Confused
- Thread starter Skepdick
- Start date
All right. "All the benefits of foreskin restoration is a placebo for the weak-minded." Feel better?
I'm not trying to work you up, shithead. You just want me to say something I don't believe. I'm a convert. I believe in it all.
Go in peace, brother. I'm not sure what I've said or done to make you upset, but I apologize for it.
I'm not trying to work you up, shithead. You just want me to say something I don't believe. I'm a convert. I believe in it all.
Go in peace, brother. I'm not sure what I've said or done to make you upset, but I apologize for it.
P
pullups
Guest
lol i just looked up pederast
kong1971 said:
im starting to understand Swank when he says you have bad comprehension skills, i said "you have fallen victim to a placebo", but you managed to interpret that as "all FR is a placebo".which is completely not what i said.
you HAVE to see your mistake there, please for the love of god, just once, see that you've made a mistake.
I think I addressed it here:
"Maybe I am not clear enough when I write on what the possible advanced benefits are according to more completely restored men and what I am currently experiencing. If I do that, it is not on purpose."
But you want this:
"I'm so sorry! I'm wrong! So so wrong! I am so overzealous about FR that I exagerate my claims to include more than I have experienced at my current, insignificant stage of restoration! Oh, please, please, forgive me. I'm a liar and a cheat and a scam artist!"
All I can say is this:
"You other guys who are restoring know what I'm talking about. You guys that won't give it a try will never, ever understand...so stop trying. Until you have that first big cum, you won't get it. You'll think we're crazy. Who knows? Maybe we are!"
"Maybe I am not clear enough when I write on what the possible advanced benefits are according to more completely restored men and what I am currently experiencing. If I do that, it is not on purpose."
But you want this:
"I'm so sorry! I'm wrong! So so wrong! I am so overzealous about FR that I exagerate my claims to include more than I have experienced at my current, insignificant stage of restoration! Oh, please, please, forgive me. I'm a liar and a cheat and a scam artist!"
All I can say is this:
"You other guys who are restoring know what I'm talking about. You guys that won't give it a try will never, ever understand...so stop trying. Until you have that first big cum, you won't get it. You'll think we're crazy. Who knows? Maybe we are!"
HAHAH you just can't do it can you. all i wanted was to see you say, "i made a mistake and misinterpreted what you said"
im gonna write it again so you can see. i said "you have fallen victim to a placebo", but you managed to interpret that as "all FR is a placebo"
YOU MADE A MISTAKE, YOU WERE WRONG, can you just once admit it.
im gonna write it again so you can see. i said "you have fallen victim to a placebo", but you managed to interpret that as "all FR is a placebo"
YOU MADE A MISTAKE, YOU WERE WRONG, can you just once admit it.
On the 'mucuscal tissue' thing. Can you show me some links verifying this? I'm not sure what you mean.
I was under the impression that the glans was resensitized just from being covered and protected. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I have very little of this tissue. If I stretch the skin it measures at over an inche's worth. Would my small amount of tissue mean that my penis wouldn't function well with a foreskin, since smegma is needed to facilitate movement of the foreskin over the enlarged head? I've seen an awful lot of penises that look lik mine, so I wouldn't say my type is uncommon.
What is the normal amount of mucuscal tissue? Everything I've read about the content of smegma says that it's dead skin cells and sweat from the skin. What if I'm sweatier, or if my skin up there is more productive? Can you show some evidence that smegma production is linked to amount of this 'mucuscal tissue?' Does a person with a bigger mouth always produce more saliva? Surely I could produce some lube naturally, or how else would my penis have functioned if I did have a foreskin? In that case I'm damn lucky to circumcised.
Show me some anatomical evidence that's more clear than what you've stated if you don't mind. Some links would be cool too. And don't say "I don't have time to explain this to you" or "look it up yourself," (or "I'm not going to pay to fed-ex you the documents I have that say this") because I already tried looking it up just now and didn't find anything, and you've claimed to be knowledgable on the matter so lets have some substance.
Also, if I am a "failed former restorer" why don't I have any foreskin? You said yourself I could easily stretch the skin into a foreskin, but I wouldn't see the benefits of dekerotinization and whatever else, because of this lack of 'mucuscal tissue.' Also, why would you need the lube fore a restored foreskin anyways? My understanding is that a restored foreskin is a good deal looser and baggier than the real deal and retracts pretty easily.
Anyway, the point is wouldn't I have to already be restored to some extent? If I was a pissed off "former restorer" then I'd have grown a foreskin and been upset that I appearently wasn't churning out enough lube and it wasn't working properly. Anybody can have a look at my pictures and see I'm plain old circumcised.
Once again, the anatomical argument behind what you say is very questionable to me when you actually consider the implications. But hey, show me some stuff on this to see for myself.
I was under the impression that the glans was resensitized just from being covered and protected. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I have very little of this tissue. If I stretch the skin it measures at over an inche's worth. Would my small amount of tissue mean that my penis wouldn't function well with a foreskin, since smegma is needed to facilitate movement of the foreskin over the enlarged head? I've seen an awful lot of penises that look lik mine, so I wouldn't say my type is uncommon.
What is the normal amount of mucuscal tissue? Everything I've read about the content of smegma says that it's dead skin cells and sweat from the skin. What if I'm sweatier, or if my skin up there is more productive? Can you show some evidence that smegma production is linked to amount of this 'mucuscal tissue?' Does a person with a bigger mouth always produce more saliva? Surely I could produce some lube naturally, or how else would my penis have functioned if I did have a foreskin? In that case I'm damn lucky to circumcised.
Show me some anatomical evidence that's more clear than what you've stated if you don't mind. Some links would be cool too. And don't say "I don't have time to explain this to you" or "look it up yourself," (or "I'm not going to pay to fed-ex you the documents I have that say this") because I already tried looking it up just now and didn't find anything, and you've claimed to be knowledgable on the matter so lets have some substance.
Also, if I am a "failed former restorer" why don't I have any foreskin? You said yourself I could easily stretch the skin into a foreskin, but I wouldn't see the benefits of dekerotinization and whatever else, because of this lack of 'mucuscal tissue.' Also, why would you need the lube fore a restored foreskin anyways? My understanding is that a restored foreskin is a good deal looser and baggier than the real deal and retracts pretty easily.
Anyway, the point is wouldn't I have to already be restored to some extent? If I was a pissed off "former restorer" then I'd have grown a foreskin and been upset that I appearently wasn't churning out enough lube and it wasn't working properly. Anybody can have a look at my pictures and see I'm plain old circumcised.
Once again, the anatomical argument behind what you say is very questionable to me when you actually consider the implications. But hey, show me some stuff on this to see for myself.
Last edited:
Fine by me, whenever you have time. I'll keep looking for some information myself.
Ha, well, we'll see what the deal is here. I personally couldn't find any info on this, though I did have a look at some restorer's journals with pictures and they didn't seem to have any less of that stuff than I do, and one guy grew a pretty damn full-blown looking foreskin in about 18 months. He didn't mention any trouble.
The basic human physiology behind a lot of these claims just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I get that there can be increased sensitivity in the glans if it's covered all the time. The rest of it, there just isn't much conclusive evidence that I can see. If men were getting these size increases, turbo-charged orgasms, enlarged penises, rave reviews from women (6/7 won't take anything but foreskin once they've had one!), they sure aren't saying so.
If I were to spend years taping up my penis every single day to regrow that thing I think I'd have to get myself to believe it was going to remodel my sexuality and overall happiness in order to get through it. That being said, it seems there are plenty of guys who restore for philosophical or other reasons than sexual and size complaints like Kong has. A lot of them just seem to want to be returned to a natural state. In general Kong's interests seem way more focused on the sexual side than a lot of what I've seen, but I guess that would just be reflective of his reasons for wanting to do it.
Unfortunately, even on the more literate and presentable FR sites I see, the whole vicitmization and propaganda culture from the anti-circ people is usually around as well, and they in turn usually have some info on FR. It's all related out in internet land.
In this example I think Kong's imagination got a running start on the rest of his brain again, but as always I'm curious to see. The man is on a "crusade" and has managed to convert "the sexless bump between" his legs into something a world apart in terms of pleasure and performance by seemingly loosening the skin on the shaft a little bit, so maybe he can come through with something reasonable.
The basic human physiology behind a lot of these claims just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I get that there can be increased sensitivity in the glans if it's covered all the time. The rest of it, there just isn't much conclusive evidence that I can see. If men were getting these size increases, turbo-charged orgasms, enlarged penises, rave reviews from women (6/7 won't take anything but foreskin once they've had one!), they sure aren't saying so.
If I were to spend years taping up my penis every single day to regrow that thing I think I'd have to get myself to believe it was going to remodel my sexuality and overall happiness in order to get through it. That being said, it seems there are plenty of guys who restore for philosophical or other reasons than sexual and size complaints like Kong has. A lot of them just seem to want to be returned to a natural state. In general Kong's interests seem way more focused on the sexual side than a lot of what I've seen, but I guess that would just be reflective of his reasons for wanting to do it.
Unfortunately, even on the more literate and presentable FR sites I see, the whole vicitmization and propaganda culture from the anti-circ people is usually around as well, and they in turn usually have some info on FR. It's all related out in internet land.
In this example I think Kong's imagination got a running start on the rest of his brain again, but as always I'm curious to see. The man is on a "crusade" and has managed to convert "the sexless bump between" his legs into something a world apart in terms of pleasure and performance by seemingly loosening the skin on the shaft a little bit, so maybe he can come through with something reasonable.
The increased size claim is proven bullshit. America is one of the only places on Earth where a majority of men are cut and I have read many studies about average penis size and the results are the saem no matter where they are conducted. Occasionally, the US actually comes out above the world average by a fraction of an inch.
If circumcision cost any significant amount of men some of their penis size due to this "trapped penis" hog wash, then it would only be possible for us to be on par with the rest of the world size wise if we had a genenic potential for penis size that far outreached every other country in the world.
Kong, I have brought this point up before and you have ALWAYS thrown up some kind of smoke screen and dodged the question. If circumcision can cost a significant amount of men a significant amount of penis size, then how come America doesn't have a smaller average penis size than the rest of the world. The only answer even remotely possible is that most of us were genenically destined to have 7-8 inch cocks but due to the circumcisions most of us were shortchanged. This, to me, makes no sense that we would somehow have the entire rest of the world beat in penis size (were we not to cut). Kong, I challenge you to justify this argument I have presented without throwing up any type of smoke screen and/or dodging the question.
If circumcision cost any significant amount of men some of their penis size due to this "trapped penis" hog wash, then it would only be possible for us to be on par with the rest of the world size wise if we had a genenic potential for penis size that far outreached every other country in the world.
Kong, I have brought this point up before and you have ALWAYS thrown up some kind of smoke screen and dodged the question. If circumcision can cost a significant amount of men a significant amount of penis size, then how come America doesn't have a smaller average penis size than the rest of the world. The only answer even remotely possible is that most of us were genenically destined to have 7-8 inch cocks but due to the circumcisions most of us were shortchanged. This, to me, makes no sense that we would somehow have the entire rest of the world beat in penis size (were we not to cut). Kong, I challenge you to justify this argument I have presented without throwing up any type of smoke screen and/or dodging the question.
I doubt that will ever get resolved skepdick. I tried mightily to get him to address that point once and he just kept saying "well there's no accurate size surveys or something." The example woul dhave ot hold over the entire Arab and Jewish population as well. Also by the time we were done talking about it, he had diluted his claim from "it robs men of 2 inches of length" to "certain bad procedures may have taken away as much as 10% of overall length" or something to that effect. Either way he censored himself when he realized that it sounded absurd, I think. Can't speak for the guy.
Anyway he does still say it may increas men's size, which is interesting because on FR FAQ's that I looked at when trying to find information on this mucuscal tissue issue, they often brought up the size increase and said that some men claimed some it but there wan no proof or understanding of how it works, and warned men not to expect. In this case I think Kong has bought into something that just a small amount of FR guys believe in. He's not preaching it as goespel from the mountaintop anymore though, so it doesn't bother me as much.
He does still feel that the little amount of lose skin he has worked up has grown his penis by something to the tune of 1.5" unless I'm mistaken, which doesn't really add up because that's clearly way more skin than he's added. Sometimes he sounds like he says it's from just FR, sometimes he says it's a combination of FR and Penis Enlargement, like other things it has fluctuated all over the place from what I've read so it's hard to tell. Just so long as he's not promising guys extra inches for getting into his hobby I'm not so into arguing it.
I have always been curious about the nationality thing though . . . should start a poll asking if men think it can boost your size, and if so, in length, girth, both, and how much. Then ask if Americans, Africans, and Arabs, and Jews are statistically bigger than the rest of the world . . .
Anyway he does still say it may increas men's size, which is interesting because on FR FAQ's that I looked at when trying to find information on this mucuscal tissue issue, they often brought up the size increase and said that some men claimed some it but there wan no proof or understanding of how it works, and warned men not to expect. In this case I think Kong has bought into something that just a small amount of FR guys believe in. He's not preaching it as goespel from the mountaintop anymore though, so it doesn't bother me as much.
He does still feel that the little amount of lose skin he has worked up has grown his penis by something to the tune of 1.5" unless I'm mistaken, which doesn't really add up because that's clearly way more skin than he's added. Sometimes he sounds like he says it's from just FR, sometimes he says it's a combination of FR and Penis Enlargement, like other things it has fluctuated all over the place from what I've read so it's hard to tell. Just so long as he's not promising guys extra inches for getting into his hobby I'm not so into arguing it.
I have always been curious about the nationality thing though . . . should start a poll asking if men think it can boost your size, and if so, in length, girth, both, and how much. Then ask if Americans, Africans, and Arabs, and Jews are statistically bigger than the rest of the world . . .
Are we going to be getting a response for this?
Please see this thread:
http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16017
Let's discuss this like sane human beings. Thanks! K
http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16017
Let's discuss this like sane human beings. Thanks! K
Elated to discuss things in a mature fashion Kong, thanks for coming around.
I'm not sure how that addresses the questions about mucuscal tissue and such.
Another question I have though, is do you have any statistics on the annual incidence of trapped penis? To put it another way, it seems that the condition is more or less diagnosed by scarring and deformity and then corrected by surgery. After googling it a few times and reading up, it seems most of these cases are corrected surgically in childhood. They don't particularly seem to mention "tight" circumcisions so much as poor healing, formation of scar tissue, botched operations, ect. Maybe I'm looking at different sources, but I didn't hear 'tight' or 'loose' circumcision indicated. I also saw no stats for what percentage this occurrs in, but there must be some out there. Do you have them?
Your theory that there is a different, adult form of this condition would seem to be the diagnosis of an entirely unknown medical phoenomenon, so far as I have seen. This may just mean I haven't seen the right thing, but I couldn't find it. The only cases I could find online were children who suffered from obvious physical deformity that warranted surgery. I couldn't find adult trapped penis mentioned on any of the studies I looked at, and most of these were hosted on anti-circ sites or authored by opponents of the procedure. Once again, have you seen any of these cases around or is this your idea or one proposed by somebody else but not actually verified?
Other than that I'm very pleased with your candid proclimation that FR (or really any stretching of the skin, FR would be totally unecessary by your definition it seems) may offer size increase to those with a very specific condition that you suspect may be at play, and not something the average man interested in FR is likely to experience.
I'm not sure how that addresses the questions about mucuscal tissue and such.
Another question I have though, is do you have any statistics on the annual incidence of trapped penis? To put it another way, it seems that the condition is more or less diagnosed by scarring and deformity and then corrected by surgery. After googling it a few times and reading up, it seems most of these cases are corrected surgically in childhood. They don't particularly seem to mention "tight" circumcisions so much as poor healing, formation of scar tissue, botched operations, ect. Maybe I'm looking at different sources, but I didn't hear 'tight' or 'loose' circumcision indicated. I also saw no stats for what percentage this occurrs in, but there must be some out there. Do you have them?
Your theory that there is a different, adult form of this condition would seem to be the diagnosis of an entirely unknown medical phoenomenon, so far as I have seen. This may just mean I haven't seen the right thing, but I couldn't find it. The only cases I could find online were children who suffered from obvious physical deformity that warranted surgery. I couldn't find adult trapped penis mentioned on any of the studies I looked at, and most of these were hosted on anti-circ sites or authored by opponents of the procedure. Once again, have you seen any of these cases around or is this your idea or one proposed by somebody else but not actually verified?
Other than that I'm very pleased with your candid proclimation that FR (or really any stretching of the skin, FR would be totally unecessary by your definition it seems) may offer size increase to those with a very specific condition that you suspect may be at play, and not something the average man interested in FR is likely to experience.
Last edited:
Other than that I'm very pleased with your candid proclimation that FR (or really any stretching of the skin, FR would be totally unecessary by your definition it seems) may offer size increase to those with a very specific condition that you suspect may be at play, and not something the average man interested in FR is likely to experience.
Something I've said all along. It's called skin expansion. I have always said that some men might have luck getting faster gains doing skin expansion, even if they do not want to go the whole FR route, because of mild forms of trapped penis caused by circumcision.
I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your post because, frankly, it's just more typical "swank manuevers": personal aspