<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

One ring to rule them all!

September 4 2010 at 2:02 PM
MarkBowen  (no login)

Hi again guys,


Thanks for answering my last question about cancer and phimosis! But now, I have another question. I dont think this one has been asked before....

Anyway, thanks to you guys, by reading back on the forum its easy to find out a lot about the nature of the foreskin and how to stretch the 'phimotic ring', but I wanted to ask: what is the phimotic ring made of exactly? I know its 'skin', but its texture/nature seems like it doesnt act like the rest of the skin on the penis. By that, I mean, it doesnt stretch in the same way. It almost seems harder (I hope you know what I mean). Why has this tight, almost fibrous ring of tissue developed?

Thanks again guys. Sorry to take up your time if this seems a daft question, but I am really curious about it.


 
    
AuthorReply
Jim
(Premier Login jimsplacetofixthings)
Forum Owner

Where have you been?

September 4 2010, 9:39 PM 

I recognize terminology used on pro-circumcision websites. Here is a link to a website you can generally trust for accuracy:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/

From experience here, I have found that when the ring is inflexible, yeast is usually present.

 
    
MarkBowen
(no login)

Re: Where have you been?

September 5 2010, 4:03 AM 

Hi Jim,

Well, yes, I imagine in my research I have been to some pro-circ. websites (not that I agree with their suggestions). Is it use of the term 'phimotic ring'? As I know you guys dont seem to use/like to use that phrase.

Well, I should have made myself a little clearer. What I meant was that in people with long foreskins (redundant prepuce?) the ring, or part of the skin that wont retract isn't the actual end of the foreskin, its a bit further down. Almost like a ring of fibre. Just wondered why this develops, and why it doesn't develop on the very end/opening of the foreskin?


 
    
Jim
(Premier Login jimsplacetofixthings)
Forum Owner

Different strokes

September 5 2010, 6:52 AM 

I have no idea why.

 
    
Paul B.
(Login Paul_B.)

There you go again!

September 5 2010, 2:48 PM 

"Redundant prepuce" - another circum-fetish keyword!

Strictly speaking, the term "redundant" in common usage implies "unnecessary", which is why such terms are used on the sort of sites people really should not look at as they exist to deliberately "mess with your mind".

In reality the engineering meaning of the word is more correct, but since most people are not engineers, the word is better avoided.

Strictly speaking again, the term "redundant foreskin" when spoken or written means "Personally, I myself am circumcised!" wink.gif

And similarly, "phimosis". Genuine medical articles tend to distinguish between "physiologic" phimosis when the foreskin simply has not grown and been stretched to a functional state, and "pathological" phimosis where it fails to stretch (whether or not it ever did) due to the development of scarring or fibrous tissue (within the skin - which is what scarring is).

Even then, such articles often go on to presume that "pathological" phimosis - indicated by a particular appearance of the foreskin opening when retraction is attempted - implies a need for circumcision which is still mendacious - in reality it simply means that more intensive treatment (with the correct steroid ointment) is required, and that it is assumed that parents (in the case of children) are incapable of implementing such long-term management for something (a foreskin) that is implied to be of little or no value.

I trust this answers your question adequately, in conjunction with Jim's explanation and reference. The tight part - the "ridged band" - may well be developmentally narrow, and needs progressive stretching through adoption of "exercises" and daily habits (retraction to pee, not obligatory but appropriate in this situation to maintain function).

On the other hand it may have developed scarring due to chronic Candida (or possibly other infections about which we know little because nobody has done the research) or dermatitis due to caustics such as soap, or Lichen Sclerosis which is a condition about which equally little is understood (including whether it is simply an extension of the other processes). And there is a body of knowledge of the treatment of LS in women which has sanely turned away from surgery (to the use of the "ultra-potent" steroids).

And just by the way, what is your personal progress in this regard?

 
    
Current Topic - One ring to rule them all!
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Please note - use "Preview" to check what you have written and how it will appear before you "Respond", and because this forum is moderated, you will not then see your submission until the moderator has a chance to confirm it.