Explanation for circumcision

Agracier: Yes. I meant that for, let's say, Americans who believe the claims that circulate in some forums or media that say hospitals are free in France. Anybody from outside the EU should double-check their medical insurance before coming. An accident or illness requiring high tech emergency treatment can result in a hefty hospital bill. The only difference with the US may be that the hospital will not be as aggressive in recovering the bill and will leave time to settle with insurance.

Here is a different thought about sexual satisfaction as it relates to circumcision that I have gleaned from conversing with men and women about the issue. I do not think anyone can deny that the glans is more sensitive on an uncircumcised penis compared to a circumcised one. After all the glans is protected from friction by the foreskin when it is left intact. There is a different issue related to sexual satisfaction which is "stimulation." I have discussed the issue of satisfying sexual stimulation with men and women as it relates to circumcision with very consistent comments. Men who have chosen circumcision as adults consistently comment that while sensitivity of the glans is decreased after circumcision, they do not find this to be detrimental to sexual satisfaction as it leads to diminished tendency to early ejaculation. In addition, men also say that they get increased stimulation after circumcision because the glans receives friction during both directions of thrusting during penetrative intercourse, whereas when they were intact, friction only occurred on the glans during the forward component of thrusting. While the sensitivity of the glans was reduced after circucmcision, the overall satisfaction with stimulation was enhanced due to the increased amount of stimulation of the glans. Women have also said they experience improved stimulation during intercourse with the foreskin removed. The reason they site is that they are able to feel the contour of the glans when the man is circumcised. Anyway, this is just a little different perspective on sexual satisfaction and circumcision which I thought was worth sharing.

Exam doc: My perspective on ejaculation is that it's all about self awareness and self control. I can ejaculate earlier or later depending on how I thrust. (This is more difficult to control with the woman on top, I occasionally enjoy myself too much inside my wife - but that's not frequent.)

My perspective after being with more men than I care to admit to my mother and from reading this and other threads is that this has become a mine is better than yours discussion.

Switchable: yes we should go back to the original question, that is, parental justification

At the age of 12 my mother explained to me that my foreskin needed to be retracted permanently exposing the "head of my peter" in it's entirety such that I would be able to give her grandchildren. She commented that my foreskin should have naturally and gradually drawn back during my childhood such that by the age of 12 my glans would be completely and permanently exposed. At age 12, I had a rather lengthy and tapered foreskin that had what looked like a "rosebud" at the tip.

Was she seriously suggesting that you couldn't be a father unless your glans was permanently and completely exposed? Or was it that she was telling you this nonsense to persuade you to volunteer for circumcision?

Born in the 1950's, I was circumcised as a matter of practice, as well as any peers I happened to catch of glimpse of in the locker room while growing up. But when my son was born in the 1980's, my wife and I decided not to circumcise him as the practice was becoming increasingly under question.

That said, after having had numerous infections by age 2 1/2 that were beginning to look like lifelong complications, it eventually became a medical necessity and we had to put our toddler through the experience, which was not an easy decision to make.

Was she seriously suggesting that you couldn't be a father unless your glans was permanently and completely exposed? Or was it that she was telling you this nonsense to persuade you to volunteer for circumcision?

At the age of 12 my mother explained to me that my foreskin needed to be retracted permanently exposing the "head of my peter" in it's entirety such that I would be able to give her grandchildren.

This would have been a good candidate for the 'Old Wives Tales' thread ... infertile unless glans permanently exposed. Maybe some people even truly believed it.

Of course at age 12 no one has to give their consent. Parents decide. Maybe the explanation was something to sugar the pill ...

"This would have been a good candidate for the 'Old Wives Tales' thread ... infertile unless glans permanently exposed. Maybe some people even truly believed it. "

Yes, my mother believed this.

I think that my mother was against routine circumcision. She explained how she had taken me to the doctor at age 4 with concerns regarding my foreskin. Unfortunately, I do not know if her intent was to have my foreskin circumcised ( I wished I would have asked her). What she explained to me was that the doctor inserted a pair of "tweezers" into the tip of my foreskin and stretched it out so that my foreskin could be retracted. She said that there was bleeding. I do not know what she meant by "Tweezers". All that I can remember is that it was very painful.

My mother WAS a very compassionate person and would not have wanted to harm me. She was, however, of the belief "infertility unless glans permanently exposed". I am not certain where she got this information. I am aware of others discussing circumcision with her. She was of the belief that my foreskin would naturally draw back on it own during childhood (which did not happen).

At age 12, I was very naïve. I was reluctant to go to the doctor to have the tip of my foreskin "snipped". Sounded painful. She tried to sugar-coat it by saying that it would be quick and brief but that it needed to be done. I finally agreed. Fortunately, the doctor did not circumcise my foreskin. He did, however, a fair amount of "stretching" on my foreskin, retracted it, and bandaged my foreskin in the retracted position. I was bleeding. Apparently this satisfied my mother so he sent us home.

I still am curious as to what my mother meant by "tweezers" used when I was age 4. Any help here?

I still am curious as to what my mother meant by "tweezers" used when I was age 4. Any help here?

Maybe some sort of forceps that expanded outwards, possibly with more than 2 blades? Usually a pair of tweezers or forceps is used to clamp on the something, but I have found some old medical instruments that do the opposite when one depresses the handles ... maybe a correct term is a retractor?

I'm certain there must be many shapes and sizes used to open and probe a wound for foreign objects or to open a wound in order to irrigate it ... I suppose something similar could be inserted through the foreskin opening in order to expand it ...

A hemostat or kelly clamp is routinely used to spread tissue apart in blunt dissection. It could easily be used to stretch the foreskin. It looks like scissors with curved tips and no cutting edge. Here's a photo link.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0ahUKEwjax6HMxc_KAhVL2mMKHXc3CG0QFgg1MAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surgical-instrument-pictures.com%2Finstrument-index-kelly.html&usg=AFQjCNFI5b2xMMaHuMopTUfhrQ7CU4cVnQ&sig2=TrjpFD1L2TmPkYFpr1JM4A

I was circumcised at birth (US in 1950's). Until I was 9 I'd only seen other circumcised boys. At the time of my discovery, my mother explained that 'that's just the way it was done when you were born.' Several weeks later I learned that my dad was not circumcised. I'd seen him naked many times, but he was a 'grower' with a thick crop of pubic hair so his penis just was never hanging out there to be seen. (FYI, he was foreign born to American parents.) Dad explained that the doctor/hospital recommended it mostly because I would be like all the other boys. He offered to show me his penis the next time he was showering and I came into the bathroom. I had a quick look and then left.

@uncutforeskin: Up into the 1980s (in France at least) it was common for doctors to tell parents that a child should be able to fully retract the foreskin, and otherwise painful forced retraction methods were used. I believe that in your case, the doctor inserted a device under the foreskin to force it to open up. In other case, the doctor would just pull back and tell the mother to pull back every night,

@uncutforeskin: Up into the 1980s (in France at least) it was common for doctors to tell parents that a child should be able to fully retract the foreskin, and otherwise painful forced retraction methods were used. I believe that in your case, the doctor inserted a device under the foreskin to force it to open up. In other case, the doctor would just pull back and tell the mother to pull back every night,

@Pecannutjob When I read your post I looked back again at what I read about 2 or 3 months ago. I think a lot of doctors were doing that because they had been told that 91% of 4 year old boys should be able to retract their foreskins. In 1949 a doctor called Gairdner said that in a paper. But other papers since then say that is all wrong and that up to 60% of 10 year old boys still can not retract. It means a 12 year old boy does not need to have his foreskin forced back like @uncutforeskin did because it is not an abnormality if he can't. I think that the stretching out like he told us about is a horrible thing to do to a boy really.

Whatever your bias may be, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) came out in favor of circumcision. The number one reason in my book is that it reduces the number of cases of urinary tract infections in children. Since UTIs present as urosepsis this is important. Check out the link. Yeah yeah I know I've posted it before. In adults it's just style I guess but in kids it's important. Again I note that non circumcised men and their female friends seem more concerned about it than those who are circumcised.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons

Whatever your bias may be, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) came out in favor of circumcision. The number one reason in my book is that it reduces the number of cases of urinary tract infections in children. Since UTIs present as urosepsis this is important. Check out the link. Yeah yeah I know I've posted it before. In adults it's just style I guess but in kids it's important. Again I note that non circumcised men and their female friends seem more concerned about it than those who are circumcised.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons

Yeah @liquidsky I did read that when you posted it before. But I have read as well that circumcision only lessens the chance of a UTI in a baby boy by 1% so it means that you would need to circumcise 100 baby boys when you are trying to avoid just that one UTI. All those boys have to be stuck with being circumcised for life without getting any choice about it when the UTI danger is really just there when they are small boys. I do not think any other country in the world thinks boys should be circumcised to avoid UTI.

Oh yeah I am concerned about it because I think we need to care as much about boys as we do about protecting girls. I think it is a bit of a double standard that a lot of people just do not see. I did not really get it either until I started reading and then I started to think about it a bit more.

The definitive work on neonatal urinary tract infections was done by Wiswell. Ha ha. He found that uncircumcised males had a twelve fold risk of contracting UTIs over circumcised males. Here's the link. I'm done with this. As for being stuck with it, I'm glad I'm circumcised. I don't miss what's gone a bit!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj95MGJ1OHKAhVJ_WMKHVM9BzYQFggKMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1477524%2F&usg=AFQjCNHmg62-2VTIz6-ybHCqhE6ObD8Vlg&sig2=mGMS6H--C8RVcTD_TAHQgA

You know I am a huge believer in circumcision from a medical stand point and from a personal one as well. My personal reasons I won't get into again here as I have voiced them more than a few times. My professional reasons though are good enough reasons for me to always urge soon to be parents to get their boys cut.

We need to view the numbers again and put them in perspective. If a couple have been told that their baby has a 1 in 100 chance of being born without a brain or a heart, would you seriously tell me that you would chance that? If the baby has a 1 in 100 chance of contracting polio if not vaccinated are you going to not vaccinate? When you are talking about serious medical issues such as urosepsis which can easily kill a baby, those numbers are very low. The odds are not in your favor. Again, when you are talking about serious medical conditions no matter what they are you want the numbers to be as far apart as possible. 1 in 100, 1 in 500, or 1 in 1000 is not good. Those numbers are way too close and most doctors when they see numbers like that for no matter what reason will almost always try to educate their patients or parents of the patient to think long and hard about the decision that they have to make because when you are talking about the odds medically speaking, even 1 in 1000 is way to small of a margin.

Now, while I have not had to deal with the babies and this issue, or kids for that matter, I am on the complete opposite side of that coin and dealing with the elderly. I have had men beg me to kill them because they are in so much pain due to that piece of skin some feel is so important. I have had patients die because that little skin has caused an infection and they were to ashamed to get help until it was to late. I could go on and on. I have seen it over and over and over again. For those of us who have to deal with these poor men it's heart wrenching. We can't help them sometimes. We have to provide treatment to their penis to try to get it to a place where it can be safely operated on. These treatments are excruciating, they scream, cry and yell. I promise you, after you have had to deal with one patient like that, whether to circumcise or not would never be a question you would ever ask yourself again.

Mashie

The definitive work on neonatal urinary tract infections was done by Wiswell. Ha ha. He found that uncircumcised males had a twelve fold risk of contracting UTIs over circumcised males. Here's the link. I'm done with this. As for being stuck with it, I'm glad I'm circumcised. I don't miss what's gone a bit!

@liquidsky I should not have used the word "stuck" because I know a lot of men are happy with being circumcised and you are one of them. I should not have said it and I am sorry that I have offended you. I really did not mean to. I was thinking about how some men really do not like being circumcised and I think that is why I did not express myself too well.

That link you gave says that the bacterial colonisation gets to 21% in the first month of life but that UTI rate gets to 1% in the uncircumcised and is 0.1% in the circumcised. It is a bit different to other things I have read but those numbers still look very low really. It just looks a bit much to circumcise to try to avoid a risk that looks so small when antibiotics could just be given when a UTI happens.

Vaccinations do not involve removing part of the human body.

Moreover, vaccinations are not only done for personal protection on an individual basis, but are also done because of the collective protection they provide to other members of society in general. Therefore the issue of vaccination needs to be considered on a different level. The areas of responsibility are not the same.

Now, if an individual patient is too ashamed to get treatment for an infected foreskin, then who should be blamed? Either the parents for teaching their children false notions of modesty or the individuals themselves for waiting too long. There are undoubtedly patients who suffer all kinds of pains and illnesses up to death because of unnecessary modesty: breast cancers, colon cancers and what all not. They way to address such things is by education, not by trying to target whole populations by performing procedures at birth.

Besides, aside from notions of modesty preventing people from seeking timely treatment, there is always the issue of ignoring symptoms, hoping they will go away by themselves, maybe even believing in alternative solutions or turning to prayer ... never underestimate the desire of people to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to medical problems of any kind.

Amethyst my friend you never offend me. Diagnosing UTIs in infants and children is a lot more difficult than in adults. Frequently they present in sepsis. The only clue is an unexplained fever, decreased food intake and listlessness. They can't give a history of dysuria. The work up consists of blood count and cultures, chest X-ray, lumbar puncture or spinal tap and a catheterized urine. Bagged specimens are worthless. After all this is done, frequently the diagnosis is often tentative. Broad spectrum antibiotics must be given to cover all bases. To hesitate is to risk death for the infant. It's a drop dead emergency. It can't wait. It's far different than a bladder infection in a grown woman. Urinary infections at the two extremes of life--infancy and old age are serious business. I too as Mashie has have seen urosepsis in the old uncircumcised male. It's no laughing matter. Frequently the urethral meatus can't be seen because of the foreskin. A catheter is essential to obtain a clean catch urine sample and to monitor urine output when the patient is shocky. Trying to place the catheter through a tight phimosis, through pus inside the foreskin to find a retreating glans is terrifying. I know you feel strongly about this but it's more than a philosophical argument when you are madly pouring in antibiotics in a tiny child or antibiotics and pressors into an old guy with septic shock.

Oh thank you @liquidsky but I really must watch how I say things in future. 😳 I read it back to myself and I saw it could be taken the wrong way. I will still be in trouble with my husband for it even if I am not in trouble with you.

I know that you and Mashie too have seen things that give you your opinions on this and it is completely different to how I look at it. I have read about urosepsis today so yeah, I understand how serious it is. Those things I read said diagnosing it was tricky because the fever can be the only sign there is something wrong.

I think we just do not see this as a big problem in UK and Europe so circumcision would not be done with this as a reason.

Amethyst, I also don't see where you were offensive to Liquid at all, but thanks for saying what you did. I know more than anyone that often times sarcasm and jeering and what not isn't always clear in black and white text. Doc and I learned that the hard way more than one time. So, I just don't know what to say to you because that was very sweet of you. I will have a little chatty chat with your hubby and tell him that he needs to be praising you, not punishing you because you were a very good girl.

Agracier said,

Vaccinations do not involve removing part of the human body.

Moreover, vaccinations are not only done for personal protection on an individual basis, but are also done because of the collective protection they provide to other members of society in general. Therefore the issue of vaccination needs to be considered on a different level. The areas of responsibility are not the same.

Agracier my friend, your statement in my medical opinion is absolutely false. You are correct in one point as you say that vaccinations do not involve removing part of the human body. This is true, and I agree. However on your next point you said that basically in a nut shell that getting vaccinations is important because it doesn't just keep you safe and healthy, but keeps the general public safe and healthy. The issue of whether or not to vaccinate needs to be considered on a different level, and the area's of responsibility are not the same........I absolutely do NOT agree with any of that.

It has been proven over and over and over again by every top medical research facility in many different countries not just the USA that a foreskin harbors germs that result in STD's, and HPV. While the male may not show signs of either and might be carriers, he will infect everyone he sleeps with. So you have all these uncircumcised men sleeping with all kinds of women and the germs get passed and passed again. So in my opinion, passing along STD's and HPV is just as bad as the outcome when people don't get vaccinated. Both things are of equal importance when it comes to the safety and well being of both the person and the general public.

Now Agracier with that being said, you and I have butted heads over this issue a few times, but we have both decided that it's okay, we can have a difference of opinion and still be friends. The reason I say that is because before over this same issue I have said that I think a lot of our ways of thinking and beliefs are different because we live in different countries. What's normal here might be abnormal there and visa versa. People get so passionate over issues like this and I think it's great. It keeps the forum alive and kicking and sparks people who might not contribute to actually get off their asses and contribute something to this site lol.

Mashie

Mashie: Except that unprotected sex with many women is a voluntary and reprehensible action, which, even without a foreskin, is dangerous. As opposed to involuntary contamination, as in measles and other illnesses.

Does it make sense to circumcise a baby in case 20 years after he chooses to be promiscuous? How about men leading a monogamous life?

Let's get back to the original theme of this thread which is:

For the circumcised men out there, at least those who were circumcised during childhood - what reasons did your parents give for this action?

No reason ever given or proffered , and why would there have to be an explanation ?...Parents quite often make decisions based on what would have been the best alternatives in a given era...religious mores aside overall cleanliness would play a considerable part I'd assume.. Too late now anyhow, it cant be re-attached nor can one hold another person responsible for something that occurred long before they were to even recognize any difference....one cannot miss something they've never known of in the first place....I'll never know nor do I care particularly for that matter

They never gave me an explanation and now that i think about it , might have been nice to have something extra ............

Hi,

No reason was given to me, just that I 'had to go into hospital for a few days during the school holiday for a small operation' . I can only assume tight foreskin as remember being examined at school by a doctor and she couldn't retract my foreskin (I was 6), then the family GP examined me a week or so later and the same, I remember him telling my mother that 'I really should be circumcised'.

So that was that.

it was a great talk with the older brother of a friend a while after I was circumcised, when I learned all about circumcision, and that it was tradition that boys got circumcised at the school I was planned to attend (but didn't)

There was a British tradition of certain kinds of occupations requiring circumcision. For instance, if you (or more likely your parents) planned in 18th or 19th century Britain for a position with the East India Company or other companies or military command that were regularly sent to the East, then circumcision was more than not a requirement. The reason for this was that many Muslim rulers in the sub-continent, refused to conduct business or receive visitors or emissaries or whomever, unless these were 'properly' circumcised. And yes, this was checked in some polite and discrete manner or another.

Hence it became tradition for sons of high born families to be circumcised at birth, especially those with an expectation of a son going into service to the Crown in the East. And as often happens with such social traditions, once the upper classes and royalty started, the middle classes often followed but to a far lesser degree.

So I suppose your parents were planning on sending you to a school of high standing.