Foreskin Envy

[SteveHd]

explain what that is please?

It's a narrowing of the "pee hole". In a newly circumcised infant, piss reacts with air to form ammonia; the ammonia causes scar tissue to form at the meatus a/k/a pee-hole. Repetitive "marinatons" cause stenosis: constriction of the opening. Hence the medical name meatal stenosis.

 

[dolfette]

It's a narrowing of the "pee hole". In a newly circumcised infant, piss reacts with air to form ammonia; the ammonia causes scar tissue to form at the meatus a/k/a pee-hole. Repetitive "marinatons" cause stenosis: constriction of the opening. Hence the medical name meatal stenosis.

jeeeeezuz!

that sounds nasty.

don't s'pose you know what's the % chance of that reaction?

 

[SteveHd]

I don't the "% chance of that reaction" but I do know that ~9% of boys who have been circumcised have meatal stenosis. There's undoubtedly more who have it but haven't been examined. So the real percentage is unknown.

This "dirty little secret" is one that "modern" medicine has known about for many years. Here's an 1891 writing of Dr John Kellogg:

... since it has been shown by extensive observation among the Jews that very great contraction of the meatus, or external orifice of the urethra, is exceedingly common among them, being undoubtedly the result of the prolonged irritation and subsequent cicatricial contraction resulting from circumcision in infancy. From Kellog's book: Plain facts for old and young; embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life -- 1891.
​

Clearly he and his profession were aware of the association in the nineteenth century!

 

[dolfette]

I don't the "% chance of that reaction" but I do know that ~9% of boys who have been circumcised have meatal stenosis. There's undoubtedly more who have it but haven't been examined. So the real percentage is unknown.


This "dirty little secret" is one that "modern" medicine has known about for many years. Here's an 1891 writing of Dr John Kellogg:Clearly he and his profession were aware of the association in the nineteenth century!

and parents aren't warned of this first?

 

[SteveHd]

Then it wouldn't be a "secret".

 

[Meniscus]

It's a narrowing of the "pee hole". In a newly circumcised infant, piss reacts with air to form ammonia; the ammonia causes scar tissue to form at the meatus a/k/a pee-hole. Repetitive "marinatons" cause stenosis: constriction of the opening. Hence the medical name meatal stenosis.

The article about meatal stenosis on eMedicine.com makes a salient point:

"Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis [italics mine]...Another hypothetical cause of this condition is ischemia due to damage to the frenular artery during circumcision [italics & underscore mine], resulting in poor blood supply to the meatus and subsequent stenosis. In a prospective study of circumcised boys, Van Howe (2006) found meatal stenosis in 24 of 239 (7.29%) children older than 3 years, making meatal stenosis the most common complication of circumcision... Incidence is 9-10% of males who are circumcised."

So much for the medical benefits of circumcision.

 

[Meniscus]

i HAD heard of it going very wrong though...a docu abount a boy who was raised a girl after some doc mangled his penis.

This is a very famous and tragic case. I remember studying it in college. It's off topic, but I have to tell the story.

Two identical twin boys were born in 1965. They were diagnosed with phimosis (an unretractable foreskin), and the doctors recommended circumcision. Bruce's penis was destroyed during the procedure, so his brother Brian's circumcision was cancelled. Ironically, Brian made a full recovery from phimosis without further treatment.

Because nothing could be done to restore Bruce's penis, the doctors told the boys' parents raise him as a girl. At the time, many researchers believed that gender identity was learned, not something you're born with. Not knowing what else to do, the parent's agreed. Bruce underwent gender reassignment surgey, and his name was changed to Brenda. For many years, all the articles on the case claimed that the gender reassignment was a smashing success. It was reported that "she" grew up to be a healthy, happy, and "normal" girl. Up until a few years ago, if you took a college class on gender identity, your professor would probably cite this case as evidence that gender identity was primarily a matter of nurture, not nature.

When the grown MAN who had lost his penis as a child found out how his story was being used in academic and medical circles, he decided he had to go public and tell the truth of his life. He was a problem child. He never identified as a girl. He resisted every effort his parents made to socialize him as a girl. He rebelled against everything and everyone. Finally, his parents decided they had to tell him the truth, that he was born a boy. As soon as he found out, he switched to a male gender identity and changed his name to David. But he couldn't get his penis back. He struggled with depression for years. He attempted suicide several times. David's brother Brian had trouble coping with the revelation that his sister was really his identical twin brother. Brian struggled with mental illness for years, and died in 2002 from an overdose of his meds.

David tried to have a normal life, but he was never able to find peace. As I recall, he didn't like all the attention he got after going public with his story, he lost his job, his marriage failed, he lost a lot of money in a bad investment scheme, and he had trouble coping with the death of his brother. David Reimer committed suicide in May 2004.

 

[deleted15807]

this scary american obsession just fascinates me.

i wonder how much the chopper industry is worth/year?
however many millions of baby boys, whatever fee they charge/child...it's gotta add up.
not surprising that they want to continue the myth that natural dicks are some kind of stinking disease.

Not just America anymore sunshine. You better RUSH on down to South Africa to stop them where MASS circumcision may begin. :biggrin1:

Aidsmap | Should South Africa pursue a mass circumcision drive?

 

[Meniscus]

reading that post made me cringe.

If you think reading about it is bad, try watching the video.

Intact

I watched one the shorter versions of the video, which was about all I could stand. Although I found is disturbing, I had to remind myself that I probably also would have found it disturbing to watch open heart surgery, or brain surgery, or a transplant operation, or removal of a tumor, because I'm squeamish about such things. Heck, I don't like watching blood being drawn.

Just because most of us find infant circumcision unpleasant to witness doesn't make it wrong. What does make it wrong is that it's a medically unnecessary procedure that traumatizes the infant, even when an anesthetic is used. We don't know if the boy in this video is crying because he's in pain, although I suspect he probably was. But maybe he was just scared or didn't like being strapped down. Does it matter? It's clearly an unpleasant experience for him, to put it mildly. The stress of the procedure effects heart rate, respiration, and oxygen levels, sometimes with long-term negative effects. Sometimes babies scream so much they make themselves sick or even hurt themselves. So why on earth do it? If such a procedure was performed on an unconsenting adult, we'd call it assault, even torture.

 

[Meniscus]

Not just America anymore sunshine. You better RUSH on down to South Africa to stop them where MASS circumcision may begin. :biggrin1:

Aidsmap | Should South Africa pursue a mass circumcision drive?

At the risk of stating what should be obvious, they are considering a mass circumcision drive in Africa specifically do deal with the AIDS crisis that is unique to Africa. Not that HIV/AIDS isn't a problem in the rest of the world, but nowhere else is the situation as dire as it is in Africa. In South Africa about 10% of adults are infected with HIV. In some other African countries it's as high as 25%. By way of comparison, about .003% of the United States population is living with HIV.

Africa is obviously desperate to reduce the number of new HIV infections, specifically the number of men being infected by women through vaginal intercourse. I would think condoms would work better than circumcision, but maybe that's not economically viable, maybe they have trouble distributing condoms to the people who need them, or maybe they are having trouble getting African men to use condoms due to cultural or religious reasons.

I'd like to think that there's a better solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa, but I don't know enough about it. In any case, just because they're considering it over there doesn't mean that the rest of the world should embrace the practice. In the rest of the world there are far more effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV.

 

[jafar]

Circumcision is an effective means for reducing HIV infections in Africa. It has been endorsed by the WHO. It should be practised all over the world to help to prevent the spread of HIV.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Circumcision is an effective means for reducing HIV infections in Africa. It has been endorsed by the WHO. It should be practised all over the world to help to prevent the spread of HIV.

Genital cutting is stupid and cruel. If every male and female on earth were cut, AIDS would not be eliminated. HIV is a virus transmitted by exposure to bodily fluids. Genital cutting is not going to cure that. The truth will out.

Why are you guys so gleeful about these studies? Universal circ is your mantra.

 

[ThickPup]

DON'T DO IT.

But if you do, save it for me so I can attach it on mine!

Please, don't do it!

 

[dolfette]

Circumcision is an effective means for reducing HIV infections in Africa. It has been endorsed by the WHO. It should be practised all over the world to help to prevent the spread of HIV.

i'm going to educate my son on the use of condoms.

because my son, as a child, wouldn't get any protection from being cut.
it's my son, as the adult man, who'll be out having sex.

aside from educating him as best i can, it'd not my business or my right to start cutting bits off him in a prediction of his future sexual irresponsibility.

it's not my job to take choices for him as a baby that he should make for himself as an adult.

 

[Meniscus]

Circumcision is an effective means for reducing HIV infections in Africa. It has been endorsed by the WHO. It should be practised all over the world to help to prevent the spread of HIV.

I just read the WHO's recommendations and you're oversimplifying it's position. They recommend circumcision for "countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection" not the entire world. Furthermore, the WHO claims that circumcision reduces the risk of infection by 60%, but other agencies dispute that figure. Some argue that circumcision offers little or no protection, and may actually increase the risk.

So if you consider the United States, for example, you're talking about circumcising millions of men, many of whom aren't even at risk, in order to prevent--at best--a few thousand HIV infections. It would be far more effective and economical, for men who are at risk of contracting HIV to use condoms, plus there would be no risk of the physical or psychological problems caused by circumcision.

None of the following medical organizations recommend the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision:

American Medical Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Family Physicians
Canadian Paediatric Society
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
Australian Medical Association
Australian Paediatric Association
New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons
Urological Society of Australasia
Paediatric Society of New Zealand
British Medical Association...

and a whole bunch of other British organizations. It's late and I'm too tired to keep typing, but I probably could find more.

 

[130842]

jafar or sargon20 must be part of those persons who were cut, and don't like it, but deny it to the world, and even worse, would like everybody to be like them so they wouldn't be so depressed.

Finding reasons to why circumcise, is totally useless, because the only reason is when there is a medical emmergency and when it couldn't be avoided. Otherwise, it's totally irresponsible to mutilate yourself for some obscure reasons ( hygiene? health? )

It has been proved that the foreskin part of the penis plays an important role in the sexual pleasure. If you remove it, be prepared for a REAL feeling of loss.

I on my own can speak about my experience at the moment : I have a phimosis, which make me unable to retract my foreskin. In fact, it's even somehow blocked on top of my glans. It becomes hard to wash my penis conveniently, but I'm lucky it doesn't hurt when I erect.

At first, I went to see some doctors ( I live in Paris, France ) and they when I asked them about the foreskin removal, and about how much painfull both psychologically and physically it would be, they answered like it's not a problem.

I mentionned websites, where people were depressed about their loss, and about all the arguments we already read on this thread. They said "what's found on internet is not to be trusted".

What I deeply think, is that the circumcision is now a real business. No worries, a doctor i met, wanted to do the thing for 600 euros. Yeah you read right.

Don't be fooled by those who want to make money out of your foreskin. It's the niche for those non-ethical doctors, who don't really care for their patient, or at least cover themselves with obscure reasons.

I'll now try and extend my foreskin myself, with the methods found earlier on this thread: do you have any ideas on how to make it more efficiently, for those who did it ?

Don't do it ! I repeat myself ! It would be the greatest mistake of your life.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Don't be fooled by those who want to make money out of your foreskin. It's the niche for those non-ethical doctors, who don't really care for their patient, or at least cover themselves with obscure reasons.

I'll now try and extend my foreskin myself, with the methods found earlier on this thread: do you have any ideas on how to make it more efficiently, for those who did it?

Good post KoKoR. Yes, sometimes circumcised men spend the rest of their lives trying to validate their condition, even when cut at birth so they couldn't possibly know what they are talking about.

As to your question, have you tried using graduated cylinders? Anything will do. It's the same way people get those big holes in their ear lobes. Use a piece of rubber tubing, or anything that will fit comfortably. When that becomes easy, use something a little bigger in circumference. Use something flexible and soft and easy to keep sanitary.

Good luck. It should work well. I have the opposite problem - trying to restore the complete foreskin that I never knew from birth. You already have better luck than me. It may take several months, but report back from time to time so we can know of your progress. Save yourself a bucket of money and a lifetime of regret.

 

[Yknarfy]

I love to play with my foreskin and wouldn't be without it.

http://forums.newart.com/uploads/2waypull.jpg

Franky

 

[SteveHd]

The futilationists lost this one. In another thread, Beercan says he's keeping the foreskin! The new thread is: http://www.lpsg.org/sex-with-a-large-penis/55418-foreskin-envy.html
[same name but with a hyphen appended].

 

[Principessa]

]This just in: Adult men are staying away from circumcision clinics in overwhelming numbers[/B].

ROTFLMAO!​