[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Ralesk at 29 Dec 2003 03:45:27: Re: Synechotomy (Opinion, cont'd)
As an answer to: Re: Synechotomy (Opinion, cont'd) written by Charles II at 29 Dec 2003 01:27:10:
>I say> You just made my point. IF any damage was done, a tendency for the skins to fuse back together would be -best- served by bringing them back into contact with eachother. Common sense says to leave the foreskin retracted, at least until any necessary healing of such now separated surfaces is complete, if not permanently.
>- - - - - - - - - -
I managed to read something into those words of yours up there, in the last sentence.>I reply> That would be a separate issue and of course one where both the author of this post and I disagree. As "why all boys must be checked" on this web site shows, foreskin retraction for reasons of hygiene alone is hardly "picky" but rather an appallingly overlooked and neglected essential element in early penis health.
But I have to heavily disagree with your idea of having it retracted further than for use and hygiene.
>As for skin tags or bridges on guys cut as infants, examination of generations of RIC males shows they are rare. Since the procedure being discussed in this post is commonly practiced as a prerequisite to circumcision, as well as for the purposes intended by Straffon, the procedure and the age at which he advocates it seems good practice to me.
Six months is not that much old. At that age things are pretty damn sensitive there, I don't /want/ to imagine what kind of discomfort/pain RICed children and even those only synechiotomied go through. Mine, if anything, was damn well sensitive in my preteens, and a lot less in my teens and even much less now -- I surely wouldn't want to have anyone meddle and separate things there!
The synechiae will sooner or later separate by themselves, and this can be aided with proper education [of parent and child alike].
>So I disagree that the procedure is almost always unnecessary. The -only- times it would -not- be necessary would be in cases of full retractability at or soon after birth, or in cases of auto-circumcision. While a South Korean web site discussing the topic denies that auto-circumcision exists, the sentence immediately preceeding their erroneous statement uses the medical term aposthia to describe it. Some people are so blind they can't even see that their own arguments already crashed and burned before the debate started.
Since every person is unique, I have to disagree with your soon after birth as well as your earlier stated 5-years-old criteria. The latter has many examples to stand against it right here on this mere board.
It's great that you bring Korea up. I have just seen a Korean advertisement that said "The perfect solution for phimosis" and five seconds later they showed an example of the device's use on a perfectly working foreskin (the inner part has to be put behind the head, deep inside). The guy, thus, had a phimosis so severe as deep my vagina is.
You get the point.