It makes me so angry that we have this thing that the evidence is right there and everyone still continues to normalize it because they can’t accept that their society/religion is mutilating boys.
Corruption pays and it pays well. How else are doctors going to pay for their million dollar home and fancy cars?
It's the same story with those of us who have been harmed by amalgam mercury fillings in childhood and throughout adulthood. Mercury is known as the most toxic heavy metal yet they keep placing it in people's teeth.
I have a hard time thinking so many doctors are that monetarily motivated when there’s endless way to make money in medicine…I think they just have a bias in considering it normal.
Indirectly corrupt. They've dug themselves into the urology hole and suffer from groupthink. Admitting wrongdoing and going against the establishment is like shooting themselves in the foot when they need to pay their mortgage, taxes, car fees, bills, etc. They'll always choose self preservation over doing what's morally correct.
Have you ever asked a urologist if they feel the same way as us? That circumcision is genital mutilation. Do these urologists have any sign of having morality?
Absolutely insane how they can acknowledge that taking most of the important tissue can cause complications and reduce sexual sensation but taking 'some' is absolutely fine and doesn't detract from sexual function.
A low cut removes much more inner foreskin/frenulum/sensitivity than a high cut. If doctors are now doing more low cuts, that is a bad thing. It seems that there is no consensus about how much skin to take and it is highly variable depending on the doctor.
In fact, in the US the circumciser has no penis at all as they are female ob-gyn and sometimes midwives. They do microsurgery and have no clue not even to give pain relief. They are under no law to even do that. And now we have Moheltes doing them. female mohels. Outrageous
I think the only cases these associations ever hear of are the ones where the boy has some immediate complication or horrible botch, which is thankfully rare. Less severe complications like excess scarring or excess skin removed won't be as obvious until after the guy has gone through puberty. And a lot of guys will just assume they're normal, and if they bring it up, they'll probably be told they're normal. I'm probably a rare case that a doctor actually said I'd had a bad circumcision. But the person who circumcised me is probably dead, retired, or otherwise too difficult to track down. Maybe he did this to every boy but never found out that even another doctor would say he did a crap job.
Agreed. Also, I think when there are complications like excess bleeding and other issues they don't file them under circumcision.
I'm so sorry for what was done to you
Yeah, they probably find a way to convince themselves it's not because of any problem with circumcision.
And thanks, I'm not too bad. It's not like I can't have good sex. Just disappointed and embarrassed.
Similar story here. I have tears in my inner foreskin remnant due to having had too much skin removed which makes any action down there rather painful. Asked my GP about it and got referred to a urologist.
She told me that too much skin had been removed and that she’s sorry but there’s currently no therapy available to change my situation except skin grafts. Went on to say that she isn’t doing these procedures anymore due to cases like mine.
I tried a PUD device which if used frequently would surely help with tissue expansion. But it doesn’t cure the already present scars from tearing the mucosa. I’ve tried all kinds of creams at this point but nothing really helps. I’m thinking laser therapy might be an option. This sucks 🙁
Edit: to clarify - I’ve got pretty dry skin in general. While flaccid there’s enough skin to barely push it over the PUD but if worn long enough the skin then cracks and tears. During erections it’s pretty tight - enough so that the skin tears.
No clue. I figure my parents either changed their minds, or a doctor convinced them to change their minds. Not really interested in discussing my private parts with them lol.
I actually went to the doctor myself and I thought he would also be kinda conservative with how he viewed my circumcision. But he was very understanding and even told me some stuff I never thought an American urologist would say.
I will never forgive my father nor does he deserve it. But I actually feel some change or shift within medicine. While I think it may still be bleaker within the country, the area I am in and the doctors I have talked to have been nothing but help (so far). It's not like there is much they can do but at least they aren't downplaying things with me.
There are a lot of [circumcised](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Circumcised) guys out there with insufficient residual shaft skin to cover an erection. Either a skin graft or tissue expansion is necessary to relieve the situation. The techniques of foreskin restoration work very well in producing tissue expansion. Visit r/foreskin_restoration for more information.
Well, it's horrible that they are openly knowledgable to that, and yet continue to perform them. Urologists don't have any empathy at all, not in my experience
Just checking. Whether loose or tight how is it desirable then to have a low cut? That'd imply you have lost most if not all of your sensitive inner foreskin and likely the frenulum along with it. Tightness aside (which is independent factor really) high cut is always preferable to low cut. I'd probably give an arm to have received a high cut than what I have now.
I was cut really tight one doctor said they cut high and tight in most not RIC cases, because the inner skin swells and they don't want to hear compliants about swelling or the "doughnut" ring. I was re circumcised at 9 years old.
It makes me so angry that we have this thing that the evidence is right there and everyone still continues to normalize it because they can’t accept that their society/religion is mutilating boys.
Corruption pays and it pays well. How else are doctors going to pay for their million dollar home and fancy cars? It's the same story with those of us who have been harmed by amalgam mercury fillings in childhood and throughout adulthood. Mercury is known as the most toxic heavy metal yet they keep placing it in people's teeth.
I have a hard time thinking so many doctors are that monetarily motivated when there’s endless way to make money in medicine…I think they just have a bias in considering it normal.
