[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Missed it entirely.

Written by Harmen at 11 Mar 2003 14:24:16:

As an answer to: Re: Missed it entirely. written by Ralesk at 11 Mar 2003 08:28:45:

> Ik probeer hier een beetje van een moderator zijn, maar er zijn mensen van alle twee zijden die niet willen samenwerken.
(I try to be a sort of moderator here, but some people on both sides don't want to cooperate.)

Ralesk,
You seem to be the only member of the stretch ideologists who is capable to communicate in a normal way.
Thanks for the comments. I understand your points, but do not agree with you concerning the conclusions of my attitude. It’s a misconception that I only promote surgical solutions. I also prefer the natural way if possible within a reasonable time. My principal thoughts however are about the freedom to think and act concerning my body as I myself like it to be the best for me, under the condition that I don’t harm others.
I experienced reading this forum as to be very one-sided. There is never any shade. That’s not real life.

Let me try to explain my thoughts about stretching. The stretching of skin can have results. It’s based on the regeneration of damaged cells. The body is capable of restoring damages and if you use this function in the right way, you will get new cells in a greater number. A foreskin without infections can be changed in this way. Discipline and patience are required, but it's no garantee for succes. It doesn't work in all cases.

Parts of the skin, which have different functions, are built different too. For instance the wrappers in your knees are far less elastic. They must be able to handle heavy forces and wouldn’t work if the material was softer. The frenulum has a comparable function, but not with those heavy forces. However, that’s relatively. It sure is a tie of different material than the foreskin. Stretching results are very unlikely because of the other kind of skin and the problem of the impossibility to stretch during a rather long time in a regular rhythm. You need several hours a day. Who can? So I don’t expect too much of the stretching advises of the frenulum and keep an open mind for other solutions. A short frenulum can spoil much fun.

The tie-function of the frenulum is not very important. It can be missed without any problems. It’s certainly not an exception if it’s short. In that condition it causes troubles or it gives a too limited retraction of the foreskin. The real importance of the frenulum is the sensibility of the nerves under the tie. Many circumcisions are performed unaware of this importance. The loss of this functionality cannot be repaired. However, a little operation (less than 10 minutes) on the frenulum, without circumcision, isn’t very risky.

On this forum many members do not agree with my point of view. I think that’s shortsighted. There were many discussions in the past and I’d rather not give it a new birth, but that will be an illusion. I also like skinning back, not to look like a circumcised person but for the good feelings it gives me. This forum may have other thoughts about this subject, but you should not force it to me. Besides, it won’t help.

I realise that the circumcision discussion only takes place in some countries, not in mine. In the Netherlands only 5 % is circumcised, most of them for medical or religious reasons. Most of the doctors I know don’t push in that direction. It’s your own choice and they only advise, often not to do it if it’s unnecessary.
I started my site in connection with a circumcision site on which also frequently questions were asked about the frenulum and results of frenuloplasty. They wanted to see the results of others but could not find any clear pictures about it. The board of that site only illustrated (aesthetically bad!) results of circumcision.
I try to give some information about (short) frenulum problems, which are no exception. Stretching theoretically can have results, but it’s very doubtful to my opinion and I know it’s the opposite of yours, but please do not try to convince me again. I really read all the arguments.

Ralesk, thanks.


Answers: