# Weighing in as the girlfriend of an uncircumcised guy!



## sciencemom999 (Dec 5, 2016)

Hey guys, my name is Kashi and I want to weigh in here and say that I am dating (and have dated in the past) an uncircumcised guy. He has never had any health issues because of it, and sexually it makes no difference as far as I can tell. I really can't see any benefits to it. My boyfriend is German, apparently in Europe almost no one is circumcised, and most people consider it cruel, barbaric, and traumatizing for a baby.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Hi Kashi,

Welcome! You are right - there are absolutely no benefits to circumcision. In fact it is very damaging, removing 75% of the nerves of the penis, which results in a significant decrease in sensitivity as the man ages. It also damages the neural connections between penis and brain, which is why premature ejaculation is so prevalent in North America. There are many women who consider sex with an intact man to be far superior. See www.sexasnatureintendedit.org . Be warned - it is very explicit. You might find the video "The Elephant in the Hospital" quite illuminating, accessible on Youtube or at www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org .


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Welcome.  Remember your boyfriend is intact not 'uncircumcised', that indicates someone who is simply not done yet. Rather like you would never say that a woman is unmastitmised. Language holds power and you don't want to give society the power that thinks cutting boys is normal. 

Circumcision is most certainly cruel, barbaric, and traumatizing for a baby.Firstly because most do not receive adequate pain medication, it's quite hit and miss even when all steps are taken. Secondly it means taking away a body part without that persons consent, a body part he may want. Just as woman we want control over our own bodies men deserve the same respect.


----------



## Fembot (Dec 7, 2013)

joandsarah77 said:


> Welcome.  Remember your boyfriend is intact not 'uncircumcised', that indicates someone who is simply not done yet. Rather like you would never say that a woman is unmastitmised. Language holds power and you don't want to give society the power that thinks cutting boys is normal.


Thank you for highlighting the importance of language. I've always said uncircumcised, but intact sounds much better (for many reasons), so I'm going to use that from now on. Your right, language holds great power!

Most of the men I have been with were intact, and I always enjoyed that. The couple of men that were circumcised often needed extra lube; chafing was a real problem! If I ever have a son he will remain intact too.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Fembot said:


> Most of the men I have been with were intact, and I always enjoyed that. The couple of men that were circumcised often needed extra lube; chafing was a real problem! If I ever have a son he will remain intact too.


Good for you! I don't think the rate of circumcision is very high in B.C. - likely lower than 10%. It would be even lower if not for that one doctor in Vancouver who aggressively promotes it. No doubt it is easy money for him - and he obviously takes the hippocratic oath, "to do no harm", far too lightly.


----------



## Fembot (Dec 7, 2013)

hakunangovi said:


> Good for you! I don't think the rate of circumcision is very high in B.C. - likely lower than 10%. It would be even lower if not for that one doctor in Vancouver who aggressively promotes it. No doubt it is easy money for him - and he obviously takes the hippocratic oath, "to do no harm", far too lightly.


I haven't heard about that Vancouver doctor, that's horrible! I agree, he does take his oath way too lightly.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Brian Morris and his mate DR Terry Russel is what pushes Australia's rate up to 12% and makes our State the highest at 20%. 
The one good thing here is while the practice came over from the US in the 1960's it dropped like a stone over the 1970's and 1980's. The bad news is my husbands family was here from Europe for two years in the 1960's when he was born, so he is cut, probably without any pain medication at all.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Fembot said:


> I haven't heard about that Vancouver doctor, that's horrible! I agree, he does take his oath way too lightly.


His name is Neil Pollock and I think he has two clinics in Vancouver. I seem to recall him wanting to open one in Victoria also and was met with some opposition by local intactivists. I don't know if it ever did open.

Years ago the Discovery channel had a series on TV called "The sex files" and there was one episode on circumcision. In their effort to maintain "balance" they interviewed doctors who were pro and against. It seems to me that Dr Pollock was the one they interviewed to give the Pro- circumcision side.


----------



## Fembot (Dec 7, 2013)

hakunangovi said:


> His name is Neil Pollock and I think he has two clinics in Vancouver. I seem to recall him wanting to open one in Victoria also and was met with some opposition by local intactivists. I don't know if it ever did open.
> 
> Years ago the Discovery channel had a series on TV called "The sex files" and there was one episode on circumcision. In their effort to maintain "balance" they interviewed doctors who were pro and against. It seems to me that Dr Pollock was the one they interviewed to give the Pro- circumcision side.


Wow, I just checked out his website. There is so much misinformation and fear mongering. It really boils my blood to read that stuff. I don't know how he (and his employees) can say those things in good conscious. I don't understand how someone can argue so hard for something that has been proven to be unnecessary. Or to use age-old arguments that are false or misguided? My gosh. I guess the only bright side here is that people like him seem to be a dying breed.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Fembot said:


> Wow, I just checked out his website. There is so much misinformation and fear mongering. It really boils my blood to read that stuff. I don't know how he (and his employees) can say those things in good conscious. I don't understand how someone can argue so hard for something that has been proven to be unnecessary. Or to use age-old arguments that are false or misguided? My gosh. I guess the only bright side here is that people like him seem to be a dying breed.


I'm with you - I haven't been on his website - I don't need my blood pressure that high! However, the reason he and others like him spout all that BS is money. Greed overpowers ethics. It is the same with those who sell/trade is freshly severed foreskins with biotech companies. That is a whole other topic but you can bet Dr Pollock is up to his eyeballs in that too - and you know that the parents, nor the baby get a cent. most don't even know!


----------



## Fembot (Dec 7, 2013)

hakunangovi said:


> I'm with you - I haven't been on his website - I don't need my blood pressure that high! However, the reason he and others like him spout all that BS is money. Greed overpowers ethics. It is the same with those who sell/trade is freshly severed foreskins with biotech companies. That is a whole other topic but you can bet Dr Pollock is up to his eyeballs in that too - and you know that the parents, nor the baby get a cent. most don't even know!


Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Baby foreskins can sell for $400 a piece and may end up in wrinkle creams, a very profitable part of the whole circumcision cash cow.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Fembot said:


> Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.


Doing behind the backs of the boys and men that are being profited off their forcibly removed body parts is horrible. Its not the parents bodies, they have no right to claim offense to how its been used after they rejected the foreskins value without consideration by its actual owner. They do not get to claim offense because they didn't get a slice of the monetary profit, because again, its not THEIR bodies.


----------



## Fembot (Dec 7, 2013)

perspective said:


> Doing behind the backs of the boys and men that are being profited off their forcibly removed body parts is horrible. Its not the parents bodies, they have no right to claim offense to how its been used after they rejected the foreskins value without consideration by its actual owner. They do not get to claim offense because they didn't get a slice of the monetary profit, because again, its not THEIR bodies.


I'm not trying to imply that parents own their son's bodies, or that they have any right to be offended by how the foreskin is used after they authorize the removal of it. That is not my belief nor was it the intention of my response.

However, I do think parents should have all the information before making this huge decision on behalf of their defenceless child. My original thought came from my belief that some parents would be less likely to trust a doctor's recommendation to circumcise if they knew that doctor was profiting off selling the tissue afterwards. I would like to believe hearing that information would at least make some parents pause and hopefully reconsider. I don't believe anyone, parents included, should profit off of selling another human's body part.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Fembot said:


> Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.


I thought I might have a website that described this, but I don't. However here are some of the companies that use "discarded foreskins" in their product(s): SKINMEDICA, APLIGRAPH, TRANSCYTE, CORIELLE and ATCC. The products include Anti-aging cream and reproduced skin for burn victims.

I think that at the very least the baby should be reimbursed a healthy sum. But that is beside the point - he should not be having his foreskin stolen from him in the first place.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Fembot said:


> I'm not trying to imply that parents own their son's bodies, or that they have any right to be offended by how the foreskin is used after they authorize the removal of it. That is not my belief nor was it the intention of my response.
> 
> However, I do think parents should have all the information before making this huge decision on behalf of their defenceless child. My original thought came from my belief that some parents would be less likely to trust a doctor's recommendation to circumcise if they knew that doctor was profiting off selling the tissue afterwards. I would like to believe hearing that information would at least make some parents pause and hopefully reconsider. I don't believe anyone, parents included, should profit off of selling another human's body part.


I agree, it comes full circle back to the doctors. They should have to lay it all out, the procedure, the functions of the foreskin they are removing, what will happen to it, the pain meds used or not used, the risks and the long term side effects, but most people get little to no information. I have heard people say "I wasn't told anything just asked if I wanted it done" as well as some having a form waved under their nose while they were still in recovery from a cesarean, which is terrible as you can't even think clearly at that point.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Fembot said:


> I'm not trying to imply that parents own their son's bodies, or that they have any right to be offended by how the foreskin is used after they authorize the removal of it. That is not my belief nor was it the intention of my response.
> 
> However, I do think parents should have all the information before making this huge decision on behalf of their defenceless child. My original thought came from my belief that some parents would be less likely to trust a doctor's recommendation to circumcise if they knew that doctor was profiting off selling the tissue afterwards. I would like to believe hearing that information would at least make some parents pause and hopefully reconsider. I don't believe anyone, parents included, should profit off of selling another human's body part.


Sorry, I probably over reacted in my response to you. But just earlier in this thread you were involved in the discussion on the importance and power in word use in relation to "uncut" vs "intact". And just like that we need to change the subtle messages we send in the way we talk about all this. We need to remember (because social conditioning makes it so easy to forget) that first and foremost this is an issue of control and choice. That this isn't a parental issue, but a human rights issue.

When your sympathy/ shocked response is directed not to the human who had parts of his body forcibly removed, but instead for the parents of that human- its another micro act of dehumanization, devaluing of that individual.

I only bring it up because its the kind of thing we need to be ultra aware of if we are going to be able to change this kind of thinking in our own communities.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Just because she didn't mention the person whose foreskin was removed doesn't mean she wasn't also thinking of them. She can't exactly be shocked that the baby wasn't informed his foreskin was going to be sold to a biotech company since babies can't be informed, which is a separate issue of why it's so wrong. We all agree that it should not be a parents right to cut healthy skin off their children. I thought we were discussing the lack of information given to parents and that is just one part of it. If doctors were made to fully inform parents on everything including that it might be sold, I am sure the rate would drop far more quickly than it is now.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> Just because she didn't mention the person whose foreskin was removed doesn't mean she wasn't also thinking of them. She can't exactly be shocked that the baby wasn't informed his foreskin was going to be sold to a biotech company since babies can't be informed, which is a separate issue of why it's so wrong. We all agree that it should not be a parents right to cut healthy skin off their children. I thought we were discussing the lack of information given to parents and that is just one part of it. If doctors were made to fully inform parents on everything including that it might be sold, I am sure the rate would drop far more quickly than it is now.


I agree to everything you are saying in terms of tactics of reducing circumcisions through information. But the other side of this is changing the way people think, is changing the way we all speak about this issue. As words have power and send subtle messages of value that we internalize far more easily, and unconsciously than any debate point we can make with a person.

I wasn't speaking to what she was thinking, I was speaking to what she was saying. Just as when she said "uncut" instead of "intact" she wasn't thinking less of intact men. But she does send a powerful message of value in terms of the male body when she uses that word, when anyone does. And its meaning is taking with far more impact.

All I was saying is taking that same discussion from earlier in the thread and expanding it to include our phrases and reactions and how THAT gets interpreted in just the same kind of ways as saying "uncut."


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

What I meant was her reply


> Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.


The language we use is important but I don't see anything wrong in her statement there. She was simply responding to new information. It's good to get new members who I feel should be treated gently if they are new to this. You also apologized, so lets put it aside now.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> What I meant was her reply
> 
> The language we use is important but I don't see anything wrong in her statement there. She was simply responding to new information. It's good to get new members who I feel should be treated gently if they are new to this. You also apologized, so lets put it aside now.


If you agree that the discussion was already resolved after my response to her, why didn't you just "put it aside" instead of responding?

Its because you disagree with my perspective on her comments. To think of a person who allowed victimization to occur before of the victimized. To consider a parent before (or honestly in any way) before the child, devalues this issue as the human rights issue it is. I mean we all do it. Many of us grew up in a society that has normalized these kinds of forced acts. So there is a lot for all of us to culturally deprogram from our own minds.

All I am trying to say here is- we all need to learn to be more mindful. Nothing more complicated than that. But you are not wrong, we have probably talked this out a bit!


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I felt she needed a bit of support.

We will have to agree to disagree as I do not see any of what you are saying in her statement. By saying it was unethical of them not to inform the parent was true. That was all she was responding to. The whole issue of the child's rights is a separate thought to what she responded to. You (general you) can talk about something and not mention every part of it, but not mentioning a part doesn't mean you don't acknowledge it.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> I felt she needed a bit of support.
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree as I do not see any of what you are saying in her statement. By saying it was unethical of them not to inform the parent was true. That was all she was responding to. The whole issue of the child's rights is a separate thought to what she responded to. You (general you) can talk about something and not mention every part of it, but not mentioning a part doesn't mean you don't acknowledge it.


I do not fault you for attempting to be supportive to other users on here. Thats always a great thing!! But its also true that in communities like this is where its important to be critical of each other, as there is no other way for all of us to break past not only social conditioning, but also further develop the the theory behind what this movement means.

So I genuinely appreciate you being critical of my perspective, as I was doing the same with Fembot. Because without that critical nature, we don't develop. We lose power, passion, focus in terms of the genital integrity movement, and the messages we try and share and nurture in our own communities- with our own friends, and family.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm lucky enough not to have had social conditioning on this living in country Australia. I don't think I've ever seen a circumcised child and only learned of the practice when I was 24, and to say I was shocked is an understatement. I'm also lucky enough not to have to actually see or hear people talk about it like it's a normal thing-it's not talked about here at all. I have no idea how I would act if people talked about it like it wasn't a big deal or if medical people asked if I wanted it done, probably fly off the handle. :laugh:It may even be illegal for them to ask since that falls under soliciting for surgery.


----------



## Fembot (Dec 7, 2013)

perspective said:


> If you agree that the discussion was already resolved after my response to her, why didn't you just "put it aside" instead of responding?
> 
> Its because you disagree with my perspective on her comments. To think of a person who allowed victimization to occur before of the victimized. To consider a parent before (or honestly in any way) before the child, devalues this issue as the human rights issue it is. I mean we all do it. Many of us grew up in a society that has normalized these kinds of forced acts. So there is a lot for all of us to culturally deprogram from our own minds.
> 
> All I am trying to say here is- we all need to learn to be more mindful. Nothing more complicated than that. But you are not wrong, we have probably talked this out a bit!


I understand your perspective; it seems that your goal was to make me think critically of my use of language and I appreciate that. I agree, we do we need to be critical and mindful of the way in which we talk about these important issues, even within our own communities.

However, I feel that you are stretching my response to fit your argument. I do not in any way prioritize the parent's feelings over the child's bodily autonomy. When I responded with shock and sympathy for the parents, that comes after my empathy for the boys whose bodies are being mutilated against their wills. I have already stated that I'm completely against circumcision; I would debate against it, and advocate for human rights at any opportunity.

This does not take away from my sympathy for the parents who are misinformed, whose consent is being used to exploit their sons, beyond what is already done to them. I can have sympathy for misinformed parent's without losing any empathy or care for the boys, who are the primary victims.

I appreciate what you were trying to do and point out through criticizing my comment. If I were talking anywhere else (not on a natural parenting forum on a thread against circumcision) I wouldn't say the same things, because I wouldn't assume that the people I am talking to already agree that circumcision is morally wrong.

Whew! That was a stirring conversation! Honestly, I appreciate the opportunity to reconsider my language and my position on this issue. Know that going forward, I will be even more mindful of the language I use when talking about circumcision!


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

These boards are dealing with a highly controversial topic and a group of people who are quite passionate about putting a stop to it. Sometimes it gets a bit lively. :laugh:


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> These boards are dealing with a highly controversial topic and a group of people who are quite passionate about putting a stop to it. Sometimes it gets a bit lively. :laugh:


It can be quite hard sometimes, especially because I am a male and I was forcibly modified or mutilated (a term I don't like to use because it feels like its verging on the side of body shaming, and cut men who are aware of what the practice is are already dealing with their own demons of insecurity, and incompleteness as it is without having people that support their cause make them feel even worse about themselves!)

Like I said, it can be quite hard because a person with my history has elements of his identity and self worth intertwined into every discussion related to this topic. You either accept everything, or reject everything- and often this becomes a balance between accepting realities that hurt your inner self with greater truths about what this causes stands for which makes accepting those blistering realities be something you grasp with vigor. its greater good that makes it worth wild.

But I notice this with friends who are female talking about women rights, or friends who are black talking about the BLM movement. Because these issues for them tie into their very identity, it can be hard not let emotion over take you, or to get at times overly defensive.

I wish I could be intact and unaltered like you two. But I am also so jealous that you can both enter this cause without being subjugated by its result. You do not have your own skin in the game, so to speak... I will always envy that as well.

But despite not having your own rights on the chopping block in terms of genital integrity, it means a lot that you both passionately are involved in this. So thanks.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> I'm lucky enough not to have had social conditioning on this living in country Australia. I don't think I've ever seen a circumcised child and only learned of the practice when I was 24, and to say I was shocked is an understatement.


Interesting, maybe its different in different parts of Australia. I have a friend in college from Australia and he said about 30% of the guys in his gym class were cut, and it was a very talked about subject because there is such a variance in the male population- unlike in the US where so many are cut its just seen as the norm and not talked about.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Maybe they are from the coast, I know it's more popular on the Gold Coast for some reason. Down in Tasmania they even tried to ban it. I have Googled it before now and found the occasional thread on the topic on Australian boards, inevitably someone asking about it and whole heap of responses to the fact they they are horrible/terrible/crazy etc. Here is an example of how such a thread goes down http://www.essentialkids.com.au/forums/index.php?/topic/1126372-circumcision-in-tasmania/ I just randomly Googled Tasmania's ban on infant circumcision. That is a pretty typical thread response. Just an average board not particularly crunchy or anything.

How old is the friend? It was huge in the 60's, dropped like a stone over the 70's and 80's became increasingly uncommon in the 90's.

I will make myself a different mental picture immediately, I thought you were female. :nerd: That may have also played into my surprise and response to your other post. I fully understand how your perspective as a cut male in the US differs from mine, a middle age lady from Australia.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> Maybe they are from the coast, I know it's more popular on the Gold Coast for some reason. Down in Tasmania they even tried to ban it. I have Googled it before now and found the occasional thread on the topic on Australian boards, inevitably someone asking about it and whole heap of responses to the fact they they are horrible/terrible/crazy etc. Here is an example of how such a thread goes down http://www.essentialkids.com.au/forums/index.php?/topic/1126372-circumcision-in-tasmania/ I just randomly Googled Tasmania's ban on infant circumcision. That is a pretty typical thread response. Just an average board not particularly crunchy or anything.
> 
> How old is the friend? It was huge in the 60's, dropped like a stone over the 70's and 80's became increasingly uncommon in the 90's.
> 
> I will make myself a different mental picture immediately, I thought you were female. :nerd: That may have also played into my surprise and response to your other post. I fully understand how your perspective as a cut male in the US differs from mine, a middle age lady from Australia.


Wow thats an interesting link! My friend from college grew up in Australia in the 90's. Its crazy, its like you two are from different countries! I think I would be even more bitter about the circ issue if my own country had such starkly different perspectives. That a boy could be born and it was a toss of a coin, because clearly its not a culturally ingrained sense of whats "normal" like it is in the states.

We really need some part of the English speaking world that once practiced circ to outright ban it on infants. Even if it was just a part of a country, it would send such a strong message to the rest of western world that this isn't an issue we can culturally flip flop on or ignore anymore.

But it seems more like people want to keep pushing it under the rug, but as time goes on there seems to be more and more push back!


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Tasmania's circ rate is currently at 3% but Queensland where our 'dear friend' Professor Brian Morris and his cohort Dr terry Russell practice is at 20%. I don't doubt that the pair of them have some influence on that stat. TR advertises his pain free clinic which sounds like farting rainbows. I know people even come up from down south to his practice. http://circumcision.net.au/ 
While BM is the one who the CDC have been known to quoting. Rebuttal on him http://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Fembot said:


> This does not take away from my sympathy for the parents who are misinformed, whose consent is being used to exploit their sons, beyond what is already done to them. I can have sympathy for misinformed parent's without losing any empathy or care for the boys, who are the primary victims.
> 
> I will be even more mindful of the language I use when talking about circumcision!


Fembot, as I said at the beginning - Welcome! I really hope you will stick around and utilize your beliefs and convictions on the subjects of RIC and basic human rights to influence others and hopefully save some boys in the future.

I really like your common sense attitude! I wish everyone would see it as clearly as you do.


----------



## japonica (May 26, 2005)

joandsarah77 said:


> Tasmania's circ rate is currently at 3% but Queensland where our 'dear friend' Professor Brian Morris and his cohort Dr terry Russell practice is at 20%. I don't doubt that the pair of them have some influence on that stat. TR advertises his pain free clinic which sounds like farting rainbows. I know people even come up from down south to his practice. http://circumcision.net.au/
> While BM is the one who the CDC have been known to quoting. Rebuttal on him http://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html


Whoa, 30%. That's sad, really.

I'm in Victoria and after helping with my son's grade 1 class last year with swim lessons (nothing like trying to help 35 helpless and soggy boys trying to find their lost undies), I'd say it's definitely not that high here.

I do recall that when we lived in WA, the father of one of my son's classmates said his son "had to have" a circ done because he wasn't retractable (and that's why he'd be missing some school). At age 6 (!). I tried to think of a kind and diplomatic way of bridging the issue with the father without him thinking I was _that_ weird school mother obsessed with his kid's bits. I couldn't come up with anything that wouldn't be awkward or jeopardise the relationship. The procedure was done and that was that.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

japonica said:


> Whoa, 30%. That's sad, really.
> 
> I do recall that when we lived in WA, the father of one of my son's classmates said his son "had to have" a circ done because he wasn't retractable (and that's why he'd be missing some school). At age 6 (!). .


It's this ignorance about normal, intact male genitalia that is the one common factor in all the stories one hears about some unfortunate boy that "had to get circumcised". I don't really understand why so many American doctors believe that a boy "has" to be retractable by a certain age. What do they think will happen to his penis if he isn't? They really need to talk to their European counterparts and learn that the average age of retraction being achieved is 10 1/2 - and many not until late teens. A very few, never - with no adverse consequences!


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I said 3% and 20%, nowhere did I mention 30%. But yes, 20% is still way too high. 

Poor child. I would have sent him a Don't Retract Pack anonymously. They come from Saving Son's although I don't know how long that would have taken to get here. If you had felt brave you could have quickly said up to 18 is normal for retraction to develop. 
People still have this Victorian mindset that children need to be retracted and cleaned when retraction is an adult activity only needed for sex and even then a few men don't retract.


----------



## japonica (May 26, 2005)

joandsarah77 said:


> I said 3% and 20%, nowhere did I mention 30%. But yes, 20% is still way too high.
> 
> Poor child. I would have sent him a Don't Retract Pack anonymously. They come from Saving Son's although I don't know how long that would have taken to get here. If you had felt brave you could have quickly said up to 18 is normal for retraction to develop.
> People still have this Victorian mindset that children need to be retracted and cleaned when retraction is an adult activity only needed for sex and even then a few men don't retract.


Yeah, thanks, I should have proofed my post. Sorry. It was 20%, but still way too high.

I had to bite my tongue and smile and do the, "Poor guy, hope it goes well, blah blah blah..." If they were closer family friends, then there would have been more of a basis upon which to (perhaps) have a discussion, but with us only knowing them at the school gate, it wasn't exactly an ideal situation.


----------



## japonica (May 26, 2005)

hakunangovi said:


> It's this ignorance about normal, intact male genitalia that is the one common factor in all the stories one hears about some unfortunate boy that "had to get circumcised". I don't really understand why so many American doctors believe that a boy "has" to be retractable by a certain age. What do they think will happen to his penis if he isn't? They really need to talk to their European counterparts and learn that the average age of retraction being achieved is 10 1/2 - and many not until late teens. A very few, never - with no adverse consequences!


Well, this was in Australia where it's even less of the norm, except for the religious communities and those families who believe the the hype by the surgeons joeandsarah mentioned to make the procedure more socially acceptable.

I posted last year about a new Dr whom we saw for a different issue, who wanted to give both of my kids a physical, as it was an initial appointment with him as prospective new patients. However, he only asked my son to drop his drawers. Before I could do anything, he was trying to see if he was retractable and advised me that my son required steroid cream blah, blah, blah. My son was 6 at the time and he's never had any issues whatsoever. We never filled the prescription. I never went back to that Dr, and I told every mother I knew in the area with sons that they should avoid this physician at all costs. It's concerning that those type of doctors are everywhere.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Wow, I've never had that, a doctor hasn't even so much as peeked inside my son's pants. The last time he got checked was as a baby and not his penis, just for groin hernia and descended testicles as they do. I've never had a doctor ask either. Just as well because he's 12 and not retractable so I would hate to have to fend that kind of thing off.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> People still have this Victorian mindset that children need to be retracted and cleaned when retraction is an adult activity only needed for sex and even then a few men don't retract.


This really is the problem in the end. Unlike with girls, with boys doctors in most of the English speaking world have a Victorian perspective on practicing medicine when it comes to their genitals. That Victorian perspective being that the natural state can be improved through human alteration or control. This was the period when the sexual was seen as unhealthy, where the very concept of nature wasn't valued.

Like the user who stated the doctor pulled down her sons pants, but not her daughters. Its this idea that the young male's natural state is prone to disfunction more often than not. That there is anxiety that something will go wrong, and its best to circumcise because you have now created a man made alteration that serves as an "improvement" on the natural state. One where there is no more "worry".

Its all so irrational, so culturally ingrained that most don't see that "worry" is all just a cultural construction. But it just feels so natural to them. As a man it makes me so sad, angry, and frustrated that such a long outdated a dark period of the western world still has a vestigial hold over my gender and mutilations carried out on our bodies.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Exactly. I take issue with any doctor who thinks they have some right to pull a child's pants down without so much as a by your leave. Children deserve as much respect as adults. He should have asked both the parent and the child first and got their okay. 

It's not just that they think the young male is likely to have issues that need looking at, but how they have more of 'do whatever' to boys/boys don't need privacy, but a more polite circumspect way with girls.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

perspective said:


> Its this idea that the young male's natural state is prone to disfunction more often than not. That there is anxiety that something will go wrong, and its best to circumcise because you have now created a man made alteration that serves as an "improvement" on the natural state.
> .


This attitude that, so sadly, is still pervasive among many doctors is about as arrogant as one could imagine. Do they think that nature made a mistake with little boys?


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

They probably do since their attitude is one of it's a ticking time bomb that will require removal at some point, rather than a normal body part no more dangerous than any other.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

joandsarah77 said:


> They probably do since their attitude is one of it's a ticking time bomb that will require removal at some point, rather than a normal body part no more dangerous than any other.


I guess common sense is not so common and logic is non existent! I have been trying to wrap my head around that mindset for decades, and I'm no further ahead.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

The way I see it is for whatever reason they see the foreskin as problem prone because they believe erroneously that it needs to be retractable early. Many boys in the US have been retracted and cleaned before being ready causing them issues of yeast, micro tears leading to infection. For some the damage was repeated enough to cause unnatural tightening of the foreskin due to scar tissue leaving them no other choice. These tales of 'foreskin troubles' got passed down and around. Someone always knows some brother/cousin/family friend who had to be circumcised at age six through to adult for "repeated nasty infections/extreamly tight foreskin". The fact that poor kid only had infections because some adult was messing around with a body part that is meant to be left alone is somehow never filtered down into their brain maybe because the US would rather keep that ingrained mind set. To confront the mind set means people need to admit either harming their child, having or perpetrating unnecessary surgery (either as a newborn or latter for one of these issues) If doctors as a whole started giving and knowing correct information this might stand a chance of dying but since more boys are still being harmed by doctor check ups every day across the US there isn't much hope for the average parent who takes their doctors advise as some gold standard. I don't care how many letters someone has before their name, it doesn't necessarily make them intelligent or have any common sense.

I replied to two mothers today whose infants had been retracted at the hands of some clown doctor. I always tell them to file a letter of complain with their States medical board and send them a Don't Retract pack from Saving Son's, but I don't generally hear back if they did this or not. My guess is many say nothing and simply switch doctors leaving the 'doctor' to continue hurting more children.


----------