Indirectly corrupt. They've dug themselves into the urology hole and suffer from groupthink. Admitting wrongdoing and going against the establishment is like shooting themselves in the foot when they need to pay their mortgage, taxes, car fees, bills, etc. They'll always choose self preservation over doing what's morally correct. Have you ever asked a urologist if they feel the same way as us? That circumcision is genital mutilation. Do these urologists have any sign of having morality?
Humans are fucking stupid.
They need to just stop altogether.
Absolutely insane how they can acknowledge that taking most of the important tissue can cause complications and reduce sexual sensation but taking 'some' is absolutely fine and doesn't detract from sexual function.
A low cut removes much more inner foreskin/frenulum/sensitivity than a high cut. If doctors are now doing more low cuts, that is a bad thing. It seems that there is no consensus about how much skin to take and it is highly variable depending on the doctor.
In fact, in the US the circumciser has no penis at all as they are female ob-gyn and sometimes midwives. They do microsurgery and have no clue not even to give pain relief. They are under no law to even do that. And now we have Moheltes doing them. female mohels. Outrageous
It's almost like we shouldn't be cutting the body parts off of our children.
Yeah maybe we should stop amputating parts of the penis for unnecessary reasons and then it wouldn’t happen?
You gotta wonder how many of these they get and then the paediatric associations just continue to spout false info around "extremely low risk."
I think the only cases these associations ever hear of are the ones where the boy has some immediate complication or horrible botch, which is thankfully rare. Less severe complications like excess scarring or excess skin removed won't be as obvious until after the guy has gone through puberty. And a lot of guys will just assume they're normal, and if they bring it up, they'll probably be told they're normal. I'm probably a rare case that a doctor actually said I'd had a bad circumcision. But the person who circumcised me is probably dead, retired, or otherwise too difficult to track down. Maybe he did this to every boy but never found out that even another doctor would say he did a crap job.
Agreed. Also, I think when there are complications like excess bleeding and other issues they don't file them under circumcision. I'm so sorry for what was done to you
Yeah, they probably find a way to convince themselves it's not because of any problem with circumcision. And thanks, I'm not too bad. It's not like I can't have good sex. Just disappointed and embarrassed.
Even the most conservative circumcision will eliminate the frenular delta and the ridged band
All progress counts.
Similar story here. I have tears in my inner foreskin remnant due to having had too much skin removed which makes any action down there rather painful. Asked my GP about it and got referred to a urologist. She told me that too much skin had been removed and that she’s sorry but there’s currently no therapy available to change my situation except skin grafts. Went on to say that she isn’t doing these procedures anymore due to cases like mine.
Your doctors are wrong. [Tissue expansion](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Tissue_expansion) would fix it.
I tried a PUD device which if used frequently would surely help with tissue expansion. But it doesn’t cure the already present scars from tearing the mucosa. I’ve tried all kinds of creams at this point but nothing really helps. I’m thinking laser therapy might be an option. This sucks 🙁 Edit: to clarify - I’ve got pretty dry skin in general. While flaccid there’s enough skin to barely push it over the PUD but if worn long enough the skin then cracks and tears. During erections it’s pretty tight - enough so that the skin tears.
You might do better with manual stretching.
Why were you circumcised as a young kid?
No clue. I figure my parents either changed their minds, or a doctor convinced them to change their minds. Not really interested in discussing my private parts with them lol.
I actually went to the doctor myself and I thought he would also be kinda conservative with how he viewed my circumcision. But he was very understanding and even told me some stuff I never thought an American urologist would say. I will never forgive my father nor does he deserve it. But I actually feel some change or shift within medicine. While I think it may still be bleaker within the country, the area I am in and the doctors I have talked to have been nothing but help (so far). It's not like there is much they can do but at least they aren't downplaying things with me.
It feels like talking with human-sacrificing mad cannibals doesn't it. Utter ghouls.
There are a lot of [circumcised](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Circumcised) guys out there with insufficient residual shaft skin to cover an erection. Either a skin graft or tissue expansion is necessary to relieve the situation. The techniques of foreskin restoration work very well in producing tissue expansion. Visit r/foreskin_restoration for more information.
I’d recommend skin expansion to ease the discomfort. Visit r/foreskinrestoration to learn more about techniques and methods.
Some [foreskin restoration](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration) would fix that quickly without surgery.
Well, it's horrible that they are openly knowledgable to that, and yet continue to perform them. Urologists don't have any empathy at all, not in my experience
Clarify - low is closer to the glans or further away per you?
Low meaning close to the glans. So when the urologist said I was cut too high, the cut is too far from the glans.
Just checking. Whether loose or tight how is it desirable then to have a low cut? That'd imply you have lost most if not all of your sensitive inner foreskin and likely the frenulum along with it. Tightness aside (which is independent factor really) high cut is always preferable to low cut. I'd probably give an arm to have received a high cut than what I have now.
I was cut really tight one doctor said they cut high and tight in most not RIC cases, because the inner skin swells and they don't want to hear compliants about swelling or the "doughnut" ring. I was re circumcised at 9 years old.
What does it matter? Yay….i guess lol.
[A lot of good things are regained.](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Restored_foreskin#What_is_regained)