[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 24 Dec 2001 12:25:26: MoRe: Problems and appropriate advice.
As an answer to: Re: Problems and appropriate advice. written by halfclip at 23 Dec 2001 20:16:37:
> Has it ever occured to you that a shorter foreskin may be functionally superior to a long one?
Like saying a short tongue might be functionally superior to a long one? Or, getting closer to the bone (;-P), a short penis might be functionally superior to a long one? It's certainly possible.
> with a long foreskin, the skin, especially the inner foreskin doesn't get much direct stimulation
> and doesn't really get stretched during sexYou presume that axial stretching is an important sensory mode during intercourse. I tend to the notion that intercourse of any significant duration (which latter always seems to be held to be desirable), is critically dependent on lubrication (or the foreskin) reducing friction between the vagina and the (glans) penis to avoid dragging (which causes urethral trauma and infections for women in particular) and chapping (ditto).
> / masturbation because it is so ample, whereas with a shorter foreskin, the skin gets mouch more stimulated?
This concept, that friction is desirable, seems to derive from the incidence of circumcision where other methods of stimulation are more difficult to achieve. But the foreskin, the more so if it is tight, is stretched and excited circumferentially as it is moved back and forth, probably much more effectively than by longitudinal stretch
> What good is your frenulum if it gets hidden under the foreskin when you are hard and masturbating?
To the extent that I think the fraenulum vital, and this is not my hobby horse, I again point out that not all stimulation must necessarily be vigorous - this notion really does seem to be a consequence of circumcision.
> you should not be accusing anyone who considers cosmetic surgery to be insane or have mental problems.
Why not? So they can continue in denial, or because it might interfere with the income of cosmetic surgeons? Do not confuse what I say. It is their right to seek surgery, but that does not mean it is healthy.
> By your own argument, anyone using artificial creams to change their naturally phimotic foreskin is altering nature.
Wrong pick. I'm not a naturopath or faith healer. My arguments are based on achieving best function with least damage (the creed traditionally referred to as "primum non nocere"), not on some New Age mumbo-jumbo about "altering nature".
> If every male in the world had very long foreskins that couldn't retract when hard, then that would be considered normal.
Begging the question.
> phimosis ... considered ... a defective penis because ... foreskin ... retract fully and easily both hard and soft.
Not unreasonable - but not absolute.
> And many text books also mention that during erection, the foreskin should retract completely by itself.
Text books are only ever indicative of the opinions of their authors, the more so in the "softer" sciences, and medicine is often in that category. Unfortunately, few text books are indicative of actual scientific study in this area, most references to the foreskin are dismissive, indicating that the author is neither experienced in the topic or indeed, concerned about it at all, but feels the need to include a cursory description to achieve "coverage" (;-) of the topic. And this doubly so for books that are not textbooks at all, but "family medical advisor" tomes written for the mass (media) market.
> the writers of book will make those whose foreskin doesn't retract automatically feel like they are not normal
As I said, casualties of simplification
> In what way is a dorsal slit acceptable to you and a partial circumcision isn't?
Function, that's what. As Spyros has elegantly detailed, a dorsal slit retains maximum foreskin function.
> both have to have the nerves rebuild their connections at/ near the scar
You have obviously missed the import of what I explained before. Nerves run in general along the penis. Circumcision cuts across the nerves, a dorsal slit cuts predominantly between them. Is the implication not clear?
> But you know what, isn't nature wonderful? those nerves do rebuild.
And as I said in the previous post, those who have a surgical scar on their body somewhere, transverse to the nerves, know only too well the consequences of this.> most males circumcised as adults will say that the area around their scar is quite sensitive.
And again as I said in the previous post, those who have a surgical scar on their body somewhere, transverse to the nerves, know only too well the effect. It's called "neuroma formation".
> That seems to go against your argument.
I think not!
> In a partial circumcision, not that much skin is removed.
But you cut all the nerves.
> (reduced 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.I go back to the cross-gender comparisons: Try that one on the ladies. Tell them that their clitoris is too sensitive and needs to be exposed more to lose the excess sensitivity. Yeah, right!
> Those with long foreskins tend to retain an oversensitive glans which restricts the way they play
Restricted - to well-lubricated vaginal intercourse, eh? Can't stand it to just bang away if the girl's not ready? Yes, I daresay they are "restricted".
> with their organ because they have learned to do certain maneouvers that are almost painful.
Care to explain?
> The person said something about having a long foreskin. I mereley mentioned
You merely jumped in and saw "long" as a cue to "wrong". True, he might have negative feelings about a foreskin which seems to cause problems. The problem is that where circumcision is popular, it becomes spuriously linked to problems. To use something similar to your own earlier analogy, if the absence of toes was for some reason, common, then amputation would be a popular therapy for ingrown toenails (which for those who don't know, are uniquely caused by shoes!).
Wherever I see someone say "I have a long foreskin", I know what he really means is "I have a foreskin and my peers are circumcised".