[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Ralesk at 05 Sep 2003 19:33:56: Re: Answer to the public letter
As an answer to: Re: Answer to the public letter written by Robin at 05 Sep 2003 17:05:17:
> My congratulations on "original" and "developed"
Thanks :)
> I think you gloss over a few points and go off track often
That's usual, yes. I bet I drive tech support crazy the rare occasion I have to use them!
> 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.
I do recall seeing the first, but I believe I'm surrounded with people who don't think a tight or an unretractable foreskin is an advantage, au contraire! I think even my FS -- as you call them -- acquaintances believe that a working foreskin is superior to a not or not-properly working one, or the lack of any, but they/we do think that the exposure of the covered bits is only necessary or intended by nature when there is to be sexual use of the “meat”. At that I could point a finger at many mammals, I guess.
> a) I believe I was actually first to suggest dermatologists - but so? do you imagine they use a diferent word to the urologists?
I thought the naming issue wasn't related to our discussion about dermatologists and 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.
And? :) I think it's just as much a matter of preference as liking your calendar have Sunday first or last.
> c) its purpose ... humm - restricting the skin - hummmmmph
Have you read the whole line? When it is not needed. It's obviously not a good thing that the foreskin rolls behind the glans when there is a protection job to fulfill. And I don't think I can believe anyone that the forward position isn't to protect the apparently sensitive parts from abrasion and getting-used-to-rubbing.
> 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.
Hmm, I don't have any tightness present (you know, I can fit about 6 fingers in there) and I think it works like the rubber elastic in your underwear, though not as tight or stong. That was a great analogy, whoever has written it hereabouts recently, props!
> if when flaccid there was anything frenular or phimotic vaguely [...]
Then, I guess, that disqualifies both Frenar Band and Phimotic Ring, doesn't it?
Back to this topic, I tried to emphasise earlier that phimotic ring as the common name of the wrinkly tip part of the foreskin would perhaps give the assumption that it does have phimosis (which, optimally, it doesn't, in adulthood), that being an already well known word (not really well known, but you don't see any “illnesses” with frenar in them, eh?).> These conditions serve no purpose in modern man.
Never ever said that an actual phimosis is good for anyone, though. :)
> I must admit I dont really want an answer!!
hehe, now I gave you again something else to answer to! No Christmas yet, man. ;)