[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Problems with foreskin, questions regarding others experiences

Written by Ralesk at 01 May 2004 06:54:58:

As an answer to: Re: Problems with foreskin, questions regarding others experiences written by David R at 01 May 2004 05:57:31:

>>Please watch the extra > characters.
>Why?? It's my post, not yours!

It’s everyone’s forum. The forum script automatically adds necessary > characters, just as your e-mail client does. Respect these in order not to confuse people.

>>There will be a point, yes, when it’s like that.
>And your point, if there is one is...?
At a particular state of the process, there will be a point where the person will only be able to retract when flaccid and not when erect. Later it will be possible to retract when erect. For a while, it will be particularly not a good idea to let the foreskin stay behind the glans, so as to avoid paraphimosis.

>>>Under these circumstances, you have only surgical choices.
>Sure and they are lucky. I assume you didn't see what these guys started with, so quoting a few anecdotes is not particularly helpful.

Not anecdotes. They were regulars here. Both started unretractable. They may be anecdotes to YOU, but who have been here for years, like AJ and myself, they are not, because we know what these people went through.

>I've seen people survive widespread cancer but that doesn't help in a rational discussion of treatment for that condition and so I wouldn't consider discussing them as object lessons.

Phimosis is nowhere as serious and as generally uncurable as cancer.

“Your BEST [and only] option is circumcision” is hardly a “rational discussion of treatment”.

>>>A dorsal slit is one procedure but a very poor substitute for a well done circumcision.
>>Let’s not even get into analysing the looks of a dorsal slit.
>Is that sarcasm or ignorance? Either way, not a helpful comment, though by now I can hardly be surprised.

I have seen images. I prefer the look of a circumcised penis over the dorsal slit one.

Why do you feel so threatened by anything and everything?

>>You’re doing something way too hard if you end up with serious cracks in the foreskin. Scar tissue too can be softened (with steroids) and stretched/made grow (as shown in the development of the RIC children, or the progress of foreskin restorers).
>There is no such thing as foreskin restoration. That is a euphemism for a lot of frilly tugging and has never created a foreskin. Amazing!

Well, I tend to call it “restoring skin coverage” and we all are well aware that it won’t give back what was previously taken. The reason I often call it “foreskin restoration” is simply that it’s known that way.

Yet, you seem to dwell in the details of names, instead of commenting on what you should have. The fact is, that skin can be stretched and grown, and that’s exactly so with original phimosis. Acquired phimosis requires the causing infection or condition (i.e. LSA) to be treated and controlled.

>To dismiss that cracking and tearing do occur with such a flippant remark reveals your ignorance- common word here- of the pathophysiology of phimosis and what people do in desperation to fix it;

Desperation? Exactly my point. YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING TOO HARD if you cause breaks and tears. And that’s one of the points we always repeat. Don’t do it too hard.

>in order to avoid that horrific mutilation known as circumcision- and no, I am not smiling.

Ha ha ha.

>>>And boy, to those who were circumcised as kids you must wonder at the unfortunate and oh so common problems the 4skin presents.
>>Common? Phimosis exists in such high amounts only because parents have no idea how to bring up their children in this regard
>Where did you learn that? If only your opinions were close to fact we might be scoring, let's think,... 5%. This though is an interesting response in that you acknowledge the problem is common and that parents don't know what to do. So much for leaving kids uncircumcised.

So much for parental education and civilisation-caused prudery.
Original Phimosis would not be a problem if children were not taught not to touch their genitals, for one, and were taught appropriate care, for two.

>You made an argument that we procircers habe been making forever, but as usual you have gotten the cause and effect backwards. I suggest you rethink this one.

I suggest you rethink it too and notice the little fact that children are usually born with adhesion and even more usually with phimosis. Some of these, as you yourself said, clear up when you meddle with the area (you gave an example the other day about masturbation breaking adhesions, you gave an example about masturbation helping to stretch the foreskin opening big enough), and exactly that is what’s missing in modern society in childhood — when those would be the most effectively broken and cleared up, not to mention, with mostly subconscious and thus not overly desperate actions.

>>Other maladies can be treated with medicine, just like many things regarding the human body.
>I have no idea what that means. So, pass...

Thrush with cremes, LSA with medicine too, like in women, etc. etc.

Obviously there are things that necessitate surgical intervention, for example chordia. I won’t disagree on that.

>>>This forum is full of them and hardly a complaint from those circ'd as neonates.
>>Of course they can’t have phimosis.
>HOW TRUE.

>>They may have problems with the scar, they have a nice big scar in the first place, they may have painful erections, and they can still get LSA.
>Mostly false. Where you get this stuff from apart from an impossibly unconstained imagination, one can only guess.

Circumcision is an operation and as such it can’t be perfect. And it doesn’t protect you from LSA or HIV or STDs or UTI.

>>By the way, we do get visitors who are circumcised, AJ has dealt with some who had questions regarding post-op care.
>Why should that be a surprise? This is meant to be an open forum but mostly you wouldn't know from all the cockle-doodle-doing.

I laugh at your re-executed attack on me.


Answers: