Forum Index
»
Expectant and Postpartum Moms
How does circumcision work?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I would have to agree with this last post. the study is flawed and I forsee too that rates of circumcision in the US will drop. Much has to do with reimbursement and awareness of no "medical" advantages of circs. In the end the only boys who may get circumcision are those who get it for "religious" reasons. Personally as a physician I do see an advantage in "cleanliness" with a circ, some mothers don't know how to or cannot be bothered to clean foreskin in the young ones and the same goes for some adults, but overall if the foreskin is kept clean there should not be any problems. As far as HIV is concerned it is not that circs will prevent it or other diseases but the theory that the "rate of infection" could be decreased is plausible but not proven. I think in the end this will become a parental decision, a religious decision and a personal decision. It also depends on what one is culturally brought up with , in that regards a change in culture is very likely than a change in religion. |
Anonymous
How do you properly clean the foreskin in a young child? Also, why aren't we concerned in a similar way about the "cleanliness" of little girls? Certainly they have more folds than uncircumcised boys. No one ever thinks we should cut off any of their extra skin. |
Anonymous
|
in all honesty I have not in practice seen girls with unclean genitals. with the baby boys mothers often forget to pull the skin back and clean it, and babies present with infections and other issues. as boys grow older sometimes proper teaching is not done. I also mentioned that if kept clean it should not be a problem. the folds in girls are not like the foreskin and cleaning is relatively easier, although sometimes I have seen girls with similar problems but not as much as boys. The worst is when I see an adult man with unclean foresekin and as you know if that stays under the skin it could cause phimosis in babies and other infections.
I don't promote circs on the basis of this, I just mentioned an advantage that I have noticed in practice 
|
Anonymous
| Just to clarify, girls don't have "foreskin" like boys, there is NO equivalent in girls and I always advice about cleaning in both boys and girls. to properly clean the foreskin, it has to be pulled back, washed and cleansed with soap and dried, this can be done at bath time.at other times, just cleaning gently will prevent collection. |
Anonymous
How are you defining unclean? Buildup of smegma? Smegma is normal and indicates that the foreskin is detaching and that the penis is cleaning itself properly. Girls get smegma too, and in most cases it comes out on its own or rinses away easily. Maybe you are referring to something else. Smegma does not equal dirty, nor does it normally cause infection.
Interestingly, girls do indeed have a foreskin. The anatomically correct term, in both boys and girls, is the prepuce. In both cases, the prepuce becomes retractible gradually during the pre-pubescent years, and its function is to cover and protect the glans. While I will agree with you that they are not exactly the same in boys and girls in appearance and size, their function is the same so I think it is wrong to say that there is "no equivalent." One very common form of female circumcision, which is illegal in the United States, is the removal of the female foreskin.
Really? You advise that little girls use soap inside their clitorial hoods and labia? That would be irritating, wouldn't it? As for little boys, the advice you are giving is not only wrong, but dangerous. As I'm sure you know, the foreskin is FUSED to the glans (often until age 3 or beyond) and should NEVER be pulled back. The correct way to clean the penis in babies is to wipe it like you wipe a finger. In fact, pulling the foreskin back before it is retractable, especially repeatedly, is the very thing that leads to small tears in the foreskin, which causes infections and scar tissue, which can lead to phimosis. Many theories exist that the reason we see higher rates of infection in uncircumcised boys in the United States is because historically pediatricians have told parents to retract and clean their little boys - much as you have recommended here. This practice of retraction "to clean" actually causes damage to the penis. Parents can watch closely for when their sons foreskin becomes retractable. Usually the little boy discovers this himself. When that happens, it still might be months or years before it is fully retractable - so still, no one should be pushing it back to clean with soap. Soap would be very irritating to the glans, since the glans (when covered with a foreskin) is an internal organ. I will agree with you that as the child gets older, and can easily pull back the foreskin *on his own*, then he should be taught to rinse thoroughly every day and use a gentle soap as needed. Please tell me that, as a physician, you are not advising people to retract their baby's or little boys foreskins! From the American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_Uncircumcised.htm |
Anonymous
|
I think you misunderstand when I say retract. I certainly don't mean "pulling" it. Agree with the rest you said, but I do stand corrected, and have read the article and will use that for practice.
|
Anonymous
|
Okay, what did you mean then?
By the way, ANY pulling the foreskin back towards the childs body is considered retraction. Even if you pull back "just a little to check." Still technically retraction. Still potentially damaging. Still possibly responsible for the increased rate of UTI, other infections and phimosis in uncircumcised boys in the United States. Note that non-circumcising countries like England, Germany, China, Brazil, Spain, Norway and Canada (just to name a few) do not have the same number of infections in uncirced children that we seem to have. Why do you suppose that is? I'll answer for you (LOL): it's because they teach their parents to NEVER pull back the foreskin. Period. Not even to "check." Not even to catheterize their babies. And especially not to clean. In the United States, the vast majority of the medical indications for circumcision are iatrogenic in the first place. Caused by our vastly inappropriate understanding of and handling of the foreskin. Pretty funny, eh? |
Anonymous
| Thank you, THANK YOU to 13:06/15:15 for correcting the well-intentioned but ill-informed advice for care of the intact penis. |
Anonymous
Some Brazilians do circumsize and not just for religious reasons. Please stop arguing. This is stupid. |
Anonymous
|
Thank you, PP. It is stupid.
And I am so tired of these upper middle class anti-circ mothers obsessing about everyone's penis. STOP LECTURING already. |
Anonymous
|
Oh, so you want to make this a class thing? Ewwwwww..........
And, no one is lecturing. Just correcting misinformation. |
Anonymous
This is opinion, not fact. Not to long ago there was a Mohel in NY spreading herpes to babies via his mouth. Yes, some Mohels use their mouths. |
Anonymous
| Having had sex with both types, circ and uncir - believe me, have it done. |
Anonymous
|
What?
Yes, moms who want to circumcise, your babies will get herpes! Not only are you a bad mother, you will be making your child diseased, too. Bonus! MYOB |
Anonymous
Curious about why--can you share, or TMI? |