[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: The Practicalities ...

Written by Pete at 07 Jun 2003 14:28:23:

As an answer to: The Practicalities ... written by Paul B. at 06 Jun 2003 12:08:50:

>> When having sex, pushing in causes some retraction because of the grip of the vagina (don't worry, lots of foreplay and usually she's moist)
>"Moist" is not always enough - she needs to be sopping wet. The "friction", so beloved of the circumcision advocates, is not a desirable part of sex. Women get sore (and not just at the time, which may be magnanimously overlooked if they are highly excited, but afterward as well) and problems such as you describe occur. Ensuring adequate lubrication is one of the true skills of sex.
>> but phimosis means the retraction causes pain. Unlike masturbation, where you/ she can control the degree of retraction, intercourse means a full attempt at pull-back - not achievable with phimosis
>No, I dispute this presumption. No deliberate "attempt" at pull-back should be involved. This is not to be confused with the fact that a properly retractile foreskin will pull back automatically, because it will do so easily.
>And this is indeed the "gliding mechanism" described as a principal function of the foreskin, it pulls back on entry, and re-covers on withdrawal, functioning to keep the lubrication in the vagina. Obviously if you do not have a foreskin that does that, then you may suffer from a lack - or loss - of lubrication, but if this necessarily made it impossible for intercourse, then it would be impossible for circumcised men who cannot pull their foreskin back either. But in fact, with adequate lubrication, they can have intercourse, and so can you.
>> I have not previously used a lubricant, will do so next time.
>Then I think you will be in for a pleasant surprise.
>> As stated, the woman has always indicated time for penetration - so I assume she's ready!
>But she may be equally inexperienced, or poorly observant.
>> I haven't the faintest idea why the condom rolls up and falls off - but it hurts on the partially-exposed glans anyway
>Then a touch of lubricant inside the condom will resolve that second matter, whilst the use of lubricant on the outside, a tighter condom and possibly a longer one, will help with the "falling off". It turns out that condoms are a somewhat tenuous engineering proposition anyway, given that they contain lubrication on the inside most effectively, causing them to slip on the penis, whilst helping to remove lubrication on the outside (as does a circumcised penis) where it is let us say, sorely needed. The "Femidom" or "female condom" which does the opposite, staying inside the woman whilst the man thrusts in and out, is a much better approach in this regard (as well as doing a much better job of protection against STDs too).
>{Regarding the myth that the foreskin will "close up again" after stretching.}
>> ** Why so surprised? The information (or notion if you like) has come from one or two doctors and from one or two statements from web-sites.
>I am truly sorry, and greatly saddened that one or more doctors should have told you such a thing. In their defence, I can only muse that they are underneath, people, and share the all-too-human characteristic of self-justification at the expense of honesty, in this case, the fabrication of "information" to suit a situation with which they are not familiar, using experience from what they believe to be a similar situation, but have not actually considered the important differences.
>Few doctors (indeed) have actually supervised self-stretching procedures, at least in this area, so few have any genuine experience regarding whether it is effective or not. Some (and in fact, not that many) have encountered diseases of the foreskin which cause scarring and stricture, and as such things (but not the normal variations) are written up in texts (which are unfortunately, more often than not completely out-of-date regarding current practice and knowledge), there is a tendency to think that everything they see (or not see - did they even examine you?), must therefore correspond to "that thing I read in the journal once".
>Now as to the internet. The delight of the internet, for many of us, is its "democracy" - the ability to express a point of view without the constraints that almost all governments would dearly love to impose. People can and do use this ability to expound their views, even the most preposterous, bizarre and perverse, dare I say, evil ones.
>Another view of the Internet is a means to find information extremely quickly and effectively. The two aspects must however, be reconciled, which means that you must always check, check again and re-check the "information" you find. One of the ways you do this is by considering the integrity of sites - who is responsible for them, whether a reputable organisation (and whether the site really is published by that organisation, or could be a fake!) or some totally "fly-by-night" operation, millions of which are permitted on the "web".
>On this site, and more particularly on this unmoderated forum, you really are "on your own". Even for example, if you like what I say, you cannot be entirely sure any given post was written by me (I have been imitated or parodied not a few times here), so you have to check what you read against your own common sense.
>OK, perhaps I'm flogging this point ad nauseam and you're about to ignore me altogether, but I am saying you truly have to think really hard about the suggestions you may have read, and even heard from doctors to ask the pivotal question "does this make sense". I shall now try and give you some further ideas to make some sense of it.
>> If you look at ear-piercings where the jewellery is taken out, the hole closes.
>Maybe, and maybe not. You pick a good example, because this depends greatly on whether the piercing has been stretched by the use of large studs or heavy jewellery. And also, how "mature" the piercing is - whether it has fully epithelialised (by skin growing in along the piercing track). A common complication of "mature" piercings that are abandoned, is the development of an epidermoid (skin material) cyst in the track from skin that is growing, but unable to escape from the ends of the track.
>> I don't strenuously disavow infection, just it was a surprise that someone has assumed it as a possibility, because to me phimosis is congenital and in my case has been lifelong.
>Then you should not have any reason for your foreskin to constrict. It is tight because it was never required to be any other way. Personally (and so thinks the "author" of this site, for what that is worth), I think that a vital part of child education, is to impart the notion that the foreskin should retract, and it is his task to effect this. In the right family atmosphere, little more should be necessary.
>> good to know that full intercourse is not perceived as essential by yourself ("and certain others here") - where? are you in an office together?
>No, but as I pointed out, this is the view of most relationship (sexual) counsellors, and fundamental to most professional advice given. Of course, some people are unable to understand the concept and cannot be helped - but then those are less likely to come here.
>Actually, the fact of the matter is that many if not most women, are not particularly enthusiastic about intercourse, insofar as they are unlikely to "come" during intercourse, or only with great difficulty and perhaps using a few little "extras". As such, - you may ask why they have intercourse at all and the answer is in general that - they do it primarily as a matter of expectation - to indulge what men desperately wish to do. Not surprisingly, when they become disenchanted with their relationships, they readily "go off" intercourse, and sex in general, all the more dramatically if their men have little repertoire beyond that activity.
>This is not to say that all women are this way, or indeed that your girlfriend is, or will be like this. It is however a reminder not to presume that your concept of "full intercourse" is necessarily at all important to her, and that amongst the range of sexual activities, it is truly essential except perhaps for procreation (and of course, that is one other reason why women do have intercourse where it is not otherwise fulfilling).
>> I share your views. But, she may wish for full, easy, non-complicated intercourse, with a man who can thrust away without pain.
>She may to be sure, but as I say, many women are really, truly not actually impressed by the "thrusting". But then, they often simply like the closeness, and the pleasure their fellow derives from his thrusting.
>Naturally, this concept is anathema to many men, "trained" as they are by women who fake orgasms (and fake enthusiasm, where it suits them) to "keep the peace".
>> Not being normal in not having a retractable foreskin is somewhat embarassing, but clearly the maturity and involvement of the parties involved would alleviate the initial potential embarassment.
>And that is most certainly what I am saying. Where sex is the negotiating point of the relationship, the man striving to impress with his "potency" and the woman striving to appear impressed, then anything outside stock-standard "normalcy" makes it difficult to play the traditional rôles. But if it is instead based on friendship, which means co-operation and respect, and respect for the person rather than their physique, such things fade from concern. That is maturity.
>


>It goes without saying that nothing I suggest here, suggests anything other than that you should proceed to a determined but careful effort to stretch your foreskin, remembering you have to over-stretch it in time and dimension, so that even as it does "spring" back to a smaller diameter, this residual diameter is comfortable to slip back either automatically, or with minimal force (probably the more useful of the two) over an erection.

***************************************

Thanks for all your comments. Clearly what is key here is the need for lubrication and the need for open discussion. The risk I am taking is that
this medical condition is flung back in your face in an argument months down
the road or in public: "At least my other boyfriend's knob worked properly..."

Anyway, moving on, some final queries:
1) re: stretching, there seems to be three approaches: a) pull down whilst
erect, using the penis as a dilator b) pull down and outwards whilst flaccid
using fingers c) insert fingers and pull outwards with either a and/or b.
Have I got this right or is there anything else I need to know?
2) the glans really hurts big-time when exposed [100% when flaccid];
[20% when erect]. I assume that repeated exposure and contact with
fingers etc. will eventually turn the skin to normal and possibly even
erogenous? At the moment its like a carpet burn i.e. when you were a kid
and scraped your elbow on the carpet when falling over. Painful glans and
phimosis seem to go together, so I assume removing the phimosis would remove
the pain on the glans, eventually.
Thanks for entering into this discussion. Most doctors I've seen just have not
got the faintest fucking idea about the problem, never mind the solution(s).

Pete

*************************************************************************


Answers: