Foreskin functions

[Father]

I just posted this in a 'discuss it' thread. I thought I would repost it here for longevity and for others to comment.

The anti-circ crowd regularly talk about how important the foreskin is. They also regularly link to the circumstitions website as one of authority. I had a look at what they say the 'functions' of the foreskin are, and ended up quite enjoying what I was reading.

Here is the link.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html

Lets go through them hey? (suggest you open the list up in another window/tab)
1. I don't need any more pleasure down there. It's sensitive enough.
2. I don't need a "rolling bearing". It's not a wheel.
3. Haven't had painful intercourse in my life (this happens to be more common with those with a foreskin due to phimosis out of interest).
4. This doesn't even make sense????? It's retracted and around the penis. Unless he is tickling you with it whilst he is flacid??? Weird.
5. Just like fat rolls on your stomach I guess.
6. Do they smell nice? Might have to get myself a jar to dab on myself prior to my next encounter as I obviously have limited storage ability.
7. Everyone loves Smegma.
8. An erection if obvious enough - if she can't recognise arousal without a foreskin, I guess she needs to work a bit harder.
9. What happens if the seal breaks? Does an uncircumcised penis have no 'sealant' qualities? What about the really really big ones?
10. It gets plenty moist when things start to happen, don't you worry about that.
11. Hmmmm. Interesting story. Should I tell a story about those dangerous zippers and what they can do with some loose skin??
12. Sounds like they are struggling. That sound just like the one above.
13. In infancy, it is also a known cause of UTI's. Weird.
14. Nearly had me there with some big words. So now it stops infections? Is this a good time to provide some stats regarding infection rates between circ'd and uncirc'd? Let me know.
15. Sunburn. Hmmm. Is it legal to get it out in the sun? It's amazing that the foreskin is so special that it is also immune to getting sunburnt. It's like super skin.
16. Ouch. Frostbite. That sounds nasty. Lucky I don't have a habit of putting the little fella in the snow.... well, not for long periods anyway. Again, the foresking must be immune to frostbite too! Definitely super skin.
17. I'm sorry I can't help out with the eyelid thing. Or can I? I guess mine is probably walking around on someone's eye right now! How selfless of me. Maybe others should be more generous and donate theirs to other eyelids around the world too.
18. Yep. If you have hypospadius, you will need to get rid of it.
19. This one is my favourite. I sort of wish I wasn't circumcised afterall.
20. WTF? ..... now that I've stopped laughing..... anyone for a tissue?
21. WTF? This is my new favourite. Do you think they would eat them afterwards?
22. Maybe our customs guys should now be more thorough at the airports? "Excuse me sir, can you please open your foreskin - I need to check for drugs".

I guess it really shows how important it is afterall. I can now say with even more confidence - "I am not missing a thing, and I'm glad I don't have one".

[Guest1234]

Thanks for the laugh, Father. Can't believe they list some of those things as a function. Putting M&Ms in it? Smuggling drugs, jewelry and money? :laughing:

[LoveyDovey]

:laughing:

Great thread! You have a great sense of humor...some of those visualizations!! :D

[maria02]

Wow that's a crazy website. Was it originally created as a joke or something? Thanks for the laugh!


My little munchkin due May 2012! So to keep me busy till then, I'm learning how to use my iPhone.

[Father]

:laughing:

Great thread! You have a great sense of humor...some of those visualizations!! :D

Thanks.

I might have to go through more of their fantastic website for a second edition.;)

Stay tuned.

[SmithJane]

:laughing: Great work.

[katherinelouise]

Well, I'm convinced. But at what age do you start teaching them the M&M thing? Or do you start smaller and move up to them?

Oh no, inappropriate thought just in! Is it Smarties or M&Ms that melt in you mouth, not in your hand? How I wish DP weren't cut, we could do some serious research here.

[JohnC]

For the purposes of this forum, the principal relevant function of the foreskin for infants is protection of the glans, particularly the meatus. I don't think there is any controversy over this. What is in dispute is the incidence of at least some degree of meatal stenosis as a long-term complication of infant circumcision. Reports going back to the 19th century suggest narrowing of the urethral opening is more prevalent in circumcised populations, and there is at least a plausible biological explanation why this might be so: namely, irritation and ulceration of the exposed meatus in infants, as well as damage to the frenular artery as a result of the procedure itself. Modern peer-reviewed reports of incidence in the US, suggest some degree of stenosis may affect up to 10 per cent of circumcised boys.

This (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1016016-overview#showall) is a standard, mainstream urological article discussing the issue.

I am not putting this forward as an argument, one way or another, for or against routine circumcision, but clearly parents who do opt for circumcision of their infant sons should at least be aware of this not uncommon problem.

[Father]

Modern peer-reviewed reports of incidence in the US, suggest some degree of stenosis may affect up to 10 per cent of circumcised boys.

Another example of some anti-circ hysteria. Thanks for that. A nicely cherry picked percentage there. It's also weird how they quote 7.29% in the study, but then round up to 9-10%? I guess 7.29% wasn't scary enough.

Here are couple of other percentages for you with some links.

This one has a 11% figure on it! Before you get excited, these all happened after circumcision of boys who had phimosis (a foreskin problem which subsequently required a circumcision).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3749823 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3749823)

Now lets looks at healthy boys without foreskin problems.

Around half of these Iranian Muslim boys circumcised in this one were circumcised 'traditionally' - ie. not doctors. Even then, only 0.9% ended up with meatal stenosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16649052

This one shows only 0.55%, but a great reduction in UTIs.
It's conclusion:

CONCLUSION:
Neonatal circumcision has few complications and reduces the incidence of asymptomatic urinary infection. It may be considered as a preventative health measure.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115400

And then if you use the modern plastibell method with a properly qualified doctor, it as a 0% strike rate.

The Plastibell method leaves a varying amount of foreskin intact, which could well explain why meatal ulcers/stenosis are not seen when employing this method.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3384610

Anyway John, maybe it should be back to the anti-circ section to preach your hysteria....... and maybe talk about your latest M&M stats.;)

[hopefully2]

Omg well done. So over those anti circ bullies.


Sent from my iPhone using Bub Hub app

[MsEnchantress]

Not to mention the health & cleanliness @ old age...
Off with it I say

[JohnC]

Father,

I don't think my post was either "anti-circ" or "hysterical". The link I gave was not to a "cherry-picked" research paper, but Medscape Reference guidelines (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1016016-overview#showall) for primary-care physicians in the US. It did not take a position on the pro's or con's of circumcision, and neither did I. I also specifically stated that the incidence of meatal stenosis was "in dispute".

In any case, you seem not have read the guidelines or my post very closely, since the two papers you mentioned that specifically addressed late complications and meatal stenosis were:

An Iranian study of boys who had almost universally been circumcised after the age of two years, and
A small (43 cases) and old (1988) Danish study encompassing boys with a variety of ages only partially circumcised (hence the reference to sufficient remnant foreskin to allow smegma accumulation!).


Now the problem of stenosis is specifically related to circumcision of infants who have not been toilet trained (see the guidelines to which I linked).

Meatal stenosis is often not serious enough to warrant further intervention, but where correction is required the procedure is simple and safe (the rate of complication is probably no greater than circumcision itself). However, the apparent incidence figures do support the proposition that if parents wish to circumcise their sons they should wait until the boy is out of nappies.

As for the Plastibell/EMLA method, it should be noted that while it is relatively inexpensive, most paediatric urologists and surgeons believe it carries a higher risk of complication. But this may simply be a result of the fact that Plastibell is the preferred method for infants carried out by GPs, while ligature and suture (ie formal wound closure) is inevitably the method of choice for older boys and performed in a hospital setting. I don't have strong views on this one way or the other, but I would suggest parents who have decided to opt for circumcision discuss the method and age with their doctor rather than rely on internet "research".

[RaryGirl]

Please remember this is NOT the discuss it section, it is the PRO section.

I will leave John C's reply to Father at this stage, but if the thread continues as a 'discussion' it will be moved to the appropriate section or closed.

Please respect the section this has been posted in.


---------------
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse the typing missed cakes.

[Father]

Please remember this is NOT the discuss it section, it is the PRO section.

Thanks RaryGirl.

Now back to the topic of M&Ms!:)

[SmithJane]

Now back to the topic of M&Ms!:)

I wonder what the record is?:rolleyes: Any guesses?

[Father]

I wonder what the record is?:rolleyes: Any guesses?

I just tried googling that up.:freakingout:
Clicked on a couple of links.....but I don't think I'll do that again.:no: It was a little disturbing.
Maybe someone else who is a bit braver can help you out with that one. Sorry.

[SmithJane]

I just tried googling that up.:freakingout:
Clicked on a couple of links.....but I don't think I'll do that again.:no: It was a little disturbing.
Maybe someone else who is a bit braver can help you out with that one. Sorry.

I have to admit, that you successfully tempted me to look into this myself.

OMG. There are some very weird people out there.:eek:

Apparently there was a guy called Jason Ellis (a pro-skater) who stuffed 50 of them in there on some sort of TV show! Pretty disgusting if you ask me!:no:

Not sure if this the record though. I had to stop after seeing what I had seen:freakingout:

[Blobby2]

Hilarious! I may google the m&m one day but I am a little scared.... ;)

[SarahTamar]

But Father! Men with no foreskin have never known the joy of creating a lightglobe!!! One of life's greatest pleasures for a young man, or so I've heard.

[tiggerfields]

Lol. Sadly, those with no foreskin also don't get to try out the Puppetry of the Penis tricks :lol:

[jbr]

I take my hat off to u. Very good points raised anf fully agree. But m&ms? Hmmm.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub

[Kyls]

So so funny. Was giggling out loud for ages.

[Father]

But Father! Men with no foreskin have never known the joy of creating a lightglobe!!! One of life's greatest pleasures for a young man, or so I've heard.

Well. You might have to write in a suggest an addition:)
Is there a burning risk?

[Kimberleygal1]

That's priceless :laughing: My husband will enjoy reading that!

[veve]

Due to some unacceptable breaches of the bubhub rules (and gobsmacking petty personalised attacks) in this thread .. I've closed it.

I avoid this area of the forum for personal reasons - and I get irked when I have no choice but to wander in here ... please refrain from breaking the rules, it makes for a rather cranky forum administrator.