[ ARC forum 2 ]

Response...

Written by AJ at 15 Feb 2003 15:40:51:

As an answer to: General stuff, all read it all written by Ralesk at 14 Feb 2003 19:28:18:

>To these I answer: AJ, can it be possible, that those of us who you denounce as quacks, armchair doctors, paranoid conspiracy theory makers and so on, do also know "quite a bit" if not more about the human body?

Anything is within the realm of possibility, Ralesk. Is it likely, however? Probably not.

>Can it be that those of us for whom any sort of skin growth exercises did work, have perhaps more experience with them than someone for whom they didn't and who gave up? Can it be, that those of us who posess a whole -- and working -- foreskin, know better where most probably the pleasureful zones are, than those with 1) unretractable foreskin 2) circumcised penis?

Maybe. Maybe not. Pleasure is relative after all.

>Not to be picky here...

And about doctors, well yes, you can pass all subjects with a C and get a diploma at the end. Most don't give a shit about extreme stuff like genitals, just more common problems like flu and such.

Ralesk, that's pure and utter speculation. That'd be just as accurate as me suggestion that doctors don't care about ear infections - there's no proof to support your proposal. I mean, was there ever a survey conducted that said "Do you care about the genitals - tick Yes, No, or Undecided"?

> Most (in the far west anyway) were taught (re: extensive training) from books and on lectures that do not mention the prepuce at all, so why would you expect a circumcised person who has probably never given a thought to his penis because he feels okay and somewhere deep in his mind circumcised penises are the default, to read up on a subject he barely knows exist?

First of all you need to reign in yet another presumption that a doctor would propose that a circumcised penis is "default". You are just presuming to speak on behalf of people again, Ralesk. Again, was there a survey - "Do you think the circumcised penis is a) default, b) non default c) unknown"? No. There was'nt. So, in this instance, you've drawn a conclusion based on nothing other than fancy.

> Not to mention female doctors who in their off-work life haven't seen an intact penis (that's not uncommon), nor do they posess one, what would lead them to read up on it?

See above comment.

>Not to mention, most American literature would just say "it is usually removed in infancy or early childhood". That does not give a clue for anyone, on how to treat a foreskin; their only sane idea -- evil they be or NOT -- will be, it shouldn't be there, for most it's not there, they don't have problems with that, so let's refer the guy to a surgeon and have this solved.

You seem to be resigned to the fact that doctors and surgeons have no idea about the genitials other than to cut them up, Ralesk? Why? How do you think they deal with STD, rashes, lumps and bumps and other complaints? Do you think they just say "I'm sorry sir, but we don't care about male genitals and are not taught anything about them a medical school. Sorry. Have you thought about trying the internet for some help?"


>This is simple logic from my point of view, I hope someone can tell me to fuck off in a way that I accept it. Ie. with another train of LOGICAL deduction.

You call it logic, I call it groundless assumption.

>However, it's always better to get an objective, qualified and professional input as opposed to an armchair doctor like yourself.

>Yes, if that were so easy. And btw, Jim hardly qualifies for the armchair doctor title, since he has never stated he were a doctor.

Someone other at the forum I moderate said the term arm chair doctor and I took it to mean anyone that is not a doctor, but presumes to give medical advice. To clarify: I'm certainly not saying Jim is a doctor.

>I agree with that qualified input is needed. However, I don't really thing anyone on the world knows exactly what the hell is going on in the prepuce and the penis.

That's your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion.

>I don't think that per definitionem anyone would be qualified.

See above.

>So we have to degrade to "who knows more" games.

It's not a game. However, Ralesk, if you check the archives (especially Fathermag) you will see many requests from your colleagues (Jim) to newcomers posting there to tell people what makes them qualified or able to give advice.

> And here we are, all of us, pretty much sharing our experiences.

We're not though, are we? Let's see...we know about me. We know about Jake. We know some stuff about Rood (Korydon). But that's it really. Jim, PaulB, 28/F, Ivan, Aussie Girl and even yourself don't share any experiences and history.

>As stated above, those with a foreskin know probably better what it is like.

How would they (those with a foreskin) know what it is like to have a painful unretractable foreskin? How would they know what it is like to have a circumcised penis? Unless someone here was cut even though they had a fully functional foreskin then it's a mute point and is no more relevant a perspective to adopt than anyone else's - regardless of cut or uncut.

>Those with restored coverage know probably better what difference that makes.

Again, pleasure it relative. There is also the issue of whether or not there is any benefit from elongating the foreskin.

>Those who have done skin growth exercises to a bigger depth, let it be restoration or "stretching" know probably better how that works and what makes one succeed at it. It makes no sense to call someone an armchair quack with dark and evil intentions (as above under Justin), especially when it regards a topic they are more experienced in.

It's the fact the individual is unqualified and has no accountability which is this issue in that context.

> To be honest, it is like you are experienced in going to a doctor, queue like a good Englishman, and have something cut off your penis.

I've been to a doctor. Lots of time. Never to have my penis cut off though.

>Not meaning to be nasty, but I doubt you have experience in stretching matter. You have failed it, afterall.

I have plenty of experience in stretching the foreskin, Ralesk. I did it for several months. It just did'nt work. There's a whole bunch of people that have reported limited to no success too - not only on the internet, but in medical studies as well. I can't quite see why the hang up on the issue of it not be successful for everyone.

>Then there's also the issues of accountability and responsibility - both of which appear to be other worldly concepts to you.
>You also have little problems regarding responsibility, to be honest. You immediately refer people to doctors, without warning them that they should have open eyes meanwhile.

Okay, so let's take a worse and best case scenario here, Ralesk, which do you think the parents would want for their kids... worse case: The kid is told by unqualified individual to make a ring in shop class and shove it down his foreskin..best case: It is suggested to the kid that he should speak to his parents and doctor first. What's so bad about that? Again you are presuming to tell people that "we know better" and to attempt to cut the parent and/or doctor out of the decision making process.

>It's not and NOT about that doctors would be evil, but the fact that doctors (as in GP and urologists) do not receive education about this matter in the world. That's the sad and simple fact. Some of them have read up on it, some of them have their own experience with their own body (the lucky sods), but this is by far not the majority for the United States. I can't be less than cautious in this part of it, and so is the rest of us.

Again, Ralesk, as stated nearer the top - absolute speculation. It's just your opinion and perhaps even a little misinformation?

>And that people don't write in every post that the person should cautiously go to the gp/urologist/etc. doesn't mean they have forgotten about it. It might happen that someone else has already written about that to the same concerned poster.

Better safe than sorry though, eh?

>Sorry for the rambling, I needed to collect a bunch of diverse shit I wanted to say.

If you are saying sorry to me, that's fine and not a problem. If we have confusion towards each others respective beliefs then it's often best to discuss the rationally. I'll be on ICQ later this afternoon if you want to continue the discussion - I'm a little reluctant to talk about it here as I don't think some of your peers are able to discuss things without trolling up a thread. Though they are more than welcome to come on ICQ e-mail to continue it. Heck, we could even open an ICQ chat session up for real time communications?

Please note: It's too cold at the moment to proof read this post, so please for give any mistakes.

Peace out.


Answers: