Circ myths 3 - "younger the better"

[JohnC]

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.

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 (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.

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, compared with an intact penis. 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.

[bubbalub]

Wow, that is REALLY interesting to see the difference. It makes me so glad that I left my DS in tact, eu naturale

Pity it's too late for DH

Thanks for that!

[JohnC]

It occurs to me I should make clear that nothing of what I've discussed or illustrated in the OP would be regarded as a medical complication or even poor cosmesis.

These are the "normal" results of infant circumcision.

[WitchHazel]

Oh dear. I've seen pictures of infant penises that have a blue tinge (and in some cases, MORE than blue). Do you know if the blueness lasts into adulthood?

[mum2cooper]

Originally Posted by LG

It makes me so glad that I left my DS in tact

.

Thanks for sharing that JohnC, very interesting read indeed.

[Phyllis Stein]

That is unbelievable. I knew most of it in theory, but to see it so clearly is just... much more awful.

[JohnC]

Originally Posted by WitchHazel

Oh dear. I've seen pictures of infant penises that have a blue tinge (and in some cases, MORE than blue). Do you know if the blueness lasts into adulthood?

While natural complexion of the glans can vary quite a bit between individuals, a blue tinge would indicate damage to the vascular system and will probably fade over time. (Or it could just be a picture that has not been properly white-balanced!). If you look again at the first picture you will see the skin bridge is actually sitting astride a vein that has re-established itself post-circ and is draining venous blood from the glans.

Circumcision scars however can have a permanent odd coloration, particularly when a Gomco clamp has been used.

[JohnC]

Of course, "too much" tissue removal can easily become outright mutilation as in this case from the past week: $2.3M awarded in suit over botched circumcision.

Of particular note is the final paragraph:

This case does point out one of the dangers of circumcision that every parent must seriously consider when having the procedure done,� Llewellyn said. He contended that parents are not told of the risks of the procedure.

[bubbalub]

Reading that story made me feel sick in the stomach. Poor boy

Whilst I'm sure that sort of thing is quite rare, it is a real concern and I hope that all parents considering circumcision are made aware of that very real risk.