[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: 30 years too late

Written by Danalee at 21 Jun 2004 00:20:32:

As an answer to: Re: 30 years too late written by Ivan at 20 Jun 2004 21:24:26:

The only thing hateful is your judgement of me, sir. I obviously had to abbreviate my situation here and because I don't know all the alternatives to the condition because I just 'stumbled here' by accident I can only share my feelings and experiences. My feelings are legitimate; as are yours. So feel free to hate me for whatever warped reason you choose. And, you are wrong, sir, if you separate out what became my lack of self-esteem resulting in my being non-orgasmic, from the whole mess. So, your misogyny is quite evident. I on the other hand have gone on to have healthy relationships with both myself and others. What I related here, I thought, was just one persons experience with the system; an educational and health care delivery system that failed miserably. Save your analyses for a paying customer. As a licensed therapist I would be happy to get you a referral if you are ever in California should you desire to work on some anger management.

>>:) Sex education, indeed! I hope that this ignorance would not repeat itself today; but since it was even difficult for me to find a name to put to this condition, let alone find this website, I fear the outlook remains poor. It doesn't just impact the man, it impacts their spouse/partner. It took me years to become orgasmic myself and to this day I would probably not knowingly go into a relationship with a non-circumcized man because of the trauma from those early years.
>You are taking the 'appendectomy' approach. It used to be that when a surgeon had to go into the abdominal area, he would just go ahead and take the appendix out as a matter of course. It was believed/assumed that it was useless and would likely eventually go bad anyway. Later researchers started looking into whether the assumption was correct and found that the appendix did have a purpose (toxin protection). Now they only remove the appendix when it is actually acutely infected.
>As an American, you have been brought up with the notion that the foreskin is at best useless and will probably just be a source of problems anyway. You say you had this experience with a phimotic Scot. If so, he could have fixed the condition in little time, a few months at most, by getting it to grow wider (just as the skin of your chest grew when the budding breasts underneath it started to put pressure on it). In any case, his phimosis had absolutely nothing to do with his erection problems - the vast majority of men have their foreskins covering their glanses when they start to become erect: exposure occurs afterwards as a result of erection, not erection occurring as a result of exposure. In fact, if he had not had an erectile problem, he probably would not have been phimotic, as having an erection by itself does a lot to make the foreskin grow toward mobility.
>Nature created the foreskin and it has continued in the males of all creatures I know of with external penises. It protects the glans from the elements, and it helps to preserve moisture in the vagina and provide additional stimulation (much as the 'French Tickler' condoms provide additional stimulation). It is highly packed with nerves.
>With your first post, I could not tell what kind of 'education' you were thinking of. Your post could have been referring to the need for boys to know to stretch their foreskin so it grows and becomes mobile. Only in your second post have you revealed your 'hack it off' mentality. On occasion removal may be necessary, but it is a sorry attitude to take one bad experience and think that means it should be applied to everyone. The body is made - whether by God or Nature or God using Nature - in a highly functional state and it is the utmost of arrogance to assume we know so much better that we can willy-nilly lop off parts we have taken a dislike to and effect an improvement.
>And by the way, your difficulty with orgasms had nothing to do with having a marriage to a man with phimosis. His non-related erectile problems had a much bigger role during the marriage. But the fact that it took so long for you to achieve orgasm even though you were no longer around that dreaded foreskin shows that the problem wasn't at all in someone else but in yourself. Now you are grasping at straws to avoid taking responsibility for your own situation. If anything the hateful attitude that comes through your posts was more likely a cause of both your lack of orgasms and his erectile problems.


Answers: