JohnC
21-03-2009, 09:23
A common argument against allowing a boy to make his own decision about circumcision is that performing the procedure on infants is both less traumatic and produces a better result. The first claim is partly discussed in this recent thread (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=3589826#post3589826).
But the "better result" claim is also palpable nonsense.
Warning: the text that follows contains direct links to images of adult penises. If you do not want to view these images, do not click on the links.
The infant penis is different in a many ways from that of an adult, but one of the most obvious is that the amount of penile skin relative to penis size is much greater. Newborns as a result tend to have much longer foreskins than they will have as adults, but there is no way of knowing what the final adult outcome will be for any baby.
So how much to cut? The almost inevitable answer is too much, since parents want an "acceptable result", ie complete exposure of the glans. The adult result can be seen in this typical circumcised penis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flaccid-erect.jpg) (so typical in fact it is used to illustrate the Wikipedia article). The penile skin is so taut at erection that it is almost totally immobilised, and the scrotal skin is ascending up the shaft. One might also note that this penis has a small skin bridge, one of many deformities that can be caused by RIC, which probably both its owner and his parents believed was "normal". By way of comparison, this is Wikipedia's companion image of a typical intact penis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Homme.jpg).
The second problem is that while the foreskin may look like a circular sleeve, retraction quickly shows it is not. Its complex structure is defined by the frenular, or ridged band, that is in fact an elliptical loop tethered by the frenulum itself, whose apex is embedded in the meatal slit.
Because RIC is inevitably performed by circular clamps, this creates a problem for the operator, which is "solved" by incising and often totally removing the frenulum itself. Ablation of the frenulum can be clearly seen here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3367935869_958e7dbfa7_o.jpg), compared with an intact penis (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3370114056_c74c26da78_o.jpg). Note also another common side-effect, not only has the frenulum been removed but a significant portion of the ventral area of the glans (head) with it. Again the owner would probably be completely unaware that he had been so badly damaged as an infant.
The frenulum, by the way, is often referred to as the male G-spot.
Adult cosmetic circumcision does not carry any of these risks (barring mishap), and clients are able to specify outcomes such as "tightness" and frenular integrity in advance of the procedure, which in any case is now usually done with the "sleeve" method, which can leave the actual foreskin structure completely intact while still permanently exposing the glans.
But the "better result" claim is also palpable nonsense.
Warning: the text that follows contains direct links to images of adult penises. If you do not want to view these images, do not click on the links.
The infant penis is different in a many ways from that of an adult, but one of the most obvious is that the amount of penile skin relative to penis size is much greater. Newborns as a result tend to have much longer foreskins than they will have as adults, but there is no way of knowing what the final adult outcome will be for any baby.
So how much to cut? The almost inevitable answer is too much, since parents want an "acceptable result", ie complete exposure of the glans. The adult result can be seen in this typical circumcised penis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flaccid-erect.jpg) (so typical in fact it is used to illustrate the Wikipedia article). The penile skin is so taut at erection that it is almost totally immobilised, and the scrotal skin is ascending up the shaft. One might also note that this penis has a small skin bridge, one of many deformities that can be caused by RIC, which probably both its owner and his parents believed was "normal". By way of comparison, this is Wikipedia's companion image of a typical intact penis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Homme.jpg).
The second problem is that while the foreskin may look like a circular sleeve, retraction quickly shows it is not. Its complex structure is defined by the frenular, or ridged band, that is in fact an elliptical loop tethered by the frenulum itself, whose apex is embedded in the meatal slit.
Because RIC is inevitably performed by circular clamps, this creates a problem for the operator, which is "solved" by incising and often totally removing the frenulum itself. Ablation of the frenulum can be clearly seen here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3367935869_958e7dbfa7_o.jpg), compared with an intact penis (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3370114056_c74c26da78_o.jpg). Note also another common side-effect, not only has the frenulum been removed but a significant portion of the ventral area of the glans (head) with it. Again the owner would probably be completely unaware that he had been so badly damaged as an infant.
The frenulum, by the way, is often referred to as the male G-spot.
Adult cosmetic circumcision does not carry any of these risks (barring mishap), and clients are able to specify outcomes such as "tightness" and frenular integrity in advance of the procedure, which in any case is now usually done with the "sleeve" method, which can leave the actual foreskin structure completely intact while still permanently exposing the glans.