Wednesday, May 13, 2009

WTF -- Docs Who Retract Foreskins Are Child Abusers?

I try to monitor some of the many health-related blogs on the internet, and it's amazing how much free time the anti-circumcision FLs ("foreskin lovers") seem to have. Every health blog gets attacked by the FLs who twist and turn a non-related health subject into one on their favorite subject: circumcision as a child abuse issue.

A recent posting from a pediatrician discussed the importance of doctors who examine children keeping a close eye open for child abuse. We all agree with that. But, no surprise, some whacky FL commented on the abuse of circumcision. His first line was to attack pediatricians who retract the foreskins of uncircumcised boys. WTF. The foreskin is a filthy, diseased cover that collects smegma and harmful germs in close proximity to an otherwise healthy penis. The notion that a pediatrician who gently retracts the foreskin to make sure the child's penis is okay has somehow engaged in child abuse is preposterous.

No surprise, that comment elicited even more stupid responses from anti-circ FLs. You know the argument: circumcising boys is child abuse, blah, blah, blah. Of course, they never mention that it is the healthy smart thing for parents to do to protect their children. But the image they want to conjure is that baby docs, the pediatricians, will report all circumcised boys to the authorities for "child abuse." What nonsense.

If there are any child abusers in this story, clearly it is the parents who harm their sons by failing to circumcise them at birth. Those are the real child abusers, but you won't hear stories about that.


  1. You say in your last paragraph that you dont hear stories about parents not allowing their kids to be cut. Well, here is one. When I was a young kid, I had a lot of trouble with my foreskin - it got sore, and it wouldnt pull back and hurt when I weed, made worse because I was a bedwetter, and though I know now that circumcision was racommended by the school doctor, my parents refused. When I was 11 my home broke up and I went to live with an aunt, who was a nurse and she got proper medical attention about my foreskin, and all (including me) were agreed that I needed to be cut, but here the law stepped in, because since I was under 16, parental permission was required, and my parents (mainly dad) wouldnt agree. So I had to wait till I was over 16, when I had a full radical circumcision by a surgeon that my aunt knew to be good from her nursing experience ( nurses know a lot more than most doctors about things like that), and after I'd got used to my new style cock, it was wonderful and made a terrific difference to my life.

    When I've talked about this to people, the question of "abuse" has come up, and some have said that I was abused when my aunt and the doctors examined and handled my willy to assess it, and even that it was abuse to have the operation. I think this is nonsense. I cant help the thought that my parents, for whom my willy was a no-go area and for whom my soreness and so on were simply things to be ashamed of, my bedwetting included, were the ones that were the abusers, as you say in your post.

  2. Jamie, thanks so much for posting. It was hard not to be moved by your sad story that validates my point. Parents who refuse to circumcise their sons are child abusers, if anyone is, and certainly in your case their decision caused you unnecessary pain and agony. I hope you are doing much better now, and thanks again for letting us hear about your story.

  3. You don't know the first thing about the foreskin, do you? The first thing is that it is usually fully attached to the glans at birth, like a fingernail to a nailbed, and gradually frees itself over a period of years, sometimes not until puberty. Forcibly retracting it before it is ready causes a lot of problems. This seems to be what happened to jamie. He certainly needed better treatment than he got, not necessarily circumcision.

    "The notion that a pediatrician who gently retracts the foreskin to make sure the child's penis is okay has somehow engaged in child abuse is preposterous." Nobody said "gently", and that is certainly no way to "make sure it is okay".

  4. Listen to Hugh - he knows the score. You aren't supposed to retract the foreskin because it is attached to the glans at birth. It should be left to separate naturally. It is usually this incorrect care that causes the problems you mention. Care for an intact boy is EASIER. There is no wound to take care of. No risk of the foreskin re-attaching forming a skin bridge. Many other complications can be seen at Hugh's site -

    So circumcision is a dangerous useless operation for most babies - FACT. I am not as opposed to therapeutic circumcision but non-therapeutic circumcision is wrong. Case in point. I am not circumcised and very glad I have retained the most sensitive part of my penis. My glans has not been exposed and lost sensitivity. If you would have had your way I would have been circumcised. The very fact that I would have been unhappy about this shows up the ethical problem with what you are campaigning for. It is utterly stupid and will never happen. I doubt you will respond to me or Hugh - it is clear you are not thinking rationally and that there are other reasons for your circumfetishism.

  5. Hugh is right when he says about kid's foreskins getting looser as they grow, but I think whether it's "natural" or not depends on how you use the word. I think most kids do like I did. At 5 or so my foreskin wouldn't pull back, but I played with it in bed at night, and soon found that underneath the skin there was a funny little cherry like some of my friends had, and in playing naturally with the skin, it slowly stretched without pain or strain, till when I was 8 or so it would go back freely. I did what I'm sure most kids do, and to that extent, it's natural.

    With me, the trouble started when one day I was caught with the skin back because I grew to like the feel of it that way, and I was told how wicked I was playing with my willy like that - more or less the idea that every little boy has a bit of the devil in him, and it lives in his willy. Anyway, I was impressed with all this nonsense, and with the beating I got because of it, so I didnt pull my foreskin back any more, and, as I've learned since is common, it closed up again.

    A couple of years later, though, I worked again at trying to pull the skin back, but this time it got sore and infected and with ballooning when I weed and so on, and again there was a row, and I had to be taken to the doctor, who wanted me to be cut, but dad would not allow it.

    So that is part of my story as it related to Hugh's comment. If I had been left alone to do the natural thing with my foreskin, it's possible I might still have it, though I doubt it. But I dont, and I'm much happier as I am.

  6. You mock those who oppose infant circumcision for the amount of free time they dedicate, yet there you are following the same threads. You probably shouldn't be throwing that stone.

    Worse, you run with a claim that you do not support with a link to the source for the reader to follow and see proof of these statements. Perhaps it exists; one can find lots of interesting things on the Internet. But your word isn't enough, particularly when you run with the same absurd rhetorical style you accuse others of using. With billions of healthy intact males in the world, you call their parents abusers. And you call those who oppose infant circumcision "foreskin lovers" without providing any support for why that smear fits when it's more reasonable to infer an ethical stance. How are you different from what you ridicule?

  7. Amitai Moshe died 30 mins after being circumcised - what a disgusting barbaric practice on an innocent baby who hasnt even learnt to breathe yet

  8. I'm not circumsized and never experienced any problems with my foreskin. My foreskin naturally fully detached from the glans when I turned 12. I don't understand why people think they need to pull it back any earlier than that or before the body is ready to do so. Circ'd or not, it is medically proven that there are no medical advantages to one or the other. Penal infections in kids with foreskins happen at the same rate as kids without it. Sounds like the author had a bad experience but you can't generalize. I am originally from South America and in all of my life I've only heard of one fellow uncircumsized friend that had an issue with his penis but it was mainly because of an anomally. The only circumsized kids in my country were jewish kids and they were picked on for it which was just childish and immature stuff. I chose not to circ my two kids because I really don't think it would provide them with any advantages in life and I can't think of why I would want to inflict that amount of pain on an infant.

    FYI, if you clean your penis every day, you will not observe any of the disgusting dirty things you mention above. All of the american women that have had a chance to handle my uncirc'd antatomy have enjoyed it very much just as it is.

  9. Be sure to let the doctors know your wishes about having your sons circumsized. Some doctors in America just assume you want it done or will do it according to their beliefs. I let everyone know in writing that if any of my sons foreskins are removed then they can expect a lawsuit. Its an old tradition thats outdated and really just mutilation. I wish I still had mine. Supposed to make sex more enjoyable.

  10. "The foreskin is a filthy, diseased cover that collects smegma and harmful germs in close proximity to an otherwise healthy penis." This is pure Bull Shit! The circ folks will continue to lie about foreskin. You folks are a sad lot!