or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › so whats the big deal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

so whats the big deal? - Page 6

post #101 of 175
Quote:
i saw a picture of a intact penis that had the foreskin fused to the head of a adult with text from the owner of the penis saying how horrible sex was, and how he wished he was circed when he was little. it's stuff like that that worries me.
Odds are pretty high that this man's issues was caused from improper penis care. In the past parents were told to force back there childs foreskin to clean under it with soap and water every day. (Some dr today still propetuate this myth so be very carefull) Forced retraction (or pulling back of the foreskin toward the body) by anyone other than the child can cause scaring and infection and should NEVER be done. Please read this: The definition of retraction

This kind of thing CAN be fixed WITHOUT circ. Simple stretching excercises with or without the use of steroid cream and it is almost always fixable. We actually have a member here who had this condition and was told he needed circ. but he did his own research and fixed the problem without any type of medical intervention with stretching.
post #102 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
thanks for all the information everyone. and it is a LOT of information. so much that i don't think i would be able to read it all before having my baby boy. i talked to my husband last night and he actually surprised me. he said that his brother was left intact (and i thought i didn't know anyone left intact) because he wasn't able to be circ'ed when he was born. and that his brother always teased him because he got his penis cut when he was born. (men!) so, i guess the pp were right.. boys will tease over anything. my BIL is what many people would call a "stud" haha.. so, i am guessing he has never had a problem with his penis being different. my husband doesn't care one way or the other. he said that he trusts me to make the right decision. im just so scared that it will have to be done later in life. like when he is a teen or something and that will be very embarassing for him. or that we won't know how to care for it. i saw a picture of a intact penis that had the foreskin fused to the head of a adult with text from the owner of the penis saying how horrible sex was, and how he wished he was circed when he was little. it's stuff like that that worries me.
Hi! Welcome to the CAC forum!

I am the mother of two grown sons, both of whom are intact. They have had ZERO problems with their penises. None. Zero. Zip. Chances are, your ds will have no problems with his, either. The problems of having a foreskin have been greatly exaggerated!

Less than 1% of intact men will have to be circ'ed in later life. Most problems that do occur can be treated with non-surgical means, like betamethasone cream.

It's time to put a stop to the myth of the problematic foreskin.
post #103 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyNY View Post
Sucrose is often used to sedate babies. But it's a sedative, not anesthesia.
It's not a sedative or anesthesia. They just put sugar on the pacifier to make the baby suck on it instead of screaming his head off. It just makes the cutter more comfortable, not the baby.
post #104 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by njeb View Post
Hi! Welcome to the CAC forum!

I am the mother of two grown sons, both of whom are intact. They have had ZERO problems with their penises. None. Zero. Zip. Chances are, your ds will have no problems with his, either. The problems of having a foreskin have been greatly exaggerated!

Less than 1% of intact men will have to be circ'ed in later life. Most problems that do occur can be treated with non-surgical means, like betamethasone cream.

It's time to put a stop to the myth of the problematic foreskin.
if it is less than 1% how come i hear about it so frequently happening? i have heard of several cases, and i dont know many intact men.
post #105 of 175

Easy Answer...

Because you never hear the GOOD about a lot of issues...people only report the "bad". It's sorta like the news on TV. You mainly hear all of the bad stories to be reported...not any of the good and happy ones.
post #106 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
if it is less than 1% how come i hear about it so frequently happening? i have heard of several cases, and i dont know many intact men.
Chances are, the ones you hear about had a simple cause - like someone said, usually because they were being retracted to wash under it. That causes infections!
post #107 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
if it is less than 1% how come i hear about it so frequently happening? i have heard of several cases, and i dont know many intact men.
In intact countries - like here in Scandinavia, less than 0.0006% of men *need* medical circumcision due to problems. In general in intact countries, the need for circ due to problems is under 1%.

However.

In USA 12-15% of intact boys "need" to be circumcised due to "problems".

Where do you think this difference comes from?

100 years of brainwashing in USA has done it's job. Very few doctors/nurses/parents know the proper care of intact penis(=leave it alone). Boys are all the time forcefully retracted by medical personel and by parents - this is an act that causes HORRIBLE damage. For some reason also many still think that boys need to be retractable by the age 3 when in real life retraction happens anywhere from 1 to 18 years.

If you came to here and started to talk to parents and men how difficult foreskin is people here would not understand what you mean. Foreskin is something so natural and so problem free that parents would think that you are joking and men would be horrified even with the idea that the most sensitive part of their 'goodies' should be removed.
post #108 of 175
...Also because 40-50 years ago, when the medical establishment arbitrarily decided to circ all males across the board, those older children and men who had escaped the knife at birth were told they "needed" a circ when they really didn't. My dad was one such man. He was circ'ed at 12. It was so painful that he bought the line "Do it when they're born, so they won't have to go through it later." Well, when I pressed him about details, he tried to remember, and turns out, he couldn't even remember having any problems down there. He didn't rememeber any infection or discomfort, the doc just said, "Well, we gotta cut it off!" (this was the same doctor that used to prescribe aresenic for my dad's asthma). Fortunately for my dad, he is able to joke about it.
post #109 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxsiven View Post
In intact countries - like here in Scandinavia, less than 0.0006% of men *need* medical circumcision due to problems. In general in intact countries, the need for circ due to problems is under 1%.

However.

In USA 12-15% of intact boys "need" to be circumcised due to "problems".

Where do you think this difference comes from?

100 years of brainwashing in USA has done it's job. Very few doctors/nurses/parents know the proper care of intact penis(=leave it alone). Boys are all the time forcefully retracted by medical personel and by parents - this is an act that causes HORRIBLE damage. For some reason also many still think that boys need to be retractable by the age 3 when in real life retraction happens anywhere from 1 to 18 years.

If you came to here and started to talk to parents and men how difficult foreskin is people here would not understand what you mean. Foreskin is something so natural and so problem free that parents would think that you are joking and men would be horrified even with the idea that the most sensitive part of their 'goodies' should be removed.
really? is the US really that blind? i mean if thats true, what's wrong with doctors here? dont a good number of doctors read reports from overseas, etc?
post #110 of 175

Happy the that your thread is back!

Quote:
JuJu: really? is the US really that blind? i mean if thats true, what's wrong with doctors here? dont a good number of doctors read reports from overseas, etc?
Is the the US really that blind? Are doctors really that ignorant about the foreskin?

Well this is an easy question. US doctors/nurses have been taught in medical schools since the early 1800's how to do one thing for the US male penis and that is this: chop part of it off and don't ask questions. It is not really important to seek validation from the international community, if no one asks questions. If you don't believe me, look at the recent thread in here on one dissenting medical professional. She was threatened on more then one occassion by her school if she didn't comply with the "don't ask questions" policy. They wanted her to do as she was told...not to question it.

see here:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=554919

While the exact figures are disputable, foreskins are a very lucrative business. There is a cost to you, the consumer (via your HMO) to chop off that part off your son. Then the foreskins continue to make the medical community risudal income because they are sold to labs for all kinds of things like testing, skin grafts, consumer skin care products.

When you stand to lose that much money on something, you tend to be reluctant to let it go. So while the AAP is happy to say that circ is not medically necessary they wont come right out and say, "you really shouldn't do this folks".

I think your choice is simple when you look at stats alone. Less then 1% of intact men have any problems at all (the severity of which is disputable) and more than 10% of circ'd childen (and I hear way more horror stories about the circ'd penis than the intact penis) suffer complications.

I personally know of 2 people who had to have their son's "redone" at age 2 and 3 years old. "Adhessions" is one of the biggest problems of circ'd clildren, look around you, start talking to people about it, look on the web, you will hear countless sad stories about "adhessions".

I think that it sounds like you are just afraid at this point. Maybe afraid of the unknown, afraid that you will make the wrong decision for your son. That is very understandable. What does your gut instinct tell you? I was a little nervous too, but I decided that it didn't feel right to hand over my son 2 days after birth for corrective surgery on something that was healthy and normal. Circumcision is a very invasive procedure, and it causes more complications and harm then 'leaving well-enough alone'.
post #111 of 175

Doctors

There are all sorts of health models to follow in other countries.
These models mean less traditional medical intervention such as midwives for maternal child health, nutrition instead of pharmaceuticals, etc.
If docs start employing these models, they will not get paid.
Why do you think they do not really promote lactation?
If babies are not sick, that means less money. Unfortunately, that is not lost on the doc's bottom line. So, what do they do? Maybe get the insurance company to pay for a lactation consultant. That is certainly better than the promotion of formula.

But you have to realize the pharmaceuticals sometimes fund their entire residency programs.
It is difficult in big money/big corporations country.

Take care with your decision. Hope you will think about your baby girls. Their labia minora is the male equivalent of the prepuce (foreskin), so it just isn't an unneeded piece of skin.

The docs and hospitals need that revenue.

Take care.
post #112 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
really? is the US really that blind? i mean if thats true, what's wrong with doctors here? dont a good number of doctors read reports from overseas, etc?
Jujubees,

Welcome here . What is either why the doctors blindness is because they are circumcised themselves or the school teachings like especially like the 'case of phony phimosis dx it is considered an actual misdiagnose and can not truly be accurrately dx until the boy turns 18.

Some doctors forcibly pulling back the foreskin - when they 'see word 'force' they have their own wording for it like if the child 'doesn't cry or they say see how easy this was or just looking or use excuses to check for hyspodadius.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=129378


http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...recurrent.html

A few boys with intact foreskins get what are called “recurrent infections.” When this happens, many medical doctors recommend a circumcision.

Yet, humans have lived for millions of years, under all sorts of conditions, without getting recurrent infections on the penis. Men have lived in caves, tents, grass huts, mud houses, and igloos, frequently in filth and without running water, but infection of the penis has never been a problem. How can this be?

As a result, some doctors and many parents believe that the foreskin must be retracted and cleaned at least daily. The general rule that cleanliness contributes to health, however, is not totally applicable to the penis of young boys because nature already has provided protection against infection. Washing defeats nature's protection. Retraction of the foreskin opens the preputial sphincter and allows pathogens to enter. Washing with soap removes the protective substances from beneath the foreskin, disturbs the natural bacterial balance, and drys out the protective mucosal tissue. Moreover, frequent washing with soap removes the natural oils from the foreskin and creates a condition of non-specific dermatosis,2 which may be mistaken for infection, and may result in yet more washing. This may improperly be diagnosed as recurrent infection, with a recommendation for circumcision.

The proper treatment, when faced with recurrent infection, according to Birley and colleagues, is to stop retracting, stop washing under the foreskin, and to apply emollients.

Protect your intact son from circumcision
http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...uncircson.html

Most cases of their is "double profit ' including a more higher price of profit of circumcising at older age .

http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

So check your facial creams and any body product you use for 'fibroblasts' because that's their 'nickname for a foreskin ingredient.
post #113 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
thanks for all the information everyone. and it is a LOT of information. so much that i don't think i would be able to read it all before having my baby boy. i talked to my husband last night and he actually surprised me. he said that his brother was left intact (and i thought i didn't know anyone left intact) because he wasn't able to be circ'ed when he was born. and that his brother always teased him because he got his penis cut when he was born. (men!) so, i guess the pp were right.. boys will tease over anything. my BIL is what many people would call a "stud" haha.. so, i am guessing he has never had a problem with his penis being different. my husband doesn't care one way or the other. he said that he trusts me to make the right decision. im just so scared that it will have to be done later in life. like when he is a teen or something and that will be very embarassing for him. or that we won't know how to care for it. i saw a picture of a intact penis that had the foreskin fused to the head of a adult with text from the owner of the penis saying how horrible sex was, and how he wished he was circed when he was little. it's stuff like that that worries me.
I know you have recieved TONS of info. I read the article "The Case Against Circumcision" from the sticky at the top of this forum. It was more than enough to convince me. There is an article by the same author about all the reasons drs will mistakenly try to make you circ your son. In all the cases you have heard about older boys needing to be circ'd, it was probably due to faulty info.

There are, however, many botched circumcisions. The article I mentioned above discusses that.

Did you know that there is a lot of money to be made off human foreskins? They are used in bandages and skin creams. Oprah had a cream on her show that was made from foreskins. Someone else here might know more about that. I didn't actually see it.

If you are going to worry about your son being angry if he has to be circ'd later (such a slight possibility, if you stay informed, that it's not even worthy of consideration) you should probably be thinking about the fact that he might be angry that his foreskin was taken without his consent.

I felt the same way you do before, that circ isn't a big deal. After doing research, I believe the opposite is true. I think it's great you're doing research to benefit your son!
post #114 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
really? is the US really that blind? i mean if thats true, what's wrong with doctors here? dont a good number of doctors read reports from overseas, etc?
You would hope so, but in many cases, the doctors will gladly take the extra money (which insurance probably won't pay for) from the unnecessary circumcision and not ask questions.

I don't know if this was already mentioned, but circumcision was originally brought about in the USA as a method to help curb masturbation. A lot of people with foreskins were masturbating, which was (at the time) considered wrong/evil/bad/whatever, and so in order to remove sensitivity, the foreskin was amputated.

Suppose your son is left intact. If he's comparing in the locker room, and notices a difference with a circumcised boy, the conversation may go like this:

Circumcised boy: "What's that down there, why does yours look different?"
Intact boy: "First of all, why are you looking at mine? Secondly, I have more than you do. Your parents had yours cut."

It will most likely be the circumcised boy who is feeling awkward for admitting to looking down there, and then finding out he has less of a penis than an intact boy.
post #115 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJuBees View Post
really? is the US really that blind? i mean if thats true, what's wrong with doctors here? dont a good number of doctors read reports from overseas, etc?
Circumcumcision started in Victorian England, to stop masturbation. From there it spread to other english speaking countries. Else where in english speaking world the practise disappeared quickly but in USA it stayed.

While in USA circumcision has 'cured' boys from all kinds of problems meanwhile rest of the world have continued to live intact.

For most of the world the idea that foreskin is something icky is as ridiculous than somebody coming to USA and starting to claim that woman's clitoris is dangerous and must be cut off for hygienic&medical reasons.

There are excellent sites telling about the history of circumcision. Here are some quotes from medical literature in USA.(also...female circumcision was also practised in some parts of USA as cure for masturbation 100 years ago)

1860: 0.001% of the U.S. male population circumcised

"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.

1887: 10% of the U.S. male population circumcised

"Hip trouble is from falling down, an accident that children with tight foreskins are especially liable to owing to the weakening of the muscles produced by the condition of the genitals." Lewis L. Sayer, Circumcision For the Cure of Enuresis, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 7 (1887): pp. 631-633.

"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts." Angel Money, Treatment of Disease in Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887, p. 421.

1895: 15% of the U.S. male population circumcised

"In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physicians' closest friend and ally ... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained ... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch." E. J. Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24 (1895): pp. 442-443.

1901
"Frequent micturition [urination], loss of flesh, convulsions, phosphatic calculus, hernia, nervous exhaustion, dyspepsia, diarrhea, prolapse of rectum, balanitis, acute phimosis and masturbation are all conditions induced by the constricted long prepuce, and all to be rapidly remedied by the simple operation of circumcision." H. G. H. Naylor, A Plea for Early Circumcision, Pediatrics, vol. 12 (1901): p. 231.

1920: 50% of the U.S. male population circumcised

"Circumcision is an excellent thing to do; it helps to prevent hernia due to straining, and later it helps in preventing masturbation. The ordinary schoolboy is not taught to keep himself clean, and if he is taught he thinks too much about the matter." I. Solomons, For and Against Circumcision, British Medical Journal, 5 June 1920, p. 768.

1935: 55% of the U.S. male population circumcised

"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is 'against nature', but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R. W. Cockshut, Circumcision, British Medical Journal, vol. 2 (1935): 764.

If you read this far I am sure you got the idea...

all this suffering in USA while rest of the world lived as nature intented.
post #116 of 175
Quote:
Circumcumcision started in Victorian England, to stop masturbation.
I am guessing that you menat to say circing for non-religous reasons started in Victorian England...right?
post #117 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugmenot View Post
I don't know if this was already mentioned, but circumcision was originally brought about in the USA as a method to help curb masturbation.
I imagine Kia was responding to the statement quoted above, and assumed she didn't need to qualify.
post #118 of 175
It can seem a little scary when you first decide to leave your son intact if you have no experience with a foreskin (like me a few years ago). It's normal to worry that something will go wrong, especially if you hear horror stories about old men with awful infections or other painful conditions. The truth is that it's really a piece of cake to care for a foreskin. It's much easier to care for than a girl's genital area, yet all of us women have managed to navigate those tricky waters. Now, I can't believe I ever worried about leaving my first son intact. Boys/men hardly ever need to be circumcised later in life, and the number who do is decreasing as parents and enlightened doctors have changed their thinking on forced retraction (which is damaging, as PPs have mentioned), realized that foreskins sometimes don't retract for many years, and treated phimosis with topical steroids instead of just pushing circumcision. To be honest, if for some reason one of my sons wanted or needed to be circumcised as an adult (which I really highly doubt will happen), I would still feel very good about how I left that decision up to him.
post #119 of 175
We are not allowed to discuss religious circumcision in anyway so ofcourse I did not mean that in my post.

I do not want this thread to be shut down again.

If we look FGM&MGM from antropological POV, the evidence we have today tells us that both practises started in eastern&subsaharan Africa thousands of years ago. Another 'spot' where(only)MGM started was in Australian/Polynesian area where some tribes started to practise it also thousands of years ago. For example some Australian aboriginals practised subincision(http://www.answers.com/topic/subincision)as a coming of age ritual.

Excellent sites for all who are interested in general history of circumcision;

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
post #120 of 175
You should consider that there may be serious long-term sexual consequences for your son if you choose to have him cut. Here's the thread that I originally posted a few months about my story. I have since discovered that my dh is far, far from alone in his circ-induced sexual dysfunction.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=469671

Good for you for doing the research first. I wish my MIL had had the opportunity to do that 42 years ago.

--Olive
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › so whats the big deal?