[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Rubbish...

Written by Ralesk at 17 Jul 2003 18:53:01:

As an answer to: Rubbish... written by AJ at 17 Jul 2003 14:06:28:

>>My God, man, your troubles have just begun.
>What, are you a prophet?

No, simply he knows what effect it had on his own penis.
/Which/ is what lead him realise he had made a mistake.

>>As you have had a circumcision, you can expect weeks and even months to pass before you are anywhere near "healed", which term is in itself a misnomer.

>It takes about 2 weeks for the initial healing period. Then maybe 4 weeks for the swelling to go completely.

That's weeks and months ;) Again, Rood also has personal experience on "healing up" from circumcision.

>>Face it. You have mutilated your penis, permanently.
>You may feel he has mutilated his penis, Rood. However, most people would say that he has just had a circumcision.

Well, the definition of the word makes it sorta fit. True, it's strong and lacks any euphemism, but that doesn't make it improper.
I'd like to remind our readers that John had -- according to his story written here -- asked for a /fraenuloplasty/ and not of /any/ sort of circumcision. Yet, his doctor /did/ cut a part of the tip of his foreskin off. Makes me wonder what the doctors agenda is --- the patient goes in there with the shortness of the fraenum and no indication he'd have problems with retraction besides the shortness of his fraenulum [thus no indication of any real chance for paraphimosis] and they almost take his skin away? I'm not rabidly untrusting towards people working in healthcare, but this looks ridiculous.

>>Don't think I enjoy writing these words. I made the same mistake myself.
>Again, Rood, just because you felt that you made a mistake getting circumcised, it does not mean that holds true for every single male in existence.

Same way, just that you or John feel that this saved your sex lives, it doesn't make Rood's or anyone's words who regret it any less valid. They feel it had a negative impact on their [sex] lives, and they have no less right to express their concerns and worries about other people --- simply as in the long run the other could end up feeling sameways (talking about preemtive warnings for example).

> Indeed, if your assertion were true then there would be millions, perhaps billions of anti-circumcision activists instead of a relative handful scattered across the world.

Ever counted pro-circumcision /activists/? Forget about the millions of comfortably numb and "content" circumcised Americans and whatnot who don't know it could be anything else. Forget all doctors who just suggest it because that's what they had been taught to suggest. Now we're nearing some real number that is about the similar amount of people as these anti-circumcision /activists/.

>Please try and keep perspective on what you write, Rood. Maybe realise too that your perspective is only relevant to you. It is not always applicable to others and certainly not a given. These absolutes you give should not be presented as such as it is wholly inaccurate.

Thing is, it's just the same vice versa.

--
R.


Answers: