Question for uncut guys

I can only remember two times having my foreskin retracted. Once by a nurse whilst doing a urethral swab to check for vd before I got married. The second time by endocrinologist before inserting scope when I had kidney problems. I don't recall having to do it when I joined the navy. There was the usual "cough" while they checked your testicles and a perfunctory lift of the penis to visually inspect it, but other than that, I can't recall the foreskin being pulled back by me or anyone else. Wouldn't have bothered me either way. Not sure why someone would find that humiliating or embarrassing.

I think I recall the pediatrician doing it for me when I was young, once. Another time I pulled it back myself.

For my three years of sports physicals in high school, twice the NP didn't even take off underwear, just using her hands to go beneath them to do the hernia check. I was lying down on the exam table. My pediatrician for the last year examined me standing up, dropped my underwear to my knees, and only examined my testes + hernia check, but showed me how to do a self-exam. No penis exam.

Once I went to a regular GP for annual physicals, none of them have bothered examining my genitals at all. Honest. They're hardly examinations if all they check is height/weight/BP/pulse/heart and immunization schedules...

I reiterate that except for things such as a skin, breast or prostate exam to examine things without specific complaints is usually fruitless. If you go in with a complaint about a specific organ system better believe you're going to have that system examined. No one knows yourself better than you. As a physician I try to do the best I can do with every patient. I think this is true for most other doctors--we don't like to make mistakes.

Interesting to hear a variety of different experiences. I would certainly question any doc who did not check under the foreskin as part of any thorough physical. Embarrassing for the patient or not it is an important area to check, especially for signs of phimosis in younger patients.

The only time we usually examine for phimosis is in infants. In onlder boys it is assumed that erections have obviated the need for such examinations. One pediatrician sad very callously that phimosis would be instantly corrected by the first erection at puberty. I don't agree.

That sounds very bad practice indeed. Boys get erections before puberty as everyone knows so why are post puberty erections going to solve any problems?

Uncut boys need checking in their flaccid state at regular intervals until they are up to around 16-18 y.o., as their penises develop, in order to ensure that their foreskins continue to be easily retractable.

It is an embarrassing age for boys to have their genitals checked but a necessary part of ensuring that they grow up healthy.

DrDan how are you going to treat critical phimosis anyway? With circumcision. I don't think you have a clue about what real doctors do.

Having an intact foreskin, I tried several times wearing my foreskin in the retracted position when I was in junior high and senior high school so that my penis would look "normal" when in the showers. This caused me to be very fidgety as my glans was very sensitive rubbing against my clothing. For my 10th grade physical, I retracted my foreskin before seeing the doctor so that my penis would look "normal" (circumcised). The doctor was known for performing circumcisions. He had circumcised a friend years earlier. When the doctor asked, I eagerly dropped my pants to show him my "normal circumcised" penis. Unfortunately, my taut frenulum decided to pull my foreskin forward as the doctor was looking at my penis. What an embarrassment! The doctor proceeded to check me for a hernia (cough twice), felt my testicles, retracted my foreskin, and spread the lips of my urethral meatus (sensitive) and looked inside my urethra. I was fearful that the doctor was going to circumcise my foreskin right then and there.

At the age of 15 when I had this physical exam, I did not understand that circumcision required "consent'. Seeing that all the other boys were circumcised I was of the conclusion that it was the norm and that all boys had to be circumcised at some time. As for my friend, I am not certain what prompted his parents to take him to the doctor, but he was certainly upset after he was circumcised. He showed me his penis - "Look what they did to my boy!" He got butchered. I feared the same for me. I did not understand it required "consent" at that age. This was in the early 1960's.

When I was a preteen, all my friends were circumcised (most were Jewish), we had all kinds of fantastic stories about what a circumcision entailed. Many of us thought that the 'seam' on the underside of our penis (raphe) was the circumcision scar. There was also a story going around that the mohel would dip a silver dollar in the wound. We didn't know about the ritual of the mohel sucking the blood from the wound.

Liquidsky: "DrDan how are you going to treat critical phimosis anyway? With circumcision. I don't think you have a clue about what real doctors do."

If spotted early enough, and before complications occur, most likely a script for some topical steroid cream would do the trick.

To agracier,

"I can understand some American doctors going out of their way to push their subjective opinion on circumcision on others, especially youngsters,"

AND adults. At age 31 my company doctor called me into his office, examined me (including full retraction of my foreskin), and commented that my foreskin needed to be circumcised.



AND adults. At age 31 my company doctor called me into his office, examined me (including full retraction of my foreskin), and commented that my foreskin needed to be circumcised.

Right, I remember your posts about that quite well. It was one of those instances that sound and are absolutely infuriating, an encroachment into a person's private sphere and physical integrity that has little to do with medicine and more with the doctor's personal views. Totally unacceptable behavior, since as I recall there was more than just 'advice' involved and more in the way of subtle intimidation.

There is often something about people who have these overriding, strong convictions about the benefits of circumcision. I find it akin and as objectionable as door-to-door religious proselytizers. So adamant and convinced of the righteousness of their calling they cannot leave others alone to their own decisions and choices.

I have one question for those who were so vehement in their feelings about circumcision. I just accept my condition and don't even think about it. Why is it such a big deal to you?

I think it is mainly experienced the other way around.

The pressure is on the uncircumcised to adhere to the social norm of circumcision. Especially in the US. It seems that if you're not cut, then there is something wrong with you and people come up with all manner of rationalizations in order to force you to have it done. Doctors, sport coaches, family members, peer groups, the military ... so many of these seem to have the compulsion to promote blanket circumcision on all males, regardless of any medical necessity.

