[ ARC forum 2 ]

Answer to the public letter

Written by Ralesk at 29 Aug 2003 01:03:45:

As an answer to: Dearest Ralesk written by Robin at 28 Aug 2003 18:08:08:

Let's dissect again.

== On Jim, Robin, Medical Sources ==
I must admit I did not have text at hand, I believe I was referring to those you and Jim referred to in your dialogues. Here comes to my mind this thing about the study on 5-12 year olds and my comment on people's age and capability of skin growth. To be emphasised that it gets slower and slower as time passes, so it's obvious that if someone develops phimosis for whatever reason at an older age and DOES get rid of the cause of phimosis, it will be a lot harder for him to relieve the tightness with just force and steroids, than it would be 20, 40 or 60 years younger.

=== On causes of phimosis ===
I do not think there is any sense in trying to use the force (pun intended) on a skin that is still infected with whatever that does changes to structure or general reaction (fungi are very good example, you can meet them on feet, ears, hands, head, and also on the penis. LSA/BXO is a very debatable something, but until the sufferer gets rid of it, there is not much to expect from the infected area.)

=== On Attitude ===
Some people here lack a proper one, even I do at times. Jim might be your example of "someone comes along who shouts or insults people drunk" -- but if you really wish this place to be something that gives people options and explains those that need some HowTo-s, Jim apparently does and has done so for years here and on other places.

== On Anatomy ==
>however the elasticity of phimotic ring is very variable, and some rings
>will not stretch.
Those would, I believe, suggest that there is something wrong there -- ie. infection -- which needs to be looked into. Not sure that BXO/LSA has been defined yet as to what on Earth it really is, and how to treat it.

>Well Im very happy about such an attitude. I dont know what a "secretory
>issue" is but feel I would probably also agree!
You most surely know what secretory organs are. Well, that's what for example Urologists should be worried about, if we are looking for specialists on issue. The book you mention might well be the Urologists' Bible, but I think I'll keep agreeing with Paul B. who I think is rather correct about that Dermatologists might know a tad bit more about skin than a Urologist should ever have to.

>> If anything, frenar band gives a more general description (fascia frenum -
>> restrictive band, as far as my Latin knowledge is concerned).
>Latin frenum means a bridle, frenulum is diminutive so: a small bridle
>Greek phimos means a muzzle, the nose band of a bridle
>Could you please answer why you wish to use the terms frenar band and frenum
>breve?
I think I have explained my use of frenar band -- I don't have any particular "I follow these sources" issue with it, it just seems to describe its purpose well: restricting the skin from slipping behind the head when that's not needed. Given that in English we know what phimosis means to use 'phimotic' in a general reference might not be the best choice. I would personally keep that for those cases where phimosis is present.

Frenum breve, well, it's a matter of how diminutive you feel that day :P

>Jim said repeatedly with different words what he says here that frenulum
>breve indicates a severe restriction of retraction, even in the flaccid
>state.
>This is not so, there are many many degrees of frenulum breve which are
>completely unrestrictive ion the flaccid state yet they are painful or
>problematic when erect. Frenulum breve is not just the extreme form
>of this condition - there are a whole variety of degrees.
That, to give my two cents on the issue, I find a matter of vocabulary, rather than intended disagreement. I could keep referring to it as 'frenum of inadequate length', but many of our visitors would have just as much trouble of understanding 'inadequate' as they would 'breve'.

>I believe its diabetesI and diabetesII one is not enough sugar the other is
>too much fat- The only interest I have here is that sugar diabetes is
>recognised a sleading to development of phimotic ring (and thus requires
>specific treatment - and also this might gives clues in general on
>why 2ary phimosis occurs)
I'm not quite aware of those numbering of diabetes, I should look into it.
Yes, people with diabetes -- as I recall from previous postings here -- might end up having fungal problems which would lead to an infected foreskin that develops tightness and breaks easily. Obviously they have to get their sugar levels under controll, then kill the yeast, and THEN treat the developed phimosis. I seem to recall Paul B. and Jim counselling a handful of such people in the last year.

>I like the terms original and developed (where do they come from?)
I just thought of them while I wrote that. Actually I might have been influenced by that there is -- or so I recall -- original diabetes (one you're born with) and developed diabetes (something blew up in you).

>Anti fungal medicine may be interesting, can it be used in combination with
>betamethasone or any other chemical helper
As I said in several places, I don't find stretching an infected skin a good idea. If there is something eating it, you have to fix that first -- obviously, a fungus-infected skin surface will be very easy to break and rather hard to make grow. So, Canesten and alikes first, stretching and optional Betamethasone later.

> maybe you are against chemicals?
No. In my life I have to use them against the symptomes of allergies. But I'm a big fan of relying on one's body, using medicine only when necessary. Samewise with operations. I also think the Eastern and Western medicine should meet, hug, have sex, and produce something awesome that saves even more lives than they do already.

Sorry, but that last one just begged to be expressed like that!


Answers: