[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 25 Jun 2002 23:44:42: A sick fetish site lies about stretching
As an answer to: Re: A sick fetish site talks about stretching written by Halflcip at 25 Jun 2002 22:12:01:
> While I agree that the text is slanted against stretching,
You got that right!
Actually, the big problem is that it. like much of the bmorris stuff, is pseudo-scientific or pseudo-medical, exactly like much of the stuff spouted by "natural" or "alternative" medical people. It "talks the talk", but is nothing more than a collection of plausible claims strung together as if they were connected, when they really are not, and a certain degree of education is needed to detect the incongruence. For example:
>> tiny scars which are even less elastic than the skin around them
Where's the hook? Well, it's in two words, but particularly the word "even". This serves to conceal the deceptive claim that the foreskin is "less elastic" - which is the subliminal suggestion. It tries to tell someone that a tight foreskin is somehow caused by loss of elasticity and scarring (but without a logical reason), and imply that:
>> thus the phimosis actually gets worse and circumcision is eventually necessary.
- implanting the idea that they might as well give up now, rather than perform the stretching! In reality, a tight foreskin is a tight foreskin - it has not grown because it has not been required to.
I recall examining a (young? perhaps not so young!) lady a few days ago who had surgery less than a year ago, and I happen to recall thinking, looking at the scars immediately after that surgery, that they were somewhat disfiguring (albeit some in places only her husband would usually get to look at). I was absolutely fascinated to note this time, that I had to look carefully to locate them all and remind myself where each was.
Obviously, her tissue response to scarring was excellently "tuned", neither too much nor too little growth of scar issue, but the point was that the elasticity in her skin had stretched each scar out flat so that the scars were just the same elasticity as the surrounding skin. In fact, this is the norm, not the exception.
> it is a fact that improper stretching will cause tiny scars which IN THE LONG TERM will cause the foreksin to narrow again.
And with this, I take exception. Firstly, that what is often referred to as "tiny scars" is in fact fissuring - where the skin is abnormally brittle. Healthy skin does not do this, and this is an indication of some dermatosis (inflammation), perhaps due to Candida (Thrush), perhaps dermatitis (though as urea is actually a valid treatment for many "dry skin" conditions, many forms of dermatitis simply do not occur on the foreskin)). An anti-fungal perhaps, but often just a protective emollient (Zinc & Castor Oil) is in order here. And secondly, multiple small fissures do not reduce flexibility in the skin as they are too small - the "normal" tissue is too close - for scars to form.
Thirdly, scar contraction is normally not a long-term phenomenon. It happens to pull the tissues back to their original position and having done so, stops - at the point when tension is back to normal.
And in all other respects, "Halfclip", I must say you are "spot on".You do need to keep retracting over a lifetime, or even a normal foreskin may contract and become difficult. Chronic Candidiasis (Diabetes) will make this much worse and except for this, stretching is always an option to reverse the trend. Stretching should be gentle, and certainly it is the lack of proper handling of the foreskin as a child rather than any disease, that is in the vast majority of cases responsible for a "phimosis" at puberty.