[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Problems and appropriate advice.

Written by halfclip at 23 Dec 2001 20:16:37:

As an answer to: Problems and appropriate advice. written by Paul B. at 23 Dec 2001 04:58:35:

> I'm just saying that I was focussing on the subject of function rather than appearance.

Has it ever occured to you that a shorter foreskin may be functionally superior to a long one ? Has it ever occured to you that with a long foreskin, the skin, especially the inner foreskin doesn't get much direct stimulation and doesn't really get stretched during sex/masturbation because it is so ample, whereas with a shorter foreskin, the skin gets mouch more stimulated ?

What good is your frenulum if it gets hidden under the foreskin when you are hard and masturbating ?

>I have no problem with that. But when people desire surgery to alter such things from the normal, I feel, and I think most doctors would concur with me, that they have a distinct (psychological) problem.

It is your right to feel that. But you should not be accusing anyone who considers cosmetic surgery to be insane or have mental problems. By your own argument, anyone using artificial creams to change their naturally phimotic foreskin is altering nature. If every male in the world had very long foreskins that couldn't retract when hard, then that would be considered normal.

The fact is that a person with phimosis is considered to have a deffective penis because the expectation is that a foreskin should retract fully and easily both hard and soft. And many text books also mention that during erection, the foreskin should retract completely by itself. (although this applies only to a certain percentage of males - the writers of book will make those whose foreskin doesn't retract automatically feel like they are not normal).


>Exactly the same thing as if he had not the phimosis. The phimosis is able to be dealt with by alternate means, i.e., stretching, or perhaps a dorsal slit as our friend here, Spyros had, so that's a separate matter.

In what way is a dorsal slit acceptable to you and a partial circumcision isn't ? Both have a scalpel slice skin, both have a scar, both have to have the nerves rebuild their connections at/near the scar with a "foreign" skin that they were not originally intended to be connected to. But you know what, isn't nature wonderful ? those nerves do rebuild. As a matter of fact, most males circumcised as adults will say that the area around their scar is quite sensitive. That seems to go against your argument.


>Circumcision firstly removes a large area of skin which is quite sensitive and
>contributes to sexual feeling, and interferes with the nerve supply to what
>foreskin remnant

Defins "large amount of skin" please. Are you refering to the index card size skin of an unduly long foreskin getting a very tight circumcision ? (extreme case). In a partial circumcision, not that much skin is removed.

>Secondly, the more exposed the glans is, the more it adapts by reducing its sensitivity.

But in many cases, this is a GOOD thing. A glans will be hyper sesnitive to the point of pain in childhood, and it must lose some sensitivity in order to become a pleasurable sensation. Those with long foreskins tend to retain an oversensitive glans which restricts the way they play with their organ because they have learned to do certain maneouvers that are almost painful.

>to the point that you are comfortable now with your sexuality.

Exactly. If one isn't happy about having a long foreskin, what is wrong with having it shortened and giving the male a penis he can be proud of ?

>object if in projecting your problem onto others, you advise them to do
>something out of proportion to their particular circumstance.

The person said something about having a long foreskin. I mereley mentions that a partial circumcision would shorter his foreskin and fix the phimosis at the same time. If a person comes here for advise, what is wrong with giving him various options and letting him decide ?


Answers: