Phimosis – Guess What, You’re Wrong.

So I see it said all the time that a ‘child under 18 can’t be diagnosed with phimosis’. So at 17 years 364 days, no.  A day later, yes?

What is phimosis?

What is the definition of phimosis?

  • Phimosis is the inability to retract the foreskin behind the glans in males.
  • Phimosis is usually divided into physiologic and pathologic phimosis.
  • Physiologic phimosis is the normal condition in which children are born with a tight foreskin and separation occurs during late childhood and early adolescence.
  • Pathological phimosis occurs due to infection, inflammation, or scarring and is usually found in uncircumcised adult men.

However, pathological phimosis can occur in someone of any age.  Typically, once it is explained that children can, in fact, develop pathological phimosis it’s usually waved away with some accusation of premature forcible retraction.  Since we seem to have to start at the basics, what is retraction? It is when you pull the foreskin back toward the body of the child.  You can retract safely to the point of resistance, should you need to wipe poo or some other particulate off of the outside of the child’s penis, but most children cannot be fully retracted, which is when the foreskin can be fully pulled back over the head of the penis.  This was an old standard of care which was advised to parents with uncircumcised children in the past, but the current standard of care now says to simply wipe the outside without retraction.  So why did I just say you can retract to the point of resistance?  Because lets face it, if poo can get in there, it will get in there.  Intactivists make any retraction sound akin to ripping your child’s fingernail off, but just as if they go something under the top of the nail (NOT THE NAIL BED) you could easily clean that out without harming the child.  Same concept.  However, just like you would not force the nail off the nail bed, you should not force the foreskin back.  This is also not something that needs to or should be done routinely, but only in special circumstances.  Forcibly retracting the child can, and does, cause scar tissue to develop, which can also cause…you guessed it, phimosis.  However, many parents who I’ve seen talk about their sons having phimosis never retracted them.

How can that be?  Well, pathological phimosis can be due to anything from an unknown cause (idiopathic) to infection, inflammation to forced retraction or even eczema.  Yes, I keep bringing retraction up because it is actually a cause.  But intactivists blame pretty much any issue with the intact penis on premature forcible retraction.  Regardless of the individual case.

And here’s the thing about phimosis…it doesn’t require circumcision.  Steroid creams and stretching (pulling forward AND back to the point of resistance) work the majority of the time.  The small amount of time it doesn’t work (about 15-20% of the time) then a much less invasive surgery called a preputiaplasty, or modified dorsal slit, works.  Dorsal slit also works but it creates an unappealing ‘flap’.  However, phimosis is what is put on the form when circumcising an infant, which is code word for ‘unnecessary’, I guess.  Because they’re talking about physiological phimosis, and that is the normal inability to retract the foreskin.  This normal inability is not phimosis caused by disease or inflammation.  It generally resolves by puberty, and regardless, as I said above, there is no need for circumcision to resolve it even if it was pathological.

I can’t think of a good ending for this blog, so there you have it.  Enjoy.

11 responses to “Phimosis – Guess What, You’re Wrong.

  • oogenhand

    Can phimosis be heriditary?

    • paper0airplane

      It’s possible I suppose. But I think that it would be via some connective tissue disorder or the like, not just phimosis itself

      • oogenhand

        Why? As phimosis is generally cured by cirumcision, genes coding for malformed foreskins are not culled by natural selection, and in societies where only phimosis is seen as enough reason for circumcision, could actually be favored by natural and sexual selection.

        That is why most people in the USA know of some boy or man that had to be circumcised for tightness or an infection.

        This motivates many people to preemptively circumcise their sons. In time, the genes for functioning foreskins will dissappear from American society, making circumcision a strict medical necessity for ALL boys and men.

        • paper0airplane

          Umm. No I don’t think so. There isn’t really a lot of natural selection going on, and regardless, a man can have lifelong phimosis with no issue and able to reproduce. And actually, as I said in this post, phimosis doesn’t even necessitate circumcision anyway. So I think your hypothesis is incorrect.

          • oogenhand

            It isn’t necessary for every phimosis to make any reproduction completely impossible in order to have any selection at all. And often phimosis causes shame making reproduction less likely than the biological difficuitiess would warrant.

            Even if circumcision would never be necessary, the very fact that it is the treatment of choice is enough for the effect to occur.

            In the article “Besnijden, wel of niet?” ,Ouders van Nu, 1973, even just preventing phimosis was offered as enough reason to warrant universal circumcision, and the only counter-argument was that only a very skillful surgeon could remove enough skin to avoid scarring and acquired phimosis. Obviously a non-starter. Cutting away a lot has never been a problem, and if developing skills was a problem, the whole universal circumcision discussion wouldn’t be held at all.

          • paper0airplane

            I don’t think my blog is the blog for you. I’m afraid you’re not following the point, which isn’t in support of circumcision, but against extremist tactics. I don’t support circumcision being made illegal but I DEFINITELY don’t support making it universally mandatory; at the very least, without much much stronger evidence (like that in favor of vaccination, and no, the evidence is nowhere near that strong. There’s small benefit and smaller risks, but that’s not no risk and therefore, without great benefit, or necessity, making it mandatory is ethically abhorrent. And I might point out even vaccination isn’t mandatory despite the strongly supported public health gains at almost zero risk), parents should be able to evaluate the evidence with their doctor. I can’t even think of anything that’s even remotely comparable to what you’re suggesting.

            As a matter of fact it wouldn’t shock me if you were some i2 zealot trying to make it look like this blog is pro circumcision.

  • NotLorde

    I wonder how much the nur$e$ and doctor$ of the circumcision industry paid you to write this piece.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: