[ ARC forum 2 ]

Can't convince you, but that's not the point.

Written by Paul B. at 11 Mar 2003 23:09:37:

As an answer to: Re: Missed it entirely. written by Harmen at 11 Mar 2003 14:24:16:

> Ralesk, You seem to be the only member of the stretch ideologists who is capable to communicate in a normal way.

By which you really mean "the only one who is prepared to humour" your rather peculiar views.

> 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."

But you give neither evidence of having tried anything such, nor do you for example, state it on your site. So it's the impression you give.

> 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.

And that's where we repeatedly challenge you. "Harming others" includes suggesting to them, especially when they are in an anxious state, that straightforward methods such as stretching, won't work, or won't work quick enough. Given that such people are frequently young and impatient, you do them the major harm of shepherding them toward a "quick fix", when the single most important lesson they need to lean to cope with life in its wider context, is that things really do take time.

> I experienced reading this forum as to be very one-sided. There is never any shade. That?s not real life.

As just stated, people with problems need clarity, lest they become confused. It might be appropriate to say: "There is a most remote possibility that if after a long time, for example six months, of consistent exercise, that the exercising was getting no perceptible results, one might consider surgery". But no, here you are blithely suggesting a tempting option of an "easy fix" right at the start.

That is not helping people. It's comparable to telling the 16 year-old who is dissatisfied with her A-cup size, to go to the doctor for breast augmentation because it's the "easy way".

> Let me try to explain my thoughts about stretching. ... Discipline and patience are required, but it's no garantee for succes. It doesn't work in all cases.

Why is this so reminiscent of AJ? You're right - it doesn't work in all cases, nothing does. But if one does it correctly, then the exceptions are going to be so rare that they can fend for themselves quite adequately.

> Parts of the skin, which have different functions, are built different too. For instance the wrappers in your knees are far less elastic.

Since they (ligaments, you obviously mean) are a totally different structure and far heavier. Entirely irrelevant (except to note that those ligaments may stretch under certain conditions).

> The frenulum ... sure is a tie of different material than the foreskin.

Nonsense. That's all.

> 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.

Correct insofar as continuous stretching has indeed an absolute guarantee of causing elongation (as the body mutilation people, as well as the "foreskin restoration" people well know). And there is a way of doing that on the fraenulum, but it requires a degree of diligence. Suffice it to say that regular (what you presumably meant by "rhythmic") stretching will achieve the same, but not as fast.

> You need several hours a day. Who can?

And that's what you claim to scare people off. Wrong!

> So I don?t expect too much of the stretching advises of the frenulum and keep an open mind for other solutions.

By which you mean to say you never seriously tried it yourself. Why don't you just admit that? Same as AJ I daresay.

> A short frenulum can spoil much fun.

Why do you keep saying that? I quote again your own words:

In the years before there was a normal use without any problems at having sexual intercourse or masturbating. This was not the principal motive for the operation. It rather was an aesthetic wish.

You have said you had no such problem with your "short" foreskin, but you make that claim. Strange!

> The tie-function of the frenulum is not very important. It can be missed without any problems.

Especially if you can't see problems.

> I also like skinning back, not to look like a circumcised person but for the good feelings it gives me.

So that you are "sexually stimulated" all the time? Now that is indeed a peculiar view.

> This forum may have other thoughts about this subject, but you should not force it to me. Besides, it won?t help.

Of course it won't. We just want you to butt out of discussions with your proposal to "help" people who have problems. If they were to post "I am looking for weird things to do with my penis" on the other hand, then you would be entirely welcome to contribute.

> I started my site in connection with a circumcision site

Say no more. We get the point.

> The board of that site only illustrated (aesthetically bad!) results of circumcision.

It was honest? What was it in fact?

> 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

Then you are the minority. That's the important thing.

> but please do not try to convince me again.

Hey, we won't try to convince you what you should have done. But every time you ever suggest it as an "appropriate" first-round solution for a short fraenulum, we're going to point out: "No, No, No!" Because someone has to act responsibly on the matter.


Answers: