# Foreskin experts: a ?



## zoshamosha (Apr 15, 2006)

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, so I apologize in advance if it's not...

My ds is 3 days old. All throughout the pregnancy, DH and I argued over the circ. issue. After a lot of back and forth, he relented that I make the decision and he agrees to keep ds intact. However... I don't think he is entirely happy with the decision. His arguments in favor have been the usual--He will be a "freak" compared to other boys, women won't find him attractive later, it's "cleaner" (whatever that means), and lastly that there could be a complication with the foreskin that might lead to a necessary circumcision later in life.

It's been easy to debunk most of these arguments. But the last one has suddenly come up.

The ped said it looks like ds' foreskin is not aligned with his urethral opening. She said there's no way to know for sure until his foreskin retracts in a couple years. She suggested I maybe see a urologist to rule out possible complications.

I'm devastated, because even though DH is keeping quiet and respecting my feelings on the subject, I know in his head he's just chomping at the bit to schedule the procedure...which, btw, will happen over my dead body.

Unless...there is a real medical reason for it, but I can't seem to think there really would be one. I'm so confused. Does anyone have any information on this type of foreskin issue?

I apologize for the rambling post. Thanks.


----------



## BamaDude (Aug 17, 2006)

As long as your son is urinating okay, there is nothing to worry about.


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

As long as he's peeing without complications, he's fine.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I was also going to say that if he can pee okay then he's fine.


----------



## enstar780 (Jun 15, 2006)

In reality circumcision is hardly ever necessary later in life, thats just a myth promoted by the lucrative circumcision industry. European countries, where circumcision is rare, have longer life expectancies than the US and circumcision in adulthood there is very rare. I believe it is 0.04% of intact men actually consent to circumcision as adults. Doctors will look for every minor and insignificant thing to try to justify circumcision. If your son can urinate fine, there is nothing wrong and nothing to worry about. What it sounds like to me, you have nothing to be concerned about.

As for the locker room argument, I find it unlikely this will happen. In fact, circumcision rates have fallen so your son will not be alone but many others will be whole and intact. As well, a person finding out his parents allowed such a personal part of his body to be altered and amputated without his consent can be very detrimental and emotionally damaging to some. It can leave them feeling violated and hurt. Its just not a good reason to cut off a healthy part of someone elses body in any case. Human rights to a whole intact body take precedence over such arguments as the locker room argument.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I don't understand how she would even know. My son is almost two and I have never seen his urethra. As long as he is peeing fine, there is no issue.


----------



## snazzy_mom (Apr 8, 2006)

The only way she could even conjure that up is if she had pulled the foreskin back and even then, there is NO way to know unless it was quite forcible.

You will notice that sometimes, when your son urinates, there is a "bubble" in the foreskin, this is just the stream of urine navigating it's way out.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

If the doc could see your son's urethra, you should run as fast as you can for the doc...That means she forceably retracted your DS. Even if his urethra is not lined up...circumcision will not magically center it! This doc sounds ignorant and dangerously pro circ. I recommend a new one that has a clue about intact boys.

I agree with the other posters...as long as he is urinating, then no problem exists, don't let anyone make it a problem.


----------



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

why do doctors call meatus holes ' uretha isn't urethea a little tube in the urinnary tract system?


----------



## zoshamosha (Apr 15, 2006)

Thanks for the quick replies.

The doc started examining his penis and I got right up in her face and told her not to retract. She said she wasn't retracting it, just looking inside as far as she could without retracting it. I got a very bad feeling.

I then noticed that she did drop the term "pre-circumcision." No, I will not be returning to that doctor.


----------



## zoshamosha (Apr 15, 2006)

Oh, also, I haven't been able to catch him peeing yet.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

You don't have to catch him peeing. As long as he is peeing, it is fine.


----------



## snazzy_mom (Apr 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TeresaZofia* 
Thanks for the quick replies.

The doc started examining his penis and I got right up in her face and told her not to retract. She said she wasn't retracting it, just looking inside as far as she could without retracting it. I got a very bad feeling.

I then noticed that she did drop the term "pre-circumcision." No, I will not be returning to that doctor.

I'm glad your mama instincts are so strong









Pulling the skin back, at all, is retraction. It sounds like a new doctor is exactly what you need.


----------



## Nathan1097 (Nov 20, 2001)

Do dr's see the pee come straight out of a females urinary meatus? do they pull back the labia watch it actually come out? Just because the pee has to pass through the opening of the foreskin, doesn't mean there's a bit ol' problem.







We women have been peein' and wipin' with success for many many years.


----------



## KMK_Mama (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TeresaZofia* 
Thanks for the quick replies.

The doc started examining his penis and I got right up in her face and told her not to retract. She said she wasn't retracting it, just looking inside as far as she could without retracting it. I got a very bad feeling.

I then noticed that she did drop the term "pre-circumcision." No, I will not be returning to that doctor.

What did she mean by "pre-circumcision?" Was she saying he was born with hypospadias?


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

How would the doctor know that without pulling his foreskin back somewhat?? And what does it matter if it's lined up as long as the holes are there and functioning?


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

The bit about the urinary opening not lining up with the foreskin opening sounds like hypospadias, a condition where the urinary opening is not at the tip of the glans, but somewhere underneath it. Usually, if it is significant enough, the foreskin will not form uniformly around the glans, but appears to be missing underneath, with a hood on the top side of the glans. You didn't mention anything about a malformation of the foreskin itself, in which case, this is probably no big deal. In more severe cases, a surgical procedure may be done to correct the malplacement of the urinary opening, sometimes using the foreskin as part of the repair. For this reason, hypospadias is a contraindication to circumcision - i.e. there is a medical reasons for NOT circumcising. However, mild cases do not necessarily need to be "repaired". There is plenty of room for variability in the "lining up" issue. The doc may be suggesting the referral to the urologist for an evaluation of possible hypospadias. I tend to agree though that if the foreskin is well formed on all sides of the glans, and he is peeing fine, that it's not something to get all worked up about.

Here is a place for good info about hypospadias.
http://www.heainfo.org/FAQ-ForParents.html

Not meaning to add additional concerns for you with a 3 day old baby!!! Just adding information so you can be educated about what your doc is suggesting.

Gillian


----------



## LianneM (May 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
I don't understand how she would even know. My son is almost two and I have never seen his urethra. As long as he is peeing fine, there is no issue.

my thought exactly - how would she even know?

oops, finished reading. Yikes.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

The only true medical reasons for circ are frostbite, gangrene, cancer & accident damage that cant be fixed any other way.

A few diabetic men may have trouble because they are more prone to infection which leads to scare tissue that leads to true phimosis. But they also can loose feet but they arnt cut off just to prevent it from happening.

Good luck finding a new Dr. and remember to be on your toes about letting anyone touch your ds's penis. They do not need to look at the urethra or test the opening of the foreskin for any reason. Just tell them from the onset not to touch the penis. That way they cant do any harm.

The reason many of us here make such a big deal out of retraction is only partly due to the fact that it can cause damage. The major reason is because of cases like yours were your ds dosnt really have a problem but the Dr. has invented one.

The foreskin is like a sleeve on the arm in lots of ways in that if you pull the end of the sleeve over your hand you can move it to make it line up totaly with your hand or your can move it around so that it dosnt line up any more. The foreskin may line up perfectly with his urethra in the glans one time yet be totally off center the next time. That is just how the foreskin works and the urine will come out anyway since it is liquid.

I have a question some have mentioned possibly hypospadious in the case and I would like to know does your ds have a fully formed foreskin that goes all the way around the glans or is there just foreskin on top with none on the bottom?


----------



## Cersha (Jun 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *snazzy_mom* 
I'm glad your mama instincts are so strong









Pulling the skin back, at all, is retraction. It sounds like a new doctor is exactly what you need.

ITA. Especially about the retraction. She need not manipulate his foreskin AT ALL. My ped tried to pull thatline.."I;m not going to retract, I'm just going to pull it back a bit" Uh, Lady, that IS retraction.

Good luck.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

There is no need for the foreskin opening to line up with the urethral meatus. In a small child, the foreskin tip will act as the urethral meatus and in an adolescent or adult, they pull the foreskin back slightly to expose the tip of the glans and urethral meatus so that alignment simply doesn't matter. The only thing that may come up as a result of a mis-alignment is a tendency to spray. With retraction at the normal time, this will cease to happen.

It really sounds like this doctor was looking for an excuse to circumcise your son. With that opinion, make the decision you feel is necessary for the safety of your son.

Frank


----------



## zoshamosha (Apr 15, 2006)

OP here...

I've examined his foreskin to see if it looks malformed and, honestly, I don't see anything wrong. I mean, he is only 4 DAYS old!!!

It does seem like the doc was talking about hypospadias, actually. But she (or the other doc she works with) didn't tell me anything about it. The doc did ask if ds pees in a straight stream or not. I don't know yet.

All she sounded like to me and my DH was "something could be wrong with your son's penis but we can't really tell and might not be able to tell for another two years or so." So, then why even bring it up? I'm so confused.

And she used the term "pre-circumcision" in this context..."Sometimes you see things with pre-circumsized penises that..." I just thought that was strange, she could have said "un-circumsized" if she didn't want to say "intact."

I, honestly, don't feel there is anything wrong. This doc sent out huge red flags about other issues as well, so I'm not taking her practice too seriously. But if it does turn out to be hypospadias, I'm glad to know that circ. is contraindicated and it's not considered a reason to circ.

I'm paying out of pocket to get it checked out by Dr. Paul Fleiss just to be sure, though.


----------



## asunlitrose (Apr 19, 2008)

I don't think she was referring to hypospadias at all, I think she just doesn't know much about intact penises, like a lot of peds, unfortunately.

I think she was using the term "pre-circumcision" because she assumes that all babies are going to be circumcised eventually...


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

Here are some pictures of hypo you can clearly see there is a issue even on the least affected.

Hypospadias drawing: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...l%3Den%26lr%3D

Hypospadias pictures with chordee at the bottom & surgery Warning graphic pictures: http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1136.htm

Hypospadias from mild to severe: http://www.medscape.com/content/2004...89956.fig4.jpg

Hypospadias drawing of were all the urinary opnings can be: http://www.hypospadias-emotions.com/images2/hyposp6.jpg

Normal foreskin on the left: http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/...e1/figure3.jpg (the one on the right is being partially retracted







:

Hope that helps you see the difference between a hypo and normal penis.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

First of all, Congratulations on your new baby!

second, may I just say, I REALLY DISLIKE THE TERM "pre-circumcised".









If your ds has wet diapers then there is no need to worry. She is looking for an excuse to circ your ds.

Even if she is "gently pulling back the foreskin (oh no its not retraction







)" she will NOT see a pee hole.

My ds's foreskin opens to pee then contracts when he is done. I've seen this.

Your ds's foreskin will look shut. There is no way, unless she ripped the foreskin back off the glans ouch!, that she could ever find the meatus. Its just not possible. Either she is dangerously ignorant or she's playing you for a fool. The latter is what a con artist will do to her victims.

Enjoy your WHOLE baby mama! Have a wonderful babymoon.


----------



## AXEius (Jul 8, 2006)

exactly what frank said. there is no reason the foreskin needs to to line up with the meatus "pee hole" . Heck some intact men with long foreskins can have theire meatus pointing up and the opening of their foreskin pointing down and could pee just fine. that doctor obviously has zero education about foreskins. Imagine the urethra as a fire hose, and the foreskin being a sort of aimable nozzle, like on a fire truck. There is no need for the two holes to line up because the nozzle redirects the stream of the fire hose just as the foreskin does for the urethra.


----------



## Nathan1097 (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MCatLvrMom2A&X* 
Here are some pictures of hypo you can clearly see there is a issue even on the least affected.

Hypospadias drawing: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...l%3Den%26lr%3D

Hypospadias pictures with chordee at the bottom & surgery Warning graphic pictures: http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1136.htm

Hypospadias from mild to severe: http://www.medscape.com/content/2004...89956.fig4.jpg

Hypospadias drawing of were all the urinary opnings can be: http://www.hypospadias-emotions.com/images2/hyposp6.jpg

Normal foreskin on the left: http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/...e1/figure3.jpg (the one on the right is being partially retracted







:

Hope that helps you see the difference between a hypo and normal penis.

Notice how much hypospadias looks like female genitals?


----------

