[ ARC forum 2 ]

Phimosis: what is effective

Written by Paul B. at 05 Jan 2002 14:41:46:

As an answer to: Re: Phimosis: what is effective? written by halfclip at 05 Jan 2002 08:10:53:

>> the stretching is much more important than the cream itself.

> agreed

I'm pleased. Because ...

>> ... but the important thing is it will work if you actually do it!

> I consider it irresponsible for you to make such a blanket statement.

Ah!

> Of all the documents I have read about trials/studies on steroid creams, the success rate has never been 100%,
> it is therefore not correct to promise anyone and everyone that steroids and creams will work.

You are confused. I did not make any warranty about steroid creams (or preferably, ointments). I was "speaking" about using effective techniques for stretching. Now that is the wildcard in the studies you quote, because you have no idea of whether or not any stretching was actually effected in the studies. And curiously enough, your first statement above actually indicates that you understand this. We're comparing sheep with goats here.

>> if you actually do the stretching, ... there is no need to consider circumcision at all.

> Another example.

A degree of repetition with the purpose of getting the important point across. I do not shirk from the statement. If stretching is actually performed, and in particular, using an appliance (a dilator), the possibility of the opening not enlarging is virtually non-existent. The skin cannot "refuse" to stretch under these conditions. That's why I provided a search term for Tissue Expansion Devices in the earlier post, to allow readers to become acquainted with the concept that these devices are now part of standard medical practice.

Now I must point out that when used for example, for expansion of breast skin after mastectomy, the surgeon does not by any means say "Look we'll try this technique and if you are lucky, the skin will stretch!". No way! He says "We will implant the expander, and we will inflate it by a standard amount each two weeks, and it will be only mildly uncomfortable" (paraphrase from one of the links found by that search). The word is "will", not "might" or "maybe". And my claims are made on the same basis. You use a dilator, skin will stretch.

> Why not simply suggest to the person how to attempt stretching

Done.

> and provide some sort of time frame where this should get solved.

Because it is obvious that the time frame depends entirely on the skill and diligence with which the person employs the technique. Unless I can personally supervise that, I cannot indicate a time frame.

> If within that time frame, the person has not seen signifcant improvement,

Then the time frame needs to be reviewed, or in fact, the technique needs to be reviewed.

> the person can then come back and more and perhaps consider surgical solution to the problem.

Why?

> It is HIS body, let HIM decide.

By all means. I'm just supplying direction. If you want the foreskin to stretch, then you apply an effective technique and it stretches. If it does not stretch, then the technique was not sufficiently effective. The remedy for that is not to abandon the technique, but to make it more effective.

> if the guy was getting married in 1.5 months and wanted a fully functional penis for his honeymoon,

Then I'd be concerned about it, but (as if it isn't obvious that the very last thing he would want to do would be to have surgery so close to the event,) to suggest that he should compromise the whole of his married life for some dubious cosmetic benefit for the honeymoon is ludicrous.

In fact, such an example illustrates only too well how short-sighted some people can be, and circumcision is a very short-sighted approach to anything! The idea of having a pleasant honeymoon is laudable, though to be terribly honest, it is vastly more the exception than the rule that the honeymoon serves as a couple's introduction to sex, so you are rather optimistic to hold that "romantic" notion.

Presuming however that it will be (the introduction) for a (presumably Christian) couple, then it is still pretty shallow to think that intercourse is the only important aspect of the relationship, or that it is not possible with a non-retractile foreskin, or indeed that it is appropriate for the husband to conceal from his wife whatever problems he may have in this regard. Such egotistical behaviour is not consistent with a happy marriage in any case. If he has a tight foreskin, all the better if his wife(-to-be) is aware, understands, supports and assists whatever treatment is necessary, knowing that a functional foreskin will be a valuable ally to her.

> would you still be suggesting stretching and steroids ... phimosis is pretty tight and doesn't expose much of the glans?

Why not? You seem to be stuck with this concept that there is some "critical" point at which progressive dilatation or "skin expansion" does not work. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing of the sort. I do like to point out, as Jim has in the other thread, some rather humorous but sad pictures of horrendously obese persons on the 'net. If some limit to skin stretching actually existed, then there would be reports of overweight people "exploding" or bursting apart (and for that matter, the same for "normal" people whose skin "just happened" to be "too small"). Where then are these reports? Is there in fact a deep conspiracy, to hide such details because - it just doesn't happen!

Sorry (well, sorry for you, because your argument is vacuous!), fact is, skin expands - if it has to.


Answers: