[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 25 Jan 2002 12:25:56: Normal/ Optimum
As an answer to: Re: Pinhole Phimosis written by rjk at 24 Jan 2002 19:58:24:
> A pinhole phimosis would make it extremely difficult to achieve a normal sex life.
Well, that seems to depend. In particular, and as the original poster here, "James" (who curiously enough, appears to have disappeared entirely - one wonders why that would be! ;-) demonstrates, many people enjoy what they think to be a "normal" sex life with a completely non-retractile foreskin. Now if you define "normal" as growing up, masturbating, having girlfriends, "petting" including "hand jobs", oral sex and progressing to intercourse with the option of the partner's pregnancy(/ies) and fathering children, then none of those is precluded by a non-retractile foreskin.
> No, I haven't had a pinhole phimosis so can't speak from personal experience,
No, not everyone needs to speak from personal experience. I don't have personal experience of this either, but have examined those who have and their issue, so I think that's fair basis for comment.
> nonetheless what I'm saying here would seem to most rational folk to be self-evident!
Umm, which part? The "normal" bit? Well, as I say, if you are going to be terribly fussy about "normal", then it is not normal, but by the same criterion, neither is being circumcised.
>> If ... you ... fear that certain movements will hurt, then you do not have a fully functioning penis.
>Well said.And I won't dispute that. The key word is hurt, but that is neither a necessary nor common consequence of phimosis, since nocturnal erections ensure the foreskin grows to accommodate the penis without pain.
> few (if any) women can be expected to put up with sloppy hygiene.
Which has virtually nothing to do with an nonretractile foreskin, which carries the curious consequence that it prevents soil from getting in as much as it prevents it from getting out. And if one is to mention women and their genitalia which obey this same rule, and hygiene, then you approach what I have elsewhere described (:-^) as "Pandora's Box" of considerable proportion!
> two provinces with the highest rates of penile cancer ... with the lowest rates of circumcision: Quebec & Nova Scotia.
Interesting, but by what magnitude? One can play endlessly with regional statistics.
> Another interesting fact: ... penile cancer in Denmark has gone down significantly.
Most interesting!
> This is attributed to the widespread installation of indoor plumbing since 1945.
Has their smoking rate decreased also?
In summary, it would appear that there are many men who have a nonretractile foreskin and don't realise it. This demonstrates how poor sexual knowledge really is over the board, how little men really discuss such things in a serious fashion and how ineffective school education may be also!
Nevertheless these men do proceed to become sexually active and go on to father children. Given that the vast majority of men in the world are not circumcised - there are for example a lot of them in China, and nearly as many in India, then unless their method of education and care in this respect is far better than ours (which is to be frank, possible, but quite improbable) it must follow that there are literally millions of men in this situation, not concerned.
Whether or not there are greater risks or subtle benefits one way or the other, it would appear that neither circumcision nor inability to retract the foreskin, though neither is "normal", significantly precludes the perception of "normal" sexual functioning. You actually have to look for indicators of less-than-optimum performance, and the "man in the street" generally does not, indeed often cannot due to many confounding factors.