How do they justify loose circs as having all the same "health benefits"? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 14 Old 05-16-2008, 06:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
MoonJelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Eastwatch by the Sea
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If they really are doing "loose circs" these days, how then do they even make a case that the circ will prevent the health problems they claim it prevents? I mean if the foreskin is really the culprit, then why would leaving some of it intact be okay?

It really seems to weaken the pro-circ health argument doesn't it now?

{Partner to DH  and Former WOHM, now SAHM  to DD, DD , and DS } *** ***
MoonJelly is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 14 Old 05-16-2008, 06:38 PM
 
Claire and Boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's a very good point.
Claire and Boys is offline  
#3 of 14 Old 05-16-2008, 06:39 PM
 
nini02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern MN
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've been thinking about the same thing lately and you're right, it does seem to go against a lot of the pro-circ arguments.

Stephanie ~ Mama to Avery (7/07) & Iona (3/10)
nini02 is offline  
#4 of 14 Old 05-16-2008, 08:14 PM
 
bandgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Maybe they figure the boys will "grow into" the excess skin before they start sleeping around and getting all smelly from the smegma and hormones.

No seriously, when people talk about "benefits", most of them are *future* benefits (std's, looks better :Puke, hiv, cleaner...smegma production usually doesn't really pick up until puberty). So since with loose circs, the boys do indeed grow into the skin and it's not usually very loose when they are older, they assume it'll be "ok" by then. No "excess" skin to cause problems.

Sorry if that ramble made no sense.
bandgeek is offline  
#5 of 14 Old 05-17-2008, 01:46 AM
 
phdmama06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hurricane land, USA
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have tossed around similar thoughts myself. If there is some foreskin left, wouldn't it have at least some of the "dangers" of having a completely intact foreskin, I wonder? If anything, maybe they are justifying it like bandgeek suggests - that they will grow into the remaining skin and when they are older, it will look and feel a lot more like the expected circ'ed penis. Maybe?
phdmama06 is offline  
#6 of 14 Old 05-17-2008, 08:05 AM
 
Greg B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dover, DE, US
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Find out how they define a "loose circ" and you will have your answer. By saying a "loose circ" they can appear to be doing less damage, as if they are compromising. That makes them seem reasonable, and naive listeners may then see the anti circ crowd as being unreasonable. But there is no definition of "loose", so it is anything they want it to be. It doesn't mean anything, unless well defined in terms everyone understands.

As others have already said, whether "loose", "tight", or "bent" (I just made that up to make the point) the test of whether it makes sense to do is to look at it critically:

Leaving the child alone is the default, anything else needs solid justification, so:

What is the "issue" that the circ intended to solve?

What other alternatives are there to solve this "issue"?

what are the advantages and disadvantages to these different alternatives?

Which alternative is in the child's best interests?

If the circ is not clearly the best alternative for the child, then it should not be done.

Regards
Greg B is offline  
#7 of 14 Old 05-17-2008, 11:00 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is actually an article out there somehwere...I know I posted it a while back but can't seem to find the thread...where one of the people who wrote did the AIDS studies said that too many are not getting enough cut off and that this is leaving them vulnerable.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#8 of 14 Old 05-17-2008, 11:57 PM
 
bugmenot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the reasoning behind a loose circ is the following:

1) More skin to grow into.
2) During an erection, we all know what happens. The more skin taken off, the higher a chance there is of pulling, stretching, and discomfort.

However, the bummer about a loose circ is that the parents will think that "not enough was taken off" or "it looks uncirc", and i'm sure that's lead to a more than a few re-circs.
bugmenot is offline  
#9 of 14 Old 05-18-2008, 01:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
MoonJelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Eastwatch by the Sea
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg B View Post
Find out how they define a "loose circ" and you will have your answer. By saying a "loose circ" they can appear to be doing less damage, as if they are compromising.
Oh, yes, I am sure this is the case. But it still puts them in the precarious position of leaning in the direction of circ is not necessary--at least from my perspective as an intactivist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg B View Post
That makes them seem reasonable, and naive listeners may then see the anti circ crowd as being unreasonable. But there is no definition of "loose", so it is anything they want it to be.
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of what I hear as a "trend" of looser circs happening not so much as them being "advertised" by docs, though I would believe that occurs as well.

For example, someone here on another thread said her first son was circed but there is still foreskin left. I didn't get the impression that it was necessarily offered to her as a "loose circ" but rather was just done that way, leading me to wonder what is prompting docs to do these and what their motivation is.

{Partner to DH  and Former WOHM, now SAHM  to DD, DD , and DS } *** ***
MoonJelly is offline  
#10 of 14 Old 05-18-2008, 01:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
MoonJelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Eastwatch by the Sea
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg B View Post
As others have already said, whether "loose", "tight", or "bent" (I just made that up to make the point) the test of whether it makes sense to do is to look at it critically:

Leaving the child alone is the default, anything else needs solid justification, so:

What is the "issue" that the circ intended to solve?

What other alternatives are there to solve this "issue"?

what are the advantages and disadvantages to these different alternatives?

Which alternative is in the child's best interests?

If the circ is not clearly the best alternative for the child, then it should not be done.

Regards
And of course I also agree with all of this.

{Partner to DH  and Former WOHM, now SAHM  to DD, DD , and DS } *** ***
MoonJelly is offline  
#11 of 14 Old 05-18-2008, 08:34 AM
 
Greg B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dover, DE, US
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonJelly View Post
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of what I hear as a "trend" of looser circs happening not so much as them being "advertised" by docs, though I would believe that occurs as well.
I understand.

But anyone can say it is a "loose" circ. Without a widely accepted definition and a way to measure it objectively, how do you know? And if you can't tell, then how do you know if its a trend, other than a trend in hot air from doctors? Doctors can easily say they are offering loose circs. This type of meanigless advertising happens all the time. And if the doctor gets a few more circs for saying that, then he gets more money....

And if it is in regard to RIC, I have to question whether anyone can even say whether it is "loose" or not since a babies penis is not fully developed.

Regards
Greg B is offline  
#12 of 14 Old 05-18-2008, 08:52 AM
tlh
 
tlh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Michigan's Thumb
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg B View Post
I understand.

But anyone can say it is a "loose" circ.

And if it is in regard to RIC, I have to question whether anyone can even say whether it is "loose" or not since a babies penis is not fully developed.
Very true.Is a loose cut removing 10% or 70% of the foreskin?And what was loose as a baby could easily become tight as an adult.
tlh is offline  
#13 of 14 Old 05-18-2008, 11:44 AM
 
christifav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A loose circ offers great benefits for the doctor. If a parent complains and wants more done, its another surgery s/he gets to perform. Yet at the same time, it offers some degree of protection from lawsuits.

I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, this is just my "conspiracy theory".
christifav is offline  
#14 of 14 Old 05-19-2008, 01:58 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
There is actually an article out there somehwere...I know I posted it a while back but can't seem to find the thread...where one of the people who wrote did the AIDS studies said that too many are not getting enough cut off and that this is leaving them vulnerable.
Those "researchers" have come up with every lame, cock-eyed excuse you can think of to prop up their agenda. For instance, they said that it was the langerhans cells that received the virus. When it was pointed out that all circumcised men have some remnant foreskin and that the glans also contains langerhans cells, they said the keritinization of the remnant foreskin and glans was the protective factor. Keritinization in just a few weeks? Not hardly! Now it's that there's not enough foreskin cut off! They are simply dancing and it's easy to see.



Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off