[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Answer to the public letter

Written by Robin at 05 Sep 2003 17:05:17:

As an answer to: Answer to the public letter written by Ralesk at 29 Aug 2003 01:03:45:

Hi Ralesk,
My congratulations on "original" and "developed" - a great new idea, understandable words for the common man and doctors, I will probably even introduce it on my site - should be common use - well done.

Otherwise on your letter, I think you gloss over a few points and go off track often ... but mine was such a long long letter that you really did a remarkable job!
Just generally I wanted to say, I dont want to get involved doing things which are not essential, and basicly I see a possibility of communicating with all the "fanatical stretchers" presently on this forum.
You (in general FSers.) are on important points in disagreement with the home site/third perspective, but as long as you can retain an open mind to discuss, with respect for others experience and ideas, then thats OK by me.

I have had a long history of problems with anti RIC fanatics. When I first came on line in 1996 (check Deja NG archive) it took me a few weeks a) to get the bloody computer working and b) to pick up on the anti-circ. perspective. For me the ignorance of RIC was another aspect of the general cultural ignorance about foreskins, - and I still think this.

I feel I was and am still sympathetic to their cause, however I have had great problems with them, because I am fanatical about ignorance, and false information which sustains the ignorance. - back then all the anti RICers had were just vague ideas about the function of the foreskin and its values. By year 2000 this developed to a detailed mythology - somtimes with its own vocabulary to support the ideas.

I hope you will sometime check this bias of selected medical studies available on the anti-circ. sites.
By this selection they support an over glorification of the foreskin, so that phimotic and frenular conditions are even seen as an advantage because they help cover the naked glans - at times its even suggested they have this purpose, or this usefulness!
And here you will again meet my closed mindedness!

You say
>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.

a) I believe I was actually first to suggest dermatologists - but so? do you imagine they use a diferent word to the urologists?
b) You may not realise it then, but the sources you follow for some of your concepts and vocabulary, are the anti-circ. sites.
c) its purpose ... humm - restricting the skin - hummmmmph
The healthy foreskin rolls forward over the glans by itself simply from the folds and mass of skin, and it stays there covering the glans all by itself without anything holding it forward.
Now consider: if when flaccid there was anything frenular or phimotic vaguely "restricting the skin from slipping behind the head", this would magnify and become an extreme hindrance on erection.
So, please check your thinking, because the implication of what you are saying is exactly what I am against, i.e. foreskin hindrances on the erection.

These conditions serve no purpose in modern man. If you want to start thinking about any purpose the conditions may sometime have served, you will need to consider why they exist in some (maybe all?) mammals (goats, pigs, horses and bulls are even checked for the conditions, due to breeding difficulties).

So please consider this. I must admit I dont really want an answer!! As far as I am concerned the forum is in AJs good hands - and I can now move on and use my weekly internet dosis to check out a few other things.

Thanks for the chat
Cheers
Robin


Answers: