If you "can't do this" you also cannot preparly cleanse the area. You can do the stretching that some here recommend; you can ask your doctor about a little assistance; you can enquire about circumcision. YOU CANNOT REMAIN AS YOU ARE. Swabs from under the foreskin that cannot be retracted are interesting under the microscope and a good reason for my avoiding contact with such penis'.

You have increased risk of STD, even greater risk of being a carrier of STD; and, will certainly carry the HPV that contributes heavily (75%) to cervical cancer among women. I echo EEK's recommendation but do not have one of those things to trim. Talk to your doctor about alternatives but, above all, be able to retract the prepuce for cleansing.

Welcome to the SI101 Board and its Forums. I hope you will enjoy participating. Please begin by familiarizing yourself with the FAQs, the Posting Guidelines secttion, and especially the Index, all found at the top of the main screen. The Index contains links to helpful informative insightful, as well as how-to articles that discuss the most common question nd concerns people ak about. In addition, if you click on the site's Home Page you will find even more information.

Foreskins come in all shapes and sizes. Some almost cover the glans, others completey cover the glans, and still other extend out in front of the tip of the penis with a straw-like protuberance. Often, although not always, a boy's foreskin will fully retract by the time he reaches his mid to late teens. Whether it does or not, the fix is the same:

Work with it when taking a shower or bath and your penis is warm and wet. To completely free it may take several weeks of stretching and gently pulling it back against its restraints. There will likely be some discomfort as you do this, so, again, be gentle and do not force the process.

I hope this is of help. Got questions?

EEK, thanks for clarifying your statement. Makes more sense now. Still though, very few guys can pull their foreskin back before hitting puberty, and as stated earlier we have no idea how old this bloke this. If he's well into puberty or adulthood then I totally agree that circumcision is an option. Stretching the foreskin is also an option.

And no, I'm aware if he cannot retract his foreskin that sex would be painful. I had a friend undergo circumcision last year for that exact reason.

Brandye, never knew that! Thanks for the info.

[QUOTE=Brandye;270769]

You have increased risk of STD, even greater risk of being a carrier of STD; and, will certainly carry the HPV that contributes heavily (75%) to cervical cancer among women. I echo EEK's recommendation but do not have one of those things to trim. Talk to your doctor about alternatives but, above all, be able to retract the prepuce for cleansing.[/QUOTE]

How can you even ascertain so firmly that because of a foreskin he'll surely carry HPV? Is it to say that every uncircumcised man carries HPV?

The poster has not said how old he is, perhaps he's only starting puberty and the tightness of his foreskin is completely normal. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting circumcision as a first option is, in my opinion rash and rushing to a conclusion. Almost as saying that circumcision should be encouraged for everyone. Many doctors refuse to perform circumcision except if absolutely required, or if they believe they will be done in an unsanitary environment (ie. religious practices, where those cutting are not necessarily medically trained)

Noir - you're missing the point. It is NOT that he has a foreskin that is the issue - it is that he can NOT retract his foreskin to CLEAN his penis properly and it is that inability to be CLEAN that encourages the growth of those viruses/bacteria etc that lead to disease - diseases that he could, unwittingly perhaps, pass along to someone else.

And it may have escaped your notice that if he can't retract his foreskin easily, he will find penetrative sex PAINFUL. I know of a 50 something man who went and got circumcised for just that reason - after enduring it for all of those years he finally had had enough.

This is NOT a trivial matter, please do not treat it as one.

Statistically. Those cultures which habitually practice circumcision (Jewish, Muslim) have cervical cancer rates of half those in other cultures (continental Europe). 75% of all cervical cancer is caused by HPV. The one exception to the above is Japan, a culture in which cleanliness is a religion in itself.

OR you go and get circumcized thus making the problem moot.

I remember the first time my foreskin pulled back completely. I was just waking up and I had an odd pain so I went to the washroom and took a look and much to my shock, and slight fear, my foreskin had retracted. It was painful to pull back to original state. From there I started to experiment a bit and the first dozen times it was painful to pull all the way back but with time it flows easily.

makes me wonder why we have foreskins in the first place...

Everything has it's purpose at least at somepoint. In utero we are all female at the beginning and the clitoris must have a foreskin for protection. Since the penis is the same tissue it then probably has forskin because the clitoris does.

Many believe that the appendix has no purpose and is just something left over from evolution. Contrary to that some doctors are discussing if the appendix holds a reserve of enzymes, but this hasn't been proven yet to my knowledge.

I suspect that the foreskin is protective to the sensitive glans since the glans isn't actually skin, probably closer to a mucous membrane.

If I've understood it correctly, the foreskin has several functions;
1) it protects the glans and opening of the urethra-
one of the possible complications after circumcision is irritation, infection and ulcers that could even block urinal flow (the last two more often when it's done on babies).
2) it is erogenous tissue, adding to the sensation of sex-
allthough some men may even get circumcised to reduce sensitivity, some men that got circumcised at later age, may regret losing their foreskin because of this loss of sensitivity.
3) this extra roomy piece of skin makes it possible for the penis to erect comfortably-
when there is too much foreskin cut off, it makes erections painful. However: when the foreskin is naturally too narrow, it causes pain and could lead to nasty infections. (as is described in the beginning of this thread) This is known as the primary medical indication to perform circumcision.

This article is quite good and easy to comprehend, even though it focuses on circumcision done on babies:
[url=http://childbirthsolutions.com/articles/answers-to-your-questions-about-... To Your Questions About Your Young Son’s Circumcised Penis | Childbirth Solutions

Personally; if I had a son (or a penis myself ;)), I wouldn't doubt for a second to have it done, when there is a medical indication.
But I wouldn't have it done as a kind of precaution, without medical indication. Why cut something from a healthy body that you can live with happily? A newborn will have no traumatic memory of such procedure, but cutting it while the foreskin hasn't even detached itself from the glans, which is done forcefully as part of the procedure? :eek: And creating a wound down there while the baby is still soiling his diapers, screams pain and possible infection to me. I'd simply be happy it arrived into this world healthy. I wouldn't have it done unnecessarily on a child either, because it could create traumatic memory. I'd let my son decide for himself when he's older. Supporting his decision either way. Until then, I'd simply give my boy instructions on how to clean his tools properly :)

It makes since that a person from a country that doesn't commonly practice this would think it is unnecessary, but there are good reasons for having it done. Brandye has stated many times that groups who perform circumcisions habitually have lower rates of cervical cancers. And the penis is desensitized. I don't need my penis to be anymore sensitive than it is. Guys already have to worry about premature ejaculation so dont increase the odds by keeping the skin.

And I have no memories of this event as an infant. I don't think a person has any memories prior to 4 or 5 years old.

@spring the glans does shed skin by the way.

Note before I continue: I'm only debating circumcision WITHOUT medical indication.
When your doctor says you need it, because mother nature sadly didn't bestow you with a functioning foreskin, cut it!

Baby's brain
Generally it is assumed a child collects it's "first memory" around the age of 2-3 -that is to say the one that gets "saved" in the longterm-memory and is consciously recollectable at an older age. That is not to say babies don't remember or experience anything. There is a lot of evidence babies do feel pain, so we can be practically certain of it they do. Read more here: [url=http://nymag.com/health/features/60144/]How Much Does Circumcision Hurt?

Reasons for (not) circumcising without medical indication
I've been digging into this subject lately. Which is admittedly not that long, yet also long enough to have been reading up on it. In the US circumcision-rates without medical indication are dropping. Were 85% of all newborns circumcised in the '70s, in 2006 only 56% were. This article states the several reasons throughout history for circumcision and reasons not to.
[url=http://nymag.com/health/features/60135/]Why a Growing Number of Parents Are Saying No to Circumcision

The last paragraph summarizes it nicely:

[INDENT]Caught at the crossroads of religion and science, circumcision has proved to be a free-floating symbol, attaching itself to whatever orthodoxy captures a society’s imagination. Its history is driven by wildly shifting rationales: from tribal rite of passage to covenant with God to chastity guarantor to paralysis cure to cancer guard to unnecessary, painful surgery to a Hail Mary pass in the struggle with the AIDS pandemic. There’s no reason to think a new rationale won’t come down the pike when we least expect it. Our millennia-long quest to justify one of civilization’s most curious habits continues. [/INDENT]

Parallels?
In the article the parallel is only lightly touched, but circumcision without medical indication immediately made me think of the changing policies regarding tonsils in the back of your throat. There was a time (somewhere between '20's and the '60's) that every toddler here would have their tonsils taken as a preventive measure, cause they would pose risk for infection and the majority would need to be taken anyways. Later on; they decided to only take them when infected.

Reasons for this change in policy:
1) research showed there was some good in keeping them (since they are collecting rubbish and therefor add to the defense of the body)
2) that unnecessary surgery always comes with unnecessary risks and unnecessary possible (emotional) trauma.
3) statistically you have your tonsils infected either before you're 8 (low risk surgery) or you get to keep them all your live, the strategy works. The minority group that needs higher risks surgery, is statistically insignificant compared to exposing the majority to unnecessary risk. Around 2000 policy got more "sharp". There are studies indicating that with "mild" complaints, it doesn't matter if you take out the tonsils or allow the body to heal on itself. Which makes doctors even more reluctant about taking them.

the unstated reasons:
4) we experienced a cultural change; looking at the destruction we bring upon the earth and ourselves (becoming apparent in a.o. the first environmental reports), we became a bit more humble about standing above nature's laws and intervening by a claim of "knowing what's better". Therefor deciding to be a bit less hasty to pick up the scalpel. And people a bit less hasty of trusting blindly on such procedures.
5) there was a cultural change among and towards children; they were no longer their parents copies doing their bidding, they were self-conscious individuals, views on upbringing changed dramatically.

Policies based on...?
It is funny to note that both circumcision and taking tonsils are medically in the very low-risk department.

The policies on taking tonsils are "free" of the heavier religious and cultural impact, still; the way policies are formed, are more complicated than it is only based on "science".

The act of circumcision is heavily blessed with cultural and religious views on the procedure in itself. Can you imagine how tough making policies on the subject of circumcision without medical indication is!?

And then I haven't taken the route yet of pointing out the thing the US is notorious about; therefor questioning whether circumcision without medical indication is only about keeping the fat pay-check for the hospitals... Please don't take this as a low blow, I think it needs to be said...

Even beauty-ideals and (fear of) antisemitism seem to be part of this subject. The latter I find absurd, but you won't believe how many times I saw it mentioned. Coincidentally the US has the second highest circumcision-rate in the world after Israel.

Science, culture, religion and <...>
Big, you may tell me that because the practice isn't commonly done here, my views may be different. Which I admit is true. Anyone here who comes in the position of deciding over preventive surgery is met with empathy. Perhaps even more so when it concerns your children. And I even know Muslim-people who have decided not to have their boys ritually circumcised, out of respect for their bodies the way Allah gave it to them (circumcision isn't an Islamic rule, it is part of a culture).

Before judging me, think about your own views and the views policy-makers depend on in your country as well.
Is it really done in the name of science and health? Or in the name of history and culture? Even religion, economics, politics or beauty?

Despite all this, I do see what you mean about health-advantages of circumcision on cervical cancer. But; in Japan they apparently make it to the same standards without circumcising. Why would I favor cutting a body over practicing good hygiene? And even perform it at an age it isn't even an issue? Since it only becomes relevant after puberty... That's the reason why I personally would give my future-son his choice when he is of the age it has started to matter and he can chose over his body himself.

Neither of my sons were circumcised,I never felt the need to get it done.My estranged husband is circumcised and my current boyfriend is not.I have better orgasms with the current boyfriend,but have been with other circumcised partners who were very good at pleasing me.

My husband tried to persuade me to get our sons circumcised,but I didn't think it was right to just force something like that on them.My 13 year old son has spoken to me about having a sore penis when trying to retract his foreskin whilst cleaning it in the shower,and I told him to just be a bit more gentle.It just might not be ready to go fully back yet.If he continues to mention having issues with this,then I am thinking that he may suffer from phimosis and need to be circumcised.

If the foreskin doesn't go back easily after a 'warm up,' circumcision might be a wise decision. There are enough things already for teenage boys to have to worry about concerning girls, without having problems with their own equipment.

Your ex my want your sons circumcised for that reason, maybe he had the same problems growing up. If in doubt take your sons to the doctors, just to get a professional opinion.

In my opinion though, if its painful to pull the skin back in the shower, imagine how it would hurt with an erection? Get it checked now if he's complaining of pain.

My estranged husband was born to Catholic parents and he and his brothers were circumcised for religious reasons only.I believe that it should be a decision for the boy to make himself,it shouldn't be forced on him by the parents.I have not asked or seen for myself,but I believe that my father and both of my brothers were not circumcised and they don't seem to have had any problems.My son hasn't said anything for a while,so I am assuming that he hasn't had anymore issues.

i think men don't really care which they have, if the man is uncut he feels no need to cut the prepuce. if the man is cut then he feels it is no big deal to have the procedure done on his son, because he had it and there are no problems. i appreciate your view RR that you feel it is unnecessary and you don't want to harm your future son, but as a man that was circumcised as a child i feel that the procedure is no big deal. i have no memory of it, i never had to deal with possible complications with the foreskin. and if i would have needed to remove it as an adult because of pain i didn't have to go through the ordeal of thinking how will my sex life be affected? will i lose too much sensation? will i still like the way i look down there with the scar? what will girls think? i didn't have to deal with any of this, i am less likely to pass on disease, and premature ejaculation could be less of a problem. i would say that is a pretty good deal.

i do not see your statement as a low blow. i just looked it up and it says average cost for neonatal circumcision is only $165. certainly they care more about the mother delivering the child in the hospital more because that brings in the big bucks.

i don't want to say people do it for beauty ideals but i think it is true. i love the way my penis looks. at the same time i would never recommend a woman to get a labiaplasty because she thought her vulva wasn't attractive. beauty isn't the only reason why circumcision goes through cycles of high rates. reading different pages i found that in the 1800's a boy was diagnosed with paralysis. later is was found that the foreskin on the boy was too tight and causing the pain. once a circumcision was performed the boy felt great and didn't have paralysis anymore. so there are reasons in history why circumcisions became popular to gentiles other than religion.

i wish the US was more conscious of hygiene like Japan but that is not reality. it should be being that we are a predominately christian nation and as many say cleanliness is next to godliness.

About half the newborns are male, at least half of them are getting circumcised in the US, which means a few million circumcisions annually nation wide. That's a lot of money all together. But yes; I do agree the hospitals would be more concerned about dropping in-hospital-birth-rates than new-born-circumcision-rates ;)

The article I've linked to also mentions the anemic 5-year-old boy with partially paralyzed leg muscles in 1870, who fully recovered after circumcision of his overly tight foreskin. Which is wonderful! That's one of the examples of a medical indication. That's the kind of circumcision I stand by 100%!

But performing this procedure on babies is fixing a problem that wasn't there in the first place. And as much as I would encourage a daughter to be happy about the way her vulva looks and to teach her how to clean it properly, as much will I do the same for a son regarding his penis.

You say preventing premature ejaculation, I say knowingly -even purposefully- creating loss of sexual sensitivity.

People try to protect themselves from decease in ways that respect the human body. And I know what that means will differ each culture and each person. To be honest: I find cutting a baby-boy's healthy penis not a respectful way.

I can see what you mean about such questions, but I do think it is his decision to make. If my future-son wants a tattoo or piercing when he's older, he's free to chose over his own body. As well is he free to have it circumcised without medical indication. Either way he likes to modify his body; he'll have to think about the consequences, risks involved and in what ways it may change the way he looks upon his body and how it will feel. Should he chose to, I will respect his decision, may drive him to the hospital should he want my support.