[quaz]

So, I've known I'm having a boy for less than a day.
Now the made hunt for names, and other info starts.

The one thing my sis (nurse) mentioned is that she sees far more older men come in to for 'issues' that are intact than who are circumsized.

Now, most info I've found this morning in about 30 minutes of looking, seems to make is an 'obvious' choice to not circ... and really comes down to, it's his body... if he wants to be circ, he can always choose to do it, when he's at a point he can actually choose.

I would like some info to dispel this statement from my sis. I assume someone here can easily address this or point me to info that 'dispels' or 'explains' this.

thx!
Tammy

 

[dynamohumm6]

Hi Tammy!
It's very easily explained. Imagine if you had no breast tissue. You'd never have any breast problems, right? Imagine if you had your labia cut off at birth. Yeast infections, vaginosis, and other female issues would probably be fewer and farther between too, right? Doesn't mean that you should remove breast tissue and labia of baby girls though, right?

I would also ask her what "issues" there are, what the ages of the men are, and what constitutes "far more".

 

[babygrant]

nak but imho dr's are too snip happy. 99.9% of the time an older man is circ'd it could've been treated some other way.

someone else will be along shortly to help you out

 

[QueenOfThePride]

The problem with the opinions and experiences of healthcare professionals is that they only see sick people. They don't see the millions of healthy men with whole natural healthy penises, so their view of reality is skewed. In non-circ'ing countries the chance of a man needing to be circumcised is less than 0.006%.

Also in America, our culture considers the mutilated penis to be the normal status quo, so doctors think they are doing boys and men an extra favor by suggesting circumcision for any penis-related problem. Such problems (yeast infections, UTIs) in girls and women would be treated with ointment or antibiotics, not amputation. There is so much cultural and emotional (and $$$) investment in circumcision, that many doctors and nurses are unable to have an objective opinion.

 

[123]

I'm betting that the reason she sees more older intact men with "issues" is because most older men (60 +) are intact. My father is 60 this year and when he was in the army he said it was about 50/50, so medical circ was just starting to catch on when he was born. Anyone older that that has more chance of being intact. She probably also sees more older intact men with lung problems too, but she doesn't notice since they don't remove their pants for that.

I've also thought that if a part of my genitals gave me such problems that I had to have it remove when I was an old lady, I would be glad to have had and enjoyed that part when I was younger and more sexually active. I may need an eye removed when I'm older (I know an old lady this happened to), but I'm glad to have it now. So even if I thought a body part might be an issue later, why deprive yourself of it now? I bet those old guys with "issues" were glad to have their foreskins when they were 20 (and 30 and 40.....).

And also, importantly, congratulations on your baby boy!!!! Little boys are so wonderful (I'm sure girls are too, but I haven't had one yet). And have fun finding a name, I always loved going through those names books.

 

[paquerette]

Even if there was something about the foreskin that caused it to suddenly have issues at, say, age 65, wouldn't a man rather have had a happy, full sex life with it before they have to part company? Especially since it could have made the difference between 8-10 years of erectile dysfunction. If he was destined to become ED at say age 50 intact, he might have been ED already at 40 or 42. 8-10 more years in middle life of being able to get and keep an erection would be worth having to have a surgery in his golden years (with full anaesthesia and aftercare pain relief, I might add).

Not that I think foreskins self-destruct like a James Bond letter, I'm just being devil's advocate here.

 

[calngavinsmom]

Hi Tammy, congrats on your baby-boy-to-be! I found this article a very interesting comparison of the "cost" of the circumcised male vs the intact male:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb180294.htm
The article in its entirety is available on the sidebar of the page if you need more information. Even the Canadian Pediatric Society recognises that circed kids/adults have more problems than if they were left intact:
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

I agree with the PPs, it has more to do with ignorance than any real problem as to why your sister is seeing this. If an intact penis is properly cared for (NOT retracted to clean or "check" forcibly) it is no more problematic than any other part of the body.

Take care,
Tara

 

[quaz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamohumm6 Hi Tammy! It's very easily explained. Imagine if you had no breast tissue. You'd never have any breast problems, right? Imagine if you had your labia cut off at birth. Yeast infections, vaginosis, and other female issues would probably be fewer and farther between too, right? Doesn't mean that you should remove breast tissue and labia of baby girls though, right? I would also ask her what "issues" there are, what the ages of the men are, and what constitutes "far more".

Thanks all, I knew ya guys would have a good explanation. I actually really like the above analogy. Very simple and accurate.

Thanks!!
Tammy

 

[paminmi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaz The one thing my sis (nurse) mentioned is that she sees far more older men come in to for 'issues' that are intact than who are circumsized.

I'm an RN myself and often hear the same kinds of things your sister told you so I totally get what you're saying.

The way I like to put this is that older men can have "issues" with many different body parts (as can women): with their hearts, prostates, bladders, kidneys, lungs... whatever. Obviously, men cannot live without many of these body parts, unlike the foreskin. As well, these "issues" are dealt with as they occur with medical treatment and surgical treatment when necessary.

In a society which VALUES the foreskin however, it is, I'm guessing, AS important as those other parts that are required to be living. While men can live without their foreskin, in intact foreskin countries men don't want to live without them. KWIM? It is in the US where the mantra is continuously chanted by physicians and nurses, the media, movies, TV, friends, family where the foreskin is an expendable appendage without value or merit. An anomaly males are born with and needs to come off without giving it one thought.

Until people become educated universally in this country and the thought process regarding the foreskin changes, people will continue to be spouting this sort of ignorance.

IMO, it's a matter of education which can hopefully reverse the social condition of the last 1/2 century.

Give your sister an education... Send her on over here!

Thanks for bringing this topic up BTW~

 

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I think of it this way to since dr here in the USA are so intact "chanllanged" they dont know what is normal and what is not so they tend to want to circ for the simplist things ie yeast and UTI. They want to cut first and forget to ask questions. Most of these intact men with problems dont think to research the issue and just go with what the dr says

It has happened to a few who have posted here then regreted being circed later and have major anger issues.

99% of intact infections can be treated with the same meds they use to treat woman with. But the dr also make more $ if they get to perform a surgery. Not saying that all dr are out to make $ of course but I am sure it plays a role. Not having the proper education is also a huge factor that hopfully will improve over time with more and more babies being intact.

 

[njeb]

About the elderly male question:
1. Many older men were born in a time and place when cleanliness was not stressed the way it is now. 70 years ago, it was considered sufficient to bathe once a week, or even once a month! I wouldn't be surprised if many men adhered to this regime all their lives. Also, people back then were very puritanical. It's possible that their mothers and fathers were too embarrassed to teach their boys how to clean themselves properly.
2. Even if he did take daily showers and cleaned his foreskin regularly, the illnesses of old age may make it difficult for an older man to continue washing himself as he once did. He may have severe arthritis in his hands, or he may have Alzheimer's disease and be forgetful. The solution to this is proper nursing care, not circumcision.
3. She sees more older intact men because most men born before 1945 were not circumcised. It wasn't routinely done back then.

 

[ColoradoMama]

Ask her how many of those "issues" are impotence? She'll probably say that's not a circ issue, and you can then ask her how many of the men who come in with impotence issues are circ'd.

 

[Islay]

Elderly men need no more genital care than any other male. My father, his father and his father before him were all intact. All lived beyond their 70s and none had any problems of genital infection with their foreskins.

Most elderly people need help to keep themselves clean - females especially. We don't circumcise them.

Christopher