I've experienced this during my time in the US and later as well, we've read many incidences from members here as well. The pressure is to circumcise.

And the worst part about it is that it is done on the newly born, the under-aged and youngsters, those who have no say at all about their bodily integrity. Adults may do as they like, that is no one's business. But the insidious part is performing it on the under-aged, who of course have no way of ever reversing the procedure. It should be a choice left to adults. Not to parents or peer group pressures (or religious communities either, but just try and have rational conversations when irrational beliefs are involved).

I have one question for those who were so vehement in their feelings about circumcision. I just accept my condition and don't even think about it. Why is it such a big deal to you?

I accept that this happened to me and there's nothing I can do about it. As the practice continues, my social rage is similar to people who fight for equal rights. The process is an abomination and should be outlawed except for medical necessity or by personal choice when you are an adult. This includes religious beliefs. Religions aren't free to abuse children under the blanket amnesty of religious freedom.

If I had been subject to the biblical circumcision I've posted about, I'd still be angry, but much less so. The unnecessary removal of a whole body part is unacceptable. The fact that physicians are complicit in this is (should be) criminal.

BTW, I don't believe in piercings for young children either, but those can heal.

I repeat why is it such a big deal? Do you feel the same about the removal of wisdom teeth or an appendix? We don't solicit circumcision the parents do. I certainly believe that anyone is entitled to have their own opinion about this. Also with field blocks the child feels no pain. What is there about this topic that elicits such strong feelings? I understand why one would not like to be circumcised but such vehemence is a little offputting.

Do you feel the same about the removal of wisdom teeth or an appendix?

Of course not, because wisdom teeth or an appendix are only removed when there is an apparent and clear and obvious pressing medical necessity. They are not removed at birth per routine. That is such an obvious difference.

And to put things into perspective, I'm not vehement about the issue. I'd prefer the word steadfast or convinced or unfaltering or such. I do my utmost to stay polite and use neutral words and phrasing as much as possible, think at least thrice before writing anything down that might sound illogical or too personal. In the main it's a lively debate for me, something that I can stand behind as a stance. It's not a cause. And there is nothing personal about it for me either, not in the posting or arguments used.

I like to look at the matter of circumcision as a social question. How did the practice ever come to be so widespread in the US as a non religious practice, and moreover historically speaking so recently? And what arguments are used to justify it and how do they stand up?

It's nonconsensual physical mutilation. An appendix or wisdom tooth is removed due to disease. I'd associate routine circumcision with a fictional society that ritually marks it's children by amputation of the little finger. What's the big deal? Your hand still works.

Since childhood which ever doc checked my genital never asked me to retract, but he himself done that. it was retracted both in erect and normal state.

My brothers and I were circumcised when we were babies. We are grateful for it, for sanitary reasons, of sensitivity and aesthetic . We circumcise our children and we recommend doing so. And we are not Jews.

What's the big deal? Why is it important for the uncircumcised? There are some mental problem people who are against circumcision?

Do not worry about someone else's cock. ;-)

Dicky no one should have to retract your foreskin when you're erect. It should happen by itself.

My brothers and I were circumcised when we were babies. We are grateful for it, for sanitary reasons, of sensitivity and aesthetic . We circumcise our children and we recommend doing so. And we are not Jews.

What's the big deal? Why is it important for the uncircumcised? There are some mental problem people who are against circumcision?

Do not worry about someone else's cock. ;-)

Mental problem? That's offensive.

Why do we worry about female genital mutilation? Why do we worry about unnecessary surgery?

Adults can make an informed decision about their body. Children can't. Medically unnecessary modifications without consent are morally and ethically wrong.

Do not worry about someone else's cock.

Indeed. That is exactly what should be done. Mind your own business. Do not presume to make the decision for others.

And the logical conclusion to this, is that males should be allowed to decide for themselves when they become adults. Not before, certainly not when they are not even conscious of their own existence. But only when they are fully aware of the consequences of the procedure and can decide for themselves.

Cocks are simply too special a part of someone's anatomy to allow others a say in how they will look and function for the rest of their lives.

Not to belabor the point but I would remind you of two things. First to compare female mutilation with circumcision is a specious argument since the male procedure does nothing to harm function. Also remember that circumcision in newborns is a minor procedure but later it's a much bigger deal. The point remains that it is entirely a matter of personal preference. We as physicians only want to make little boys like their dads to keep them from being self conscious.

Not to belabor the point, but the argument that circumcision doesn't harm function is largely a huge rationalization on the part of the problem circumcision crowd.

Maybe biblical circumcision didn't harm function, but complete amputation of the prepuce and frenulum absolutely does.

Amputation? Puhleez! I'm circumcised and I absolutely have normal function and sensation. To know if it weren't would require the ability to switch back and forth which is patently absurd. I won't diss anyone who isn't if they will give me the same courtesy.

Rationalization. 'Normal' here is subjective and largely based on the ability to reproduce.

Continued circumcision discussion should be in the circumcision threads.

This thread is about examinations,

Thank you.

Oh how ridiculous! None of my partners were unsatisfied or complained. As for me, if I'd had more sensation I'd have never gotten beyond premature ejaculation. Besides as I remember you're circumcised yourself so what do you have to compare to? The only way to know would be to ask someone who has been circumcised as an adult. I have asked several patients who had adult circumcision and none of them said there was any change. Sorry Susie we posted at the same time. My bad.