[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 29 Mar 2002 11:51:40: Re: I'm still tight!
As an answer to: Re: What happened to all the Creams? I'm still tight! written by halfclip at 26 Mar 2002 15:09:35:
> But if you maintain the same "lifestyle" that allowed you to acquire/keep that phimosis,
> then I suspect that the odds of having problems later after succesful stretching are higher.I's say you are dead right. The complaint of foreskin tightening later in life is almost always an indicator of disuse, and in that order of consequence.
And I have to say that for the old, impotent and thoroughly disenchanted who then suffer chronic irritation, circumcision is quite a reasonable option, as is the removal of earlobes, nose-tip and such for treatment of skin cancers. But for anyone in whom there is any anticipation of return to sexual activity, it is not.
> Many pro-circ opponents of partial circumcision will often point out that partial circ doesn't prevent further phimosis.
> However, it is my personal experience that if enough skin was removed to result in the foreskin self-retracting
> completely during erections, your foreskin will retract enough times each day/ night that you won't be able to
> get phimosis even if you don't masturbate.Certainly. And in the context of what I just stated, if you are impotent and can't get erections even at night, the phimosis may well occur in consequence.
> Many anti-circ folks seem to think that having a foreskin that is not fully retractable during erection is normal and desirable.
I rather doubt that is true. We have had a very few rather "colourful", or more correctly, quite eccentric people on this forum and more persistently, Fathermag, who have that view, but it remains very much a minority view.
The vast majority of us who are against circumcision and in particular, infant mutilation, simply point out that contrary to what circumcision zealots sometimes claim, a non-retractile foreskin is still consistent with hygiene and a normal sex life including masturbation, mutual pleasuring, oral and vaginal intercourse (leading to the fathering of children) and - I'm not going further than that! (;-)
My use of the word "normal" here is however, guarded. As I see it, that condition is equally "normal" as circumcision insofar as the above activities remain quite possible, but neither would I view as desirable.
> That is just because they will say anything to hide the fact that foreskins sometimes do need treatment.
Since what you claim is not really representative of the "intactness" lobby, then this too is not a particularly insightful suggestion. It should be particularly evident that the more active contributors here such as Jim, myself, Will, Rood, tmtanec and our occasional "jim22", are only too keen to assist those with non-retractable foreskins to treat their problem fully and permanently.
> If you goal is to remain uncut at all costs even if it means painful sex, then that is your choice.
But none of us has ever suggested any such thing.
> A snip and a couple weeks healing ...will provide a lifetime of better sex compared to a defective foreskin.
Quite possibly. But forgive us, we are of the collective opinion that "better" sex is not as worthy a goal as a lifetime of best sex! And that is always worth a little work and a little wait.
> ... surgery also gives you the chance to improve the way your penis looks
This now enters an area of deep psychopathology
> *IF* you are not too thrilled about the appearance of your current foreskin (too long, wrinkly overhang etc etc).
An appearance closely reminiscent of how a(n adult) woman's labia always appear. Now, why would that appearance be disturbing, eh?
Your subsequent comments are eminently sensible.
>If you have been masturbating a certain "phimotic" way all yor life, it may not be so easy to retrain yourself.
An interesting suggestion. I suspect it depends on age - the essence of youth is to be flexible - certainly such a change late in life just might be a challenge. (;-)