The CircInfo/ICIRC Refutement Project - Page 2

[Treece]

Soap and Water are all that are needed to keep a boy's penis clean. This is true, but fails to recognize the fact that most young boys avoid the use of soap and water on any part of their bodies if not pressured and checked. Nearly all parents find it necessary to check that their sons have washed behind their ears and cleaned their teeth before going to bed at night. Simply teaching the boy to wash somewhere doesn't mean that he will wash there. If not washed daily the foreskin collects stale urine and smegma. Both contribute to inflammations of the foreskin and glans, known as balanitis, as well as causing bad odours.

Regular washing under the foreskin also presupposes that the foreskin is fully retractable and that the boy has been taught to retract it. As we have already seen, the anti-circumcisers would have us not retract our son's foreskin to perform this regular washing. One cannot have it both ways!

So many mistruths......Where oh where do I start???

1. THEY say it is true!!!
2. I can see a young boy not washing his ears, but he will be exploring his body in the tub, so it will be washed.
3. Urine is sterile. Smegma is natural and present in women too.
4. The foreskin shoul dnot be retracted until THE OWNER retracts it.
5. I promise, he will know when it is retractible. All babies explore their bodies, all children explore their bodies, all teens expore their bodies, and all adults explore their bodies.

[Revamp]

Great work Treece, it should also be said that soap is not actually that vital in the process and the wrong sort might actually cause damage to the glans.

[Revamp]

This part is from the leaflet with the photo I posted beforehand, listing reasons for circumcision being a requisite:

a. Religion.

The operation is obligatory for infant Jewish and Moslem males as a religious rite so it is not open for discussion.

"Obligatory" is a most deceptive phrase to use. It completely ignores the fact that both Reform and Reconstructionist Jews are strongly and highly advised to have their sons circumcised but it is not classified as a crucial component to Judaism. In addition there is a strong Islamic case against circumcision that this passage totally disregards.

In addition why exactly should views be held as beyond discussion simply because they are religious? Would such an argument work in defence of FGM? Or, in fact, any other instance of a religious group restricting the rights of its members?

Surely it is the task of both doctors and the state to protect their patients and citizens before religions?

b. Parental request.

Routine circumcision at birth other than for religious reasons is a custom in several countries and in some families in this country. Most males are circumcised soon after birth in the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand but until recently this was rare in Continental Europe. In Britain, routine operation is much more common among the well-to-do than manual workers; and it is an open secret that Prince Charles was done by a Mohel, or Jewish circumciser, and that his two brothers are also circumcised. Every parent wants to do what he thinks best for his child and this may include a sincere belief in the benefits of circumcision. Common reasons given by parents requesting the operation are "His father was done"; "It's more hygienic" and "It will prevent trouble later in life". One can sympathize with the man who has unpleasant memories of having the operation later in life and thus seeks to avoid the same situation in his sons by requesting circumcision at birth. Likewise, one can understand the request when an older son, or child of a relative, is distressed by circumcision later in childhood.

Can one? Can one really?

Any other user of cosmetic surgery who found the experience unpleasant but the outcome satisfactory who decided that this was adequete reasoning to perform it upon their child soon after birth would have their children placed into social care.

In addition his claim that the majority of Canadian, Australians and New Zealanders circumcise their sons is totally unsupported by any statistical research performed. Rates in Canada are around 11%, Australia below 10% and in New Zealand and Britain it is virtually non-existant. This is far from a majority.

In addition the supposed circumcision of Prince Charles is unsubstaniated while the fact that his sons Harry and William are intact is bona fide.

Futhermore the entire issue of consent is totally disregarded in this passage.

c. Desire to be circumcised.


It is not uncommon for a man to be dissatisfied with the size or appearance of his penis. Quite a number of men have an intense desire to be circumcised which usually arises after seeing the circumcised organs of brothers or school fellows. In time, this initially simple wish to have the appearance of his penis improved becomes an obsession in which he feels that the continuing presence of his foreskin is affecting his sex life. If he is brave enough to confide in his doctor he will be told that his penis is quite normal, operation is not necessary, and he should see a psychiatrist and not a surgeon. Most surgeons are unsympathetic and would refuse to operate on these unfortunate individuals even as private patients. Whilst it is true that the patient's mental attitude is the cause of his sexual disability, it is equally true that circumcision cures the condition. The stand taken by doctors on this issue is quite inconsistent when one considers that a woman who thinks her breasts or nose are not quite the right shape is sent to see a plastic surgeon without any investigation of her psyche.

This passage appears to advocate treating pathological dysmophia through capitulation.

In addition the author's claim that: "It is equally true that circumcision cures the condition" is incorrect, often sexual dissatisfaction increases after the procedure due to a decrease in sensitivity and loss of erogenous tissue.

d. Tight foreskin.

The amount of falsehoods in the following passage require me to anotate phrase by phrase.

After infancy the foreskin should be loose enough to be drawn back so as to completely expose the whole penis head and to be pulled forward again without pain or difficulty.

Incorrect. This does not tend to occur on average until around age 5.

In the mature youth this action should be possible with the penis erect.

Should it? Why exactly? Is washing while flaccid somehow inadequete? The doctor presents no reasoning for this statement, seeming instead to attempt to blur the unusual and unhealthy into one.

If it cannot be retracted at all (phimosis), washing is not possible and smegma accumulates.

Smegma acculumaltes regardless. As it happens phimosis seems to slow the rate of this process quite substantially.

Phimosis also makes sexual intercourse unsatisfactory

Highly subjective wording. Some phimosis sufferers would be inclined to differ to this statement.

and low deposition of semen in the vagina due to poor penetration may cause infertility.

Incorrect. The man is still perfectly fertile, it is merely a matter of the semen he has not being deposited correctly. This wording seems suspect.

Occasionally the opening becomes so small that even passing water becomes difficult.

Correct. However during meatal stenosis, a common complication of circumcision that affects at least 10% of circumcised boys, precisely the same effect occurs to the urethral opening itself.

If a tight prepuce is forcibly drawn back (e.g. during intercourse) it may become jammed and incapable of being pulled forward again (paraphimosis).

"Jammed" is, once again, a poor choice of wording. Frequently the problem stems from swelling caused by fluid accumulation within the prepuce.

In this painful condition the foreskin strangulates the glans and emergency treatment is necessary.

Incorrect, the foreskin may strangulate the glans. It is not an inevitable outcome and thus a quantifier is required.

So heed the warning signs that paraphimosis is going to occur when you are no longer able to draw the foreskin forward after sexual intercourse until the erection subsides or when painful little splits appear in the tip of the prepuce during sexual intercourse.

The doctor here indicates that he believes the intact male to be exceedingly stupid: who would not heed "Painful little splits" coating one of the most sensitive parts of their genitals?

Phimosis may follow injury (e.g. zip-fastener!), inflammation (see below), or it may be a developmental abnormality.

It is odd that the most common cause of phimosis, forceful and premature retraction, is absent from this list.

Parents are often surprised to learn that their teenager needs a circumcision, having been assured he was perfectly normal earlier in life.

The assurances were correct, he was perfectly normal earlier in life. The condition had not developed at that point.

The explanation is that before puberty the opening in the prepuce was large enough to allow the glans to pass through but during the rapid growth of the penis after puberty only that part of the foreskin which covers the glans enlarges.

That is "An explanation", not "The explanation". Another is that elasticity was damaged via tears obtained through premature retraction.

A tight prepuce cannot be cured by stretching at any age because this only causes little splits which heal with scarring making the condition worse than before.

Of all the areas of this leaflet this one is one of the most absurdly false.

I am perfectly aware from personal experience that stretch methods do not worsen this condition, in the vast majority of cases the Beauge Method cures phimosis entirely. Little splits do not occur (as they do during premature retraction) as the foreskin is not just forced around the glans but is gradually yet continuously taken to the point at which it can expand no more and then return, thus causing a steady expansion in this point without any breakages of the skin. The methods involves stretching it to fit, not tearing.

The author was either unaware of this, in which case he was far too ignorant to be writting a leaflet on this topic, or else is intending to directly deceive the reader and discourage the most effective and conservative cure available to a phimosis sufferer.

Either way here he shows himself to be highly irresponsible.

e. Inflammation.

In spite of adequate hygiene one may suffer from persistent or recurrent soreness, itching or redness of the inner aspect of the foreskin and penis head &shyp; a condition called balanitis. Occasionally there may be an acute attack with a discharge of pus which resembles gonorrhoea. Balanitis may also occur before the prepuce has fully separated from the glans in childhood when washing is not possible. A long prepuce tends to retain moisture predisposing to this condition which is often precipitated by warm weather (summer balanitis). Balanitis occurs especially in sportsmen and others who sweat a lot. One or more acute attacks or recurrent mild attacks heal with scarring of the foreskin and phimosis develops. Similarly, inflammation affecting the glans may heal with scarring and narrowing of the water pipe opening (meatal stenosis).

A list of shock tactics is utilised here, every one an example only of what would occur should it go untreated.

The claim that those with adequete hygeine may also suffer from this condition is unsubstaniated.

If passing water becomes difficult an operation (meatotomy) to enlarge the opening may be necessary.

As it is in the instance of a case of meatal stenosis.

A variety of germs will flourish under a damp prepuce and they are difficult to permanently eradicate until the area is rendered permanently dry by circumcision.

Here the author plays of an irrational fear of bacteria, in a healthy and commonly washed prepuce the number of bacteria present is miniscule when compared to the mouth. Accordingly there is a requirement for proof of the need for permanant eradication, proof not provided in this passage.

Thrush or Monilia, a fungus infection, is quite common in the vagina of women on 'the pill' and their male consorts are liable to get 'thrush balanitis'.

The relevence of this is dubious.

Due to the presence of sugar in their water diabetics are also prone to balanitis.

Another unsourced "Fact". What harm does sugar pose?

Similarly warts under the prepuce, which are caused by a virus infection, are difficult to cure until circumcision is performed.

Incorrect. Most treatments for this condition prove highly effective.

If you suffer from balanitis seek medical advice and do not treat yourself with a strong antiseptic which may make the condition worse.

His advice not to apply an anti-septic is wise but I doubt many men of sound enough mind to read would consider pouring dettol onto an area as sensitive as the glans.

f. Torn or tight frenulum.

The frenulum (also called frenum or frænum) is a band of skin containing a blood vessel and some sensory nerves

Finally! A confession from an advocate that such nerves are in existance! The fact that these nerves provide immense pleasure to their owner is entirely disregarded and that removing those blood vessels and the tissue itself is the primary cause of meatal stenosis is, naturally, entirely disregarded.

The frenulum is presented as troublesome and unworthy of having throughout this section but at least here some level of accuracy is applied.

which joins the inner aspect of the prepuce to the glans on the under surface of the penis.

And is, accordingly, highly painful to remove.

Drawing back the prepuce pulls upon the frenulum and in full penetration during sexual intercourse the frenulum is quite taut.

Indeed, as it is specifically designed to be. Many would say pleasurably so.

If the frenulum is short or tight, full penetration may cause discomfort which may last for several days;

There have been no accounts of men suffering from frenulum breve which have reported discomfort lasting such a substantial length of time.

or the structure may tear causing a painful wound for a longer period. Occasionally smart bleeding occurs which requires emergency treatment. Surgical division of the frenulum usually cures the trouble and this can easily be done under local anaesthesia. Sometimes circumcision has to be done as well to relieve the tension in the frenular area.

Bizarre.

This is intended to be section under which all topics listed are indicators of a circumcision being "ESSENTIAL".

Yet now we are told that a circumcision is only required "Sometimes".

A lad should be instructed to check that his frenulum is satisfactory before he leaves school. He should be able to completely retract his prepuce so that it lies flat along the shaft of his erect penis without causing pain or markedly bending the glans downwards.

Since the author believes all "Lads" should be circumcised I find this piece of advice rather baffling.

SUMMARY AND COMMENTS

The part of this subtitle that declares it a summary is accurate, comments of a subjective nature have been made throughout however.

Phimosis and persistent balanitis are the most common medical reasons for circumcision in this country.

In many cases totally without neccessity.

Have yourself circumcised if you suffer from these troubles because they will get worse with time and may lead to more serious complications in later life.

These "More serious complications" are left vague and mysterious.

I am grateful that I did not read this pamphlet before coming across the Beauge report. I cured my phimosis without the requirement for any form of medication or operation, let alone amputation.

This advice is the worst I have ever seen in any medical publication.

A vicious circle develops in which balanitis produces phimosis which prevents washing the penis and leads to further attacks of balanitis, due to lack of hygiene, with more scarring.

Unless of course it is cured by other methods, as it easily can be in almost every case.

If phimosis is the primary condition then balanitis will sooner or later be a complication and the same cycle of events results.

Unless of course it is cured by other methods, as it easily can be in almost every case.

Men who get cancer of the penis usually give a history of 20-40 years of phimosis and/or chronic balanitis

Which indicates the claims of intact men being at a higher risk of cancer seem somewhat absurd: only intact men who leave a medical condition untreated for a matter of decades are at a greater risk than circumcised men.

so these troubles have more than just a nuisance value

Yet unlike most medical conditions, or even most nuisances, one of them can frequently be cured through masturbation and the other tends to fade with a moderate hygeine routine.

It is not generally known that the tendency to penis troubles is inherited so if a man has trouble with his prepuce or frenulum he should seriously consider having his sons circumcised at birth as a preventative measure.

Once again I must declared myself baffled.

So because we have no evidence for such conditions being inherited we must act in a speculative fashion that is in itself based around a speculation. Here the doctor displays that in addition to a lack of medical knowledge he also suffers from a lack of logic.

Conclusion

I have found it problematic to find a single part of this which was wholly correct. This doctor's reasoning is totally devoid either of rationality or application of medical fact.

[Revamp]

Could I ressurect this idea please?

[MommytoB]

I'm wondering if better way to refute pro-circ healthy propganda is to maybe write a thing on Mom's Who have Raised Intact Son's . Maybe we could like 'start' a age Journal thing' and add if a certain issue was caused by forceful 'retracting' and how we treated UTI's, yeast/bacterial/fungus infections, how long it took for our son's to realize when he was 'retractable' so we can see varying, write about hygiene discussions of which part he keeps clean & which parts he don't ,and add ask mom's to tell of stories of their son's /daughter circ friends issues , write if a parent fell victim to having their son circ due to recureent UTI's, Yeast, phony phimosis and it made the issue not be fixed or made it worse .

[Revamp]

That is certainly a good idea!

The difficulty is that the impact that that would have upon CircInfo and the fence-sitting/moderately pro-circ parents that it targets would be minimal: they could easily depict such an effort as "Typical annecdotal anti-circ evidence free nonsense".

To take them on properly we need to pull their advocacy argument apart piece by piece and then store it somewhere to link parents to. I originally thought a website but perhaps a sticky? I am not sure if that would be allowed. I just really think that something is needed for this one since its tone is highly deceptive and it seems perfect for lulling parents towards making the wrong choice.

But your idea is great too! We should definetely try that as well.