[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 04 Oct 2002 16:40:30: URL anti child abuse
As an answer to: URL anti circ written by Dee T. at 03 Oct 2002 08:18:17:
> Just wondered what you thought of this URL.
> http://www.mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-1-0/10-1-protectuncircson103.shtmlI think Paul Fleiss' characteristic monograph quoted here is quite excellent (duly bookmarked)! Elegantly written indeed, and I shall try not to repeat the good parts as they are so good already, subtly understated.
Of course, I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but then there is always a spread of opinion.
For example, it states "When the foreskin becomes fully retractable, usually by the end of puberty", and "There is no age by which a child's foreskin must be retractable". Well, I do see a potential problem there, in that I think that it is desirable that the foreskin retract in adulthood (or whenever a serious sexual relationship is proceeding), so that there is a need to focus the boy on working toward, and exercising and maintaining the ability of retraction, and that if this is not achieved early in puberty, then there is a definite risk that it will be more difficult subsequently, and in being so (difficult), there will be an unfortunate temptation to consider surgery.
The matter of a child washing his glans with water is perhaps a bit too conservative also. I most certainly agree there is no need it be washed with soap and that this is in fact the principal cause of irritations or "infections", but a rinse with clean water (given that it is indeed clean - there may well be many regions where it is not!) should cause no problems and is a not unreasonable hygienic measure.
It is really a problem of trust (in the person to whom the advice is given) and common-sense (that is, trust in their common-sense!). The article is simply saying it can be safer to advise against (the parent) retracting, than to countenance the possibility that they will by being ham-fisted, injure/ abuse the child. I must needs agree.
The advice to use barrier cream certainly parallels mine - I always advise Zinc and Castor Oil ("nappy" or "diaper" cream).
The reference to "cysts" is possibly disingenuous. There is virtually no actual distinction between pockets ("pearls") of smegma under the foreskin, and epidermoid inclusion cysts, and either may under unfortunate circumstances, harbour infection.
The reference to treatment of a foreskin caught in a zipper could be a little misleading. The preferred remedy for this, other than the simple use of lubricant, involves a single skilful manipulation with a pair of side cutters(!). And that is all - any consequential lacerations (almost always caused by attempts to remove the zipper, not by the original accident) are most certainly treated as they would be elsewhere - or on a female's labia.
In fact, the article in nearly every part begs the comparison with female anatomy, and it is fascinating that it should proceed to do so at only one point (BXO). Is there some undue deference to "political correctness" here?