circumcision is .0006% or a very long way from the standard.

We don't give newborn girls radical masectomies to prevent breast cancer, which is a lot more common than foreskin problems.

I have seen estimates of the probability of a later life mastectomy or lumpectomy of between 1 in 6 to 1 in 16. If the 1 in 6 number is true, that is half way to the standard so removing the breast buds of females would make a lot more sense as a prophylactic procedure that circumcision ever will.

I would at least wait until my son was fully retractable and out of diapers. I had very minor surgery on my hand when ds was a few weeks old, and the doctor basically forbid me to change diapers until it healed, on the grounds that any fecal matter could introduce a potentially arm-threatening infection. Why would I put my son's open wound in a diaper?

This gets into how we value life and I suppose it is totally backward to what it should be. When we are talking about a sperm cell and an unfertilized egg, we give it absolutely no value but once fertilization occurs, the debate begins and some value is afforded it. Once implantation occurs, we give it more value and at the third trimester, even more value is given. At birth, a great leap in value is assigned but it is still not given enough value to prevent the pain and potential death from a totally unnecessary procedure peformed for vanity reasons. It is only after several years that that life is given enough value that it starts to become important for the life holder to have an input on whether this will be imposed on them and only after about 1 1/2 decades do we start thinking that this decision is exclusively theirs.

And as far as retractablity goes, wouldn't that make the procedure easier in an adult?

Yes, easier, less invasive and less traumatic.

Why would circ in an adult be more complicated? Is it because of the psychological issues?

I have no doubt there are psychological issues for a man who decides to have himself circumcised. Why would any mentally stable, well adjusted and confident person hate a normal and natural body part so much that they would have it cut off? That clearly tells me that they have some issues that should be resolved with counseling rather than surgery. It's like the women you see on television that have had dozens of cosmetic plastic surgery procedures. I think they need a psychologist more than they need a plastic surgeon. Certainly, I think Michael Jackson could use some help as it appears he has some very serious psychological problems with his race. Michael certainly measures up to anyone by any success yardstick yet it is clear that he has not been happy with himself and his natural body. Why would we consider a man who wants part of his penis cut off any more normal than Michael Jackson?

I would much rather have my breasts removed because there was cancer there than removed at birth because there might be cancer there someday. If I have appendicitis, I have no issue removing that unhealthy tissue.

The fact is that it has never truely been about health or psychological benefits. It does not now nor has it ever met the standards for a prophylactic procedure. It has always been something much deeper in our collective psyche and how men, their rights and their sexuality are viewed in general.

So that agrument seems really weak to me, but I've never heard anyone else aruge it from this standpoint. Obviously, I know that the chances of an intact man needing circ is zilch.

The argument is weak and always has been weak. From the very begining, the argument has needed crutches to prop it up and give it legs. It is a validation of the human race and the progress we have made that we are standing here now trying our best to kick those crutches out from under it and that we are being successful. Circumcision will persist in less educated and developed parts of the world until those parts of the world catch up to the industrialized nations. It's an embarassment that The US with all of it's power and sophistication is only getting there now.





Frank

[namith]

Yes Frank, its hard to follow you up but i will try. The process would actually be easier and less "reducing" in an adult than in a child. Children's foreskins are attached to the glans, adults' are not. Therefore it is much easier to cut off an adult's foreskin. Again, you can make cuts in an adult based on where you want it to be and not just wherever the doctor decides to in an infant. And you are correct, one of the functions of the foreskin (at least since the invention of the diaper) is to protect the glans from feces and urine in the diaper. The argument is total crap.

[hummingbear]

Right there with all the rest of you.

A question:
I once heard that the neural pathways of an infant are still developing and so there is some chance that nerves intended for sexual purposes may have the opportunity to "reroute" in circumcised infants, but will not in adult men who circumcise. Have any of you come across this information?

I wonder where this information comes from.
And I still don't think it justifies circumcising an infant.

[namith]

I have heard something like that. That actually makes it worse for the infants. They are scrubbed clean, which often gives them an erection. Then, for their first sexual experience of any kind, they get an incredibly painful chopping. Wonderful, thats what they will subconsciously associate with sex for the rest of their life.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by hummingbear

A question:
I once heard that the neural pathways of an infant are still developing and so there is some chance that nerves intended for sexual purposes may have the opportunity to "reroute" in circumcised infants, but will not in adult men who circumcise. Have any of you come across this information?

Actually, it is just the opposite. Because clamps are used in infant circumcision and the two cut edges are not joined edge to edge, there is very little reconnecting of neural pathways and blood vessels. This accounts for reports of men circumcised as adults having an extremely sensitive frenular delta and men circumcised as infants having no substantial difference than the shaft skin. The frenular delta has it's own dedicated nerve, the frenular nerve and it's very own dedicated blood supply, the frenular artery. Both of these are permanently terminated in an infant circumcision when the Plastibel or clamp type procedures are used. The artery simply runs into a dead end and is highly suspected to be the cause of meatal stenosis because not enough oxygen gets to the meatus. Reduced oxygen = reduced sensation. The frenular nerve atrophies and is absorbed by the body. No nerve = no sensation.

However in an adult circumcision, the two cut edges are butt joined and at least part of the circulatory and nerve systems re-establish. It will never be known for sure but from anecdotal reports of both men circumcised as infants and men circumcised as adults, it appears that men circumcised as adults retain at least 20% more sexual sensitivity than men circumcised as infants. That 20% could be the difference in the impotency rates in intact and circumcised men.




Frank

[Shaunam]

My sister has a friend who decided to get circ'ed soon after he turned 18. He told her that it was no big deal and it didn't even really hurt EXCEPT on one occassion, the wound kind of stuck to his boxers and he ripped them down without realizing it. But that pain could have been prevented. He went under for the procedure and had painkillers for afterwards.

I'm glad my sister has this friend. It's kind of proof that it's better for the adult to be able to make the decision. I've been trying to convince her not to circ when she has kids (she's only 18 and it will probably be awhile). The last time we talked about it, she said she still wasn't sure if she would ever do it or not, but she was leaning towards not. Yay!!! She's come a long way in just a few short months. When I was still pregnant with DS, she thought it was gross not to circ. The main thing I stress to her is how painful it is for the baby and how NOT painful it is for an adult.