View Single Post
Old 12-12-2012, 06:38 AM   #39
Galatea's Avatar
Registered Users
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,809
My Mood:
Re: to circ or not to circ

Originally Posted by lynn97 View Post
I will respectfully disagree with you still. I have known several men who have struggled with infections and had to be circumcised later in life. There many more risks for adult circumcision.

Sent from my iPhone using DS Forum
What are the risks for adult circumcision vs. infant circumcision?

Taken from:

Infant Circumcision:

Often does not receive adequate anesthesia during surgery or pain relief during healing

Penis is undeveloped; foreskin has to be ripped from glans

Cannot foresee how much skin will be needed to cover penis and sustain erection; frenulum almost always lost

Wound is in a diaper exposed to irritating urine and feces

Foreskin remnants will try to readhere to glans, causing adhesions; medical professionals will often (mistakenly) advise ripping open adhesions every day, causing more pain and potential skin bridges

Can bleed to death (only 2.3 ounces of blood loss can kill a newborn)

Adult circumcision:

Always receives anesthesia and pain relief afterward

Penis is fully grown and foreskin has separated from glans

Easy to see how much foreskin to remove; can preserve frenulum

Wound not exposed to urine and feces

Because laminopreputial membrane has long dissolved, no adhesions will form

Cannot bleed to death

In addition, your argument that it is better to do it in infancy presupposes that men will need to be circumcised in adulthood. In countries which do not practice routine infant circumcision (and thus most men have foreskins and know how to take care of them) the incidence of necessary circumcision is 6 per 100,000. This begs the question, why do so many men in the US "have" to be circumcised as adults? The answer is twofold: 1) Circumcision is inappropriately recommended by doctors for a large variety of unrelated reasons because the doctors themselves are part of the culture of circumcision, have no foreskins themselves, and thus do not value it; and 2) in the 20 century, parents were incorrectly instructed to retract the infant's foreskin and clean under it. As the foreskin is adhered to the glans during infancy by the same tissue that adheres nails to their fingerbeds, this cleaning practice caused scarring and infection, which often did lead to the inability to retract the foreskin in adulthood (scarred skin is not stretchy.)

There are very few conditions that truly require circumcision, and in cultures where circumcision is not common, everyone values the foreskin, doctors included, and they are able to treat almost all problems (rare as they actually are) with more conservative measures. Men and women can both get yeast or bacterial infections; we treat women with antifungal or antibiotic creams or pills, but then we say that men must cut off the offending parts?!

The foreskin as a diseased and potentially dangerous body part that must be removed at birth to prevent any number of future problems is a culturally-bound idea. Interestingly, in cultures that routinely circumcise women, they have the same ideas of female circumcision as a preventive or curative measure for various medical conditions that we would find bizarre and ridiculous. For example, read this quote from a circumcised woman from Indonesia (from "I found my circumcision beneficial to lessen my vagina odor, and prevent risk of bacterial vaginosis."

I don't know about you, but I have had several vaginal infections, and I would never consider removing my inner labia or clitoris to cure them, but in this woman's culture, this was a reasonable medical solution. Why is she obviously crazy, but when circumcision is recommended in the US to prevent UTIs, we think that normal?

Ds1 2004 ~ Ds2 2005 ~ Dd1 2008 ~ Ds3 2010 ~ Dd2 2014
Why you shouldn't circumcise your son
Galatea is offline   Reply With Quote