# Partial Circumcision????



## TattooedMama (Aug 31, 2005)

I thought I had heard it all..... has anyone else heard of this? Just "taking a little off the top" so to speak? I am not making this up BTW, I met someone who did this to their boys. It looks like a partial retraction all the time. WTF?
Any thoughts on why a doctor would agree to this? There is no such thing as "halfway" with genital mutilation, folks.


----------



## myfairbabies (Jun 4, 2006)

Just sounds like a loose circumcision, which is, imo, better than a full one. Makes it easier to restore, less chance of a tight erection, and as long as they don't pull apart the adhesions, probably less trauma.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

My mother claims one of my brothers has this. His wife would disagree w/ the less tight erection and adhesions, I think. I may see if she can weigh in on this w/o sharing my brother's anatomy w/ the whole world.


----------



## BamaDude (Aug 17, 2006)

A "partial" circumcision is right up there with "a little bit" pregnant: Either you are, or you aren't.







:


----------



## Voltige (Mar 11, 2006)

I gave birth at a free standing birth center and this was the kind of circ they offered- said right up front that less skin was removed. Of course, they discouraged any circ (my son is intact) and it was something the parent had to arrange privately and bring the child back for weeks later. I've seen the results on a friend's child







: and it does look like a permanent partial retraction. Everything except the very tip of the glans is covered by the foreskin.


----------



## gridley13 (Sep 3, 2004)

Yeah, those babies are just a little bit mutilated. Not a lot, just a little.







:


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Because of the problems that can be caused by cutting off too much foreskin (and how can one tell on an infant how big his erect penis will be as an adult??!), many doctors today are erring on the side of caution and cutting off less. While I appreciate the reduced risk of lifelong problems with tight erections and scrotal skin pulled up on the shaft, a loose circumcision presents its own set of problems.

First of all, the risk of adhesions is much greater, and many parents (and doctors!) believe they need to tear those adhesions, at great pain to the baby (not to mention risk of infection and scarring). Then there's the "look like Daddy" issue - I have seen many parents complain that their baby doesn't "look" circumcised - so they bring him back in to have it done "right"







: .

And what of the supposed "medical benefits"? Even if you believe that the medical benefits of circumcision are valid, is that the case for a loose circumcision?

I really have to wonder what the point is.


----------



## Kyamo (Jun 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nd_deadhead* 
I have seen many parents complain that their baby doesn't "look" circumcised - so they bring him back in to have it done "right"







: .

This happened to my husband, his parents brought him back saying it looked like they didn't get it all, luckily the doctor said there was no reason to take any more, and they decided not to. As an adult, he definitely looks completely circumcised, no partial about it. I have no doubt that if his parents had decided to cut any more he would have had the not enough skin problems.

As for our own future children he kind of feels that it isn't a big deal either way, which I disagree with, but at least it means there will be no big argument, and any boys will be intact.


----------



## titania8 (Feb 15, 2007)

i knew a baby (at daycare) who looked like his foreskin was, gosh, how can i explain this? it looked like "they" had cut about half-way around his glans, so that he had his foreskin, and it looked like all of it was there, but it sort of hung off the glans on one side. very strange.







: i wasn't close enough to his parents to ask (i wasn't even his 'teacher') but a friend of mine ended up nanny-ing for him, i'll have to ask her if she knows what happened.

apparently there are many ways to mess up perfection.







:


----------



## VeganHeathen (Apr 17, 2007)

It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous humans are. Why even have a partial circumcision?? I don't understand why anyone has them AT ALL. Strapping a baby down and performing UNNECESSARY surgery without his consent just so he can "look like Daddy"?? Talk about following the herd. I have to say, I've not once even seen my father's penis, so WTH? That argument is the most silly, and there are many silly ones for mutilation.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

That's sort of like taking a drawstring purse and cutting the top quarter of it off. The ridged band at the tip of the foreskin is what 'gathers' or puckers the foreskin at the tip. It actually contains muscle as well as tons of nerves. A partial circumcision' or 'loose circumcision' is better than a tight circumcision, but the skin will always 'hang open' at the tip and he's probably going to be more prone to penile adhesions.

Jen


----------



## lotta_earth (Sep 21, 2009)

Due to medical reasons my 3 &1/2 yr old has to undergo a circumcision. I live in Europe and so happy I could let him stay in tact and now this. Here it is common to to offer partial or full. For me I worry about what it will look like when he is older. Also I don't want him to have to have another surgery because of problems healing. My husband wants as little as needed taken away. I agree with leaving it as natural as possible but now that we have to make that "partial or full" decision I just want to cry.


----------



## jmarroq (Jul 2, 2008)

I know someone that looks circ, but has some extra skin...like a loose vs. tight circ. I could swear his mom once said the doc decided not to do it because he didn't seem to have a lot of foreskin?? Sounds weird...but he also had a growth deficiency (pituitary gland issue) and took growth hormones as a child, so perhaps that could effect the look of it? Like, he wasn't circ, but then grew larger (all over) and outgrew the foreskin.


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

My DH has what I call a '2 or 3 skin'. I can testify that it is 2 or 300 times more fantastic than a full Circ (for me, for him, for getting him to agree to intact sons, for our future in older age, etc.) & gives them a great start on restoration.

There would never be any question for me between 'partial' or 'full' which really should be called 'radical'. I have never ever been so grateful that my DH's parents didn't have a ton of medical dollars when he was younger, or else they would have had it 'fixed'.


----------



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

lotta_earth, if you have to choose, I agree that as little as possible is best, but why does it need to be done at all? I'm just curious about the medical reason, if you can talk about it.


----------



## MyLilPwny (Feb 22, 2008)

My mate was born in Europe and has a "partial" circumcision which has left him with a good amount of foreskin. They basically just removed the top of the foreskin. I read somewhere that this type of circumcision is about 90% functional as compared to intact. I can vouch for that. My ex who had a full circumcision vs. my current mate with only a partial circumcision.......huge difference in feeling for me.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Tatiana, I think what you likely saw was the result of a "dorsal slit" which does not remove any foreskin, but tends to make it bunch up (usually on the underside). I agree with all of you that a partial circumcision is a bit better that a full one because although the ridged band has been destroyed, at least there is enough skin to comfortably accommodate an erection, and the chances are that most of the frenulum will be preserved, and that is one of the best parts.

Lotta_earth, very few children need to be circumcised. In Finland only one man in 16,000 will die without his foreskin. That is pretty good odds!! I think that often doctors jump to circumcision when presented with any foreskin problem, be it real or perceived, instead of searching out less invasive procedures that preserve the foreskin. The problem is that many doctors place little or no value on a foreskin. They are not knowledgeable about it's form and structure and do not understand it's function. If you are willing to share what your DS problem is, we might be able to point you in a direction to rectify it without compromising his integrity.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

A "partial circumcision" causes its own problems and should in no way be considered a good compromise solution.

http://www.moralogous.com/2012/02/18/he-doesnt-even-look-circumcised/


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Galatea, thank you for that - it was very interesting - as were the comments that followed.


----------

