[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 11 Jan 2002 11:21:31: Re: Pinhole Phimosis
As an answer to: Re: Pinhole Phimosis written by halfclip at 11 Jan 2002 05:44:38:
You quote me:
- By which I presume you mean you've had sex and it works OK as it does for the huge majority world-wide of people in your situation, both now and in the past. So what do you feel that is "wrong"? Not that it isn't desirable to be able to retract your foreskin, but what particular advantages are you expecting from making it work "normally"?
> I am surprised and disapointed that you would consider that a pinhole phimosis which doesn't uncover head
> at all would be considered "normal" and not make it extremely clear that the norm is to have a fully and easily
> retractable foreskin both soft and hard.Is that what I said? Are you saying that simply because I used quotation marks on the word "normally"? Perhaps I was being a little too "politically correct".
> Anyone whose foreskin does not fully uncover easily or who has too long a foreskin or has an overly sensitive glans
> does not have an optimum penis.Well, I'll agree with you on the first of these in terms of "not optimum", but your bizarre fascination with foreskins that are somehow "too long" is a bit of a worry. Similarly, what you describe as an "overly sensitive glans" would appear to be what is generally agreed to be normal and indeed desirable by the majority of women, and I am bound to wonder what your particular agenda is for "correcting" them.
> If during sex, you must be careful for fear that certain movements will hurt, then you do not have a fully functioning penis.
Quite possibly. However I don't seem to read that the poster actually suggested that. Perhaps he does have such a problem, hopefully we will find out.
> Another point you are conveniently avoiding is that of hygiene. If the male cannot retract his foreskin,
> how is he supposed to clean under the foreskin?Interesting point. Again, to bring an example across from our female partners, one wonders how they are supposed to clean their vaginas. Some two or three decades ago, there was a marketing push to sell "feminine hygiene" products, and the practice of "douching" has from time to time, come into fashion. Significantly, these products have been an unmitigated disaster and fortunately, have largely faded into obscurity, perhaps due to improved public education.
The fact of the matter is, much the same as your own urethra, - if you don't poke dirt into it, you won't need to clean it. Urine is clean, unless you have a major (and uncommon) medical problem, and will flush out the area. As with the ladies, the area is generally self-maintaining, unless conditions are most unfavourable, such as in the tropics (as was pointed out to me just today by a young lady), in which case some medication may be called for. I cannot see any difference between inserting a medication in the vagina and under the foreskin - in fact, the same appliance should do fine!
> Improper hygiene of the glans will yield to problems eventually.
Sure, but I point out, "improper" means putting the wrong things in there (or vice versa ;-).
> ... must be resolved if the male wants full use of his genitals and ... to prevent problems/ diseases later on.
Frankly, many people, probably most in fact, make but limited use if their genitals anyway. Much of this discussion revolves around the topic of "gourmet" sex, somewhat of an intellectual predilection as I see it. Not surprisingly, those who have greater expectations of sex, are more likely to seek information about it on the internet! The "man in the street" or whatever his C21 counterpart is, simply has sex and enjoys the orgasm, very much along the lines of "wham bam, thank you ma'am"! And at this level, a muzzled glans works fine.
> Arguments that circumcusion doesn't significantly change cancer rates are only valid ... proper hygiene is practiced.
Quite frankly, the requirement for "hygiene" is yet, largely unstudied. Current focus seems to be squarely on HPV, the "hygiene" for which is substantially limiting the number of sexual partners and/ or the effective use of condoms, not whether and how they wash.
> But if you allow a phimosis to continue, ... that person will contribute to negative statistics about being uncut.
So you assert, but in doing so you are implying that a negative outcome is either the norm or the certainty. Such is not the case. Negative consequences are most uncommon.
In summary, I am not claiming that a phimosis is anything desirable. I am merely saying that it is not automatically incompatible with adequate sexual expression. That you in particular found it so which was naturally a great concern to you personally, is nevertheless the exception rather than the rule, but those others are a silent majority who simply do not feel the need to seek out a forum such as this.
Secondly, I am pointing out that as the poster "James Reiner" has quite well illustrated, there is no urgency in the matter. He has been managing quite well for many years. Having now determined that things could be better, he is seeking information, as indeed he should, but taking a week, a month or indeed a year to resolve the matter will do him no harm, so long as he has a reasonable expectation of the outcome.