[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Ralesk at 12 Mar 2003 02:54:31: Re: Missed it entirely.
As an answer to: Re: Missed it entirely. written by Harmen at 11 Mar 2003 14:24:16:
» 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.
I have to agree with this, but only somewhat. I do understand the difference between the two functions and their importance, however, I need to doubt whether the "tie function" is even NEAR negligible, and I severely do doubt whether current surgical techniques would be able to re-attach a short frenulum in a different way WHILE retaining most nerves IN the frenulum intact. Under the strictly-taken frenulum (the banjo string as I had heard someone call it), there is quite an amount of skin with blood vessels and nerves, and I can see that cutting/ripping the frenulum itself only, will probably only damage those nerves INSIDE the frenulum.
See my point?
This way, trying to keep the nerves inside intact is not all that much of a shortsightedness, is it?
» I also like skinning back, not to look like a circumcised person but for the good feelings it gives me.
I know what you mean, but if anything, one reason to keep my frenulum as much as possible (having torn it more or less when I was 13 or 14) is to retain the ability to be covered or exposed whenever I wish, and not have it slide back by itself...
I must say, I do like both ways, myself.
And well, I thank you for laying your thoughts in a decent manner AND trying to communicate afterall.