'Infections' Theory

[Patchfire]

So, my non-dear-SIL is pregnant, flavor currently unknown. However, despite dh's impassioned pleas (the man is a better intactivist than I ), or perhaps BECAUSE of them, she has made the decision (at 16 weeks pg, or something like that) to circumcise. :

Her reasoning, however, goes like this: She works at a daycare facility, and she claims to have seen 'so many' intact little boys who have trouble with infections. She works in the two year old room.

I doubt part of her story simply because there aren't that many intact boys around here, I don't think. I toured the local hospitals for my CBE certification last spring and asked each one their circ rate - it was over 90% in all cases.

Beyond that... 'infections'... dh asked me why they might happen. I told him that *probably* the daycare workers (including his sister) don't know not to retract when changing a diaper.

Now that I've told him that, he'll take it as gospel, so I thought I'd make sure my theory was at least plausible. Is it?

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Patchfire

Beyond that... 'infections'... dh asked me why they might happen. I told him that *probably* the daycare workers (including his sister) don't know not to retract when changing a diaper.

Now that I've told him that, he'll take it as gospel, so I thought I'd make sure my theory was at least plausible. Is it?

Yep...you hit the nail on the head! For all you know, the parents don't even know not to. Even my mom *thought* that you had to retract and clean. I informed her though that is exactly what you should NOT do! She's never changed DSs diaper anyhow.

[Lula's Mom]

That's one reason. I remember once we had a thead where we discussed whether our intact boys had ever had an infection (and of course, here we have a sample of parents who all know proper care!) My impression was that everyone said no, but there may have been one or two. Properly-cared for intact boys can still get infections or irritations that are mistaken for infection, and doctors are quick to recommend circumcision. But of course, you'd simply treat it with antibiotics or antifungals, as you would an intact girl.

I just hate that argument for circumcision! It is idiotic to cut off a functional part of the body in case it gets a *treatable* infection later! : There's no other body part we do that to. I've had foot fungus before and I don't wish somebody had taken off my toes at birth. Without anesthesia, no less.

Is the circ rate really that high around here? I like to imagine that Marcos has plenty of company, but maybe the people we know are really the only ones with intact boys.

[pdx.mothernurture]

Yes, forced/premature retraction can tear the delicate tissue creating an entry point for bacteria, and overzealous 'cleaning', especially with soap can (like douching the female genitals) disrupt the natural balance and make the area more suceptible to yeast.

The AAP says, "Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin." LINK

Jen

[minkajane]

My two-year-old DS got repeated yeast infections for months because of a strawberry allergy we didn't know about. He would get raw patches on his thighs, scrotum, and penis. Once, he got one on his foreskin and it swelled a bit. I was concerned about his ability to pee, so I took him to a doctor. She refused to culture, strongly pushed oral antibiotics (which I refused), and said if the "infection" returned, "a circumcision might be necessary." I glared at her and told her that it was NOT an option. That was one of several attempts this practice made to deprive my son of his foreskin.

I'm sharing this because it is one example of how doctors assume that any hint of anything in the viscinity of the foreskin is an infection because of being "uncircumcised" and will try to convince you to circ. My son had a YEAST INFECTION caused by a FOOD ALLERGY. Can somebody explain to me how amputative genital surgery would remedy this? Exactly. It wouldn't. So if I had agreed, I would've had to deal with a surgical wound AND a yeast infection.

[Patchfire]

Originally Posted by Lula's Mom

Is the circ rate really that high around here? I like to imagine that Marcos has plenty of company, but maybe the people we know are really the only ones with intact boys.

I think so. Of all the mainstream-y people I know, J is the only intact boy. They all have this bemused look when it comes up, like they can't believe someone would even think of not circ'ing. If I say something about it not being necessary, they just look at me amazed.

[nd_deadhead]

It occurs to me that some of these "intact" boys with infections might actually be boys that were loosely circumcised. If a person believes that a circumcised penis should have no foreskin at all (which is how many circumcised adult males look), they might be confuse some amount of remaining foreskin (especially if it has re-adhered) with an entire foreskin.

If this is the case, it certainly blows the "circumcise to prevent infection" story out of the water.

[jessjgh1]

Another thing is people are often looking for a problem will find it. For example, any time my dh has had a little diaper rash the end of his penis might get slightly red but almost always he was ALSO red on his butt. My mom, if she happened to be visiting, would always be so concerned about ds's penis untill I would sarcastically point out his bum and say, 'look.. its diaper rash- and much worse on his bum- what do you think if the forskin wasn't there he would be any better off?'. (She's actually pretty supportive, but just goes to show how much people suspect intactness). ACtually, come to think of it, he usually got a rash when we were visiting my mom because I tended to use more disposies when travelling.

Clearly, you see what you are looking for sometimes. Through observation I can pretty much say that in my son's case his penis was less likely to be irritated than other body parts. My conclusion would be different than someone who was looking for a problem.

Another note is that I ended up explaining to the daycare workers that he did NOT need diaper creme to be applied to his forskin after he would come home looking irritated and red. Apparently if he was just a little bit pink they would very liberally apply the creme, which was just way too much creme and unnecessary. I showed her that if he was red I would sometimes apply just a tiny itsy bit at night time and that was IT- and I would barely touch him to apply it. I also explained that I had brought the diaper creme in because I was concerned about his BUM, something I had though was obvious since the rash was far worse there. After that we had no problems with redness at daycare.

So was it really an 'infection' or just a little diaper rash that she was noticing. And sadly, the other possiblity, that workers are retracting could be the cause too.

Jessica

[embers]

I had no idea that you were not supposed to retract when my son was born. I was told that you HAD to...

It just seemed so wrong, so I never did. Bless the days of the internet; I found better information shortly after his birth.

I am about as hippie, natural, fringe, weird, etc as it gets... AND EDUCATED... and I had no idea about non-retraction. It is so sad... I can't imagine that every parent (let alone disinterested daycare provider) stops to check out things that they have been told by many sources to be true/fact/etc.

[Bm31]

Originally Posted by nd_deadhead

It occurs to me that some of these "intact" boys with infections might actually be boys that were loosely circumcised. If a person believes that a circumcised penis should have no foreskin at all (which is how many circumcised adult males look), they might be confuse some amount of remaining foreskin (especially if it has re-adhered) with an entire foreskin.

If this is the case, it certainly blows the "circumcise to prevent infection" story out of the water.

Excellent point. Especially if the parents are given the bad advice to continue to try and reseparate the remaining foreskin as it tries to reattach. That was the case with me. I appeared to have an intact penis that would easily bleed and constantly become infected. Of course, it was actually CAUSED by a circumcision.