# A conversation with my grandmother



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

I was visiting with my grandmother yesterday and ended up changing my son's diaper on the floor (behind the coffee table) as there didn't seem to be any other suitable surface. My grandmother hopped out of her chair and came around the table to take a peek. However, her view was obstructed by the cloth I had strategically placed in order to prevent a random pee incident. So this led to the first mention of circumcision that anyone (anyone at all, other than perhaps me) has made since his birth.

Grandma: Did you have to have him circumcised?
Me [keeping things simple]: Nope. They don't do that in Nova Scotia anymore.
G [as it turns out, clearly anti-circ]: I wish my boys were born in Nova Scotia.
M: Well, it was done in Nova Scotia 30-50 years ago. It's just not done anymore.
G: They don't circumcise anymore?
M: Well, they do. Just not around here. It still happens in the States and even in other provinces.
G: Isn't that marvelous. When my kids were born, I had a choice.
M: Uh-huh. Well, in most places there is a choice, but they don't even ask around here.
[I thought that this would end the conversation but instead it took an unexpected turn.]
G: I had to choose whether to have them circumcised or to have them stretched.
M: Uh ... "Stretched"?
G: Yes. You know... They had to stretch the foreskin out so that I could pull it back to clean it.
M: Uh ... So you chose to have them... "stretched"?
G: Oh yes. I couldn't imagine cutting on a baby. But it was a real pain for me. I hated doing it. I couldn't always get the foreskin to go back down afterwards.
M [starting to recover]: Oh. Um. Well. They don't do that here anymore either.
G: What do you mean?
M: They don't stretch them and we don't have to pull back the foreskin to clean them. Research has shown that the foreskin will stretch on its own when it is ready and that there is no need to clean under it until this happens.
G: Wow. Isn't that marvelous?
M: Yes.








G: What a difference 50 years makes.
M: What a difference indeed.

As a point of interest, this is the first time I realized that my father is not circumcised, which really screws up once again my childhood understanding of the difference between an adult penis and a child penis. As a child, I regularly saw members of my family in the nude, and I noticed a difference between my father and my brothers in that my father's penis "had a head" and my brothers' did not. I assumed at the time that it was related to maturation. Later, when I found out about circumcision, I thought I had figured out that that was the difference. But now I am back to square one. Why did my father appear to be circumcised if he is not? Is it a result of the "stretching" process? Or do they not look that different once they reach adulthood?

This is an argument against the effectiveness of making these decisions in order to "look like daddy.


----------



## Night_Nurse (Nov 23, 2007)

Re. "stretching" -





















- wow!

Concerning the difference in your dad vs brothers, it could be one of two things. First, your dad may just have a shorter foreskin than your brothers. Some males look a bit more naturally circed and have a shorter foreskin. Or two, your dad may have opted to get a circ as an adult and just didn't tell your grandmother.


----------



## MyBoysBlue (Apr 27, 2007)

This is the first time I have heard of something similar to what happened to my DH when he was born. In New Brunswick 30+ years ago. His mother was given the choice to either circumcise or what she calls dilation (translating from french). She chose dilation, no one in my DH's family was circumcised. They made a small cut to open the sphincter then forcefully retracted. She was supposed to continue to retract and clean. Luckily for my DH his mom listened to her mom and just left him be after that and never continued the retraction. He healed up fine and never had any problems with his foreskin. I'm starting to wonder if this was an eastern Canadian thing.

Some men will keep their foreskin pulled back he just may have been one of them.


----------



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyBoysBlue* 
Luckily for my DH his mom listened to her mom and just left him be after that and never continued the retraction. He healed up fine and never had any problems with his foreskin.

That's good to hear. Although if the doctors were promoting this at birth, I imagine there was a lot of retraction going on during well baby visits, as we hear about often in this forum.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyBoysBlue* 
I'm starting to wonder if this was an eastern Canadian thing.

My father and his brothers were born in Toronto. Although some people consider that to be eastern Canada.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyBoysBlue* 
Some men will keep their foreskin pulled back he just may have been one of them.

It could be that. Especially if his mother wasn't always able to pull the skin back down after cleaning. He might have gotten used to it that way.


----------



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Night_Nurse* 
Or two, your dad may have opted to get a circ as an adult and just didn't tell your grandmother.

I would be very surprised if this was the case because it seems to me that he has always been somewhat of an intactivist. This comes up whenever there is a discussion about children's rights. I assumed it was because he was upset that he didn't have the choice himself. However, maybe he did choose circumcision later in life and then he regretted it and that's why he's an intactivist now.

Well, maybe the issue will come up again in conversation around DS with the rest of my family. I assumed that I wouldn't have to tell my family how to change his diaper since they are used to intact boys, but now I feel the need to double check with them to make sure that they know not to retract.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Wow, that is very interesting.... I'm sorta speechless. I sorta wonder if that is how circumcision was promoted to a generation of intact families... that they told the new parents that if they didn't circumcise they would have to manipule the foreskin all the time and circumcision would just be easier.
Jessica


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

What a fascinating conversation with your grandmother!! I could not help laughing, thinking of the look on your face!! Sorry - just too funny!!

I have heard of cultures who practiced retraction from an early age, as opposed to allowing nature to take it's own course, but this is the first time that I have ever heard of parents being given a choice of either circumcision or dilation followed by continual retraction. It would seem that this was fairly widespread - N.B. to Toronto.

One has to wonder how the medical profession became so obsessed with the need to clean under a foreskin when thousands of years of evolution had proved otherwise. It would be very interesting to interview the doctor who's services your grandmother used to find out what the thinking was in those days.

With regard to your Dad, I agree that it is possible he had himself circumcised later in life, but I think it much more likely that he just "wore" his foreskin retracted. It probably got somewhat 'trained' that way with being retracted all the time as a child, or he may have chosen to do it in order to 'fit in' with circumcised peers.


----------



## japonica (May 26, 2005)

Quote:

One has to wonder how the medical profession became so obsessed with the need to clean under a foreskin when thousands of years of evolution had proved otherwise. It would be very interesting to interview the doctor who's services your grandmother used to find out what the thinking was in those days.
Yeah, it's funny because even a few decades ago, retract and clean was written into childcare books and babysitting manuals. I recall reading up on baby care for babysitting when I was 13 and reading the part about "you must retract and clean under the foreskin at every diaper change," and thinking, ugh, I hope I never have to babysit any boys.

And just by luck I never did, so at least I didn't do what the manual advised. Thank goodness.


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessjgh1* 
Wow, that is very interesting.... I'm sorta speechless. I sorta wonder if that is how circumcision was promoted to a generation of intact families... that they told the new parents that if they didn't circumcise they would have to manipule the foreskin all the time and circumcision would just be easier.
Jessica

yes. this. exactly true.
my dad and brothers were all intact, and when i said my son will be, my mom stated that i will just have to retract the foreskin and clean underneath. knowing what i learned here (this forum), i told her that you actually should leave it alone; that retracting it when a child is young can actually start infections. from there, we figured out that's what happened to one of my brothers. he was left intact, but starting at 6 mo. well baby visit, the doctor retracted him. from there, it led to chronic problems, lasting 16 years, until he was finally circumcised at age 16. it was all the doctor's fault... and until recently, my parents never knew it.


----------



## 4chunut1 (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakunangovi* 
What a fascinating conversation with your grandmother!! I could not help laughing, thinking of the look on your face!! Sorry - just too funny!!

I have heard of cultures who practiced retraction from an early age, as opposed to allowing nature to take it's own course, but this is the first time that I have ever heard of parents being given a choice of either circumcision or dilation followed by continual retraction. It would seem that this was fairly widespread - N.B. to Toronto.

One has to wonder how the medical profession became so obsessed with the need to clean under a foreskin when thousands of years of evolution had proved otherwise. It would be very interesting to interview the doctor who's services your grandmother used to find out what the thinking was in those days.

I wonder if it became popular as living standards improved and daily bathing became easier and more common.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakunangovi* 
With regard to your Dad, I agree that it is possible he had himself circumcised later in life, but I think it much more likely that he just "wore" his foreskin retracted. It probably got somewhat 'trained' that way with being retracted all the time as a child, or he may have chosen to do it in order to 'fit in' with circumcised peers.

I agree with this possibility. I have been retractable as long as I can remember, and was probably retracted for cleaning by my mother early on. (I've had no problems as a result of that though). But the sphincters at the tip of the foreskin became well stretched, making retraction very easy.
This may be too much TMI, but I could never "train" my foreskin to remain retracted, as it was too loose. It would roll up on the glans when I would change positions sitting or sleeping. There is a way to adjust it so it will remain retracted however. When the foreskin is first retracted, it "peels" back, due to the friction between the inner foreskin and the glans. If lubrication is applied to the glans, the shaft skin can be gently tugged and the foreskin will "glide" back, rather than peeling or rolling back. The tip of the foreskin will rest behind the glans next to the sulcus, and will present a "circumcised" look, without the scar..!
There could be several reasons a person would want to do this... As Hanakunovi stated, maybe to "fit in" with circumcised peers. Other reasons may be to allow the glans to "dry off" before intercourse or masturbation, in order to reduce sensitivity. And sometimes if I get a slight rash on the glans, keeping the foreskin retracted allows the glans to dry and the rash to heal much quicker...


----------



## Black Mountain Mamas (Dec 8, 2009)

A lot of my friends did not circumcise their sons and I've seen all different lengths of foreskin. Some hang way past the head and others don't even cover the head of the penis. This might be why your father's penis appeared to "have a head".


----------



## jess_paez (Jul 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Black Mountain Mamas* 
A lot of my friends did not circumcise their sons and I've seen all different lengths of foreskin. Some hang way past the head and others don't even cover the head of the penis. This might be why your father's penis appeared to "have a head".


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 
starting at 6 mo. well baby visit, the doctor retracted him. from there, it led to chronic problems, lasting 16 years, until he was finally circumcised at age 16. it was all the doctor's fault... and until recently, my parents never knew it.

I am sure that this was far more common than most people realise, and it is my contention that all the horror stories about boys "having to be circumcised" were precipitated by ignorant doctors messing with their foreskins. If they had all been left alone to develop at natures own pace these circumcisions would never have happened.


----------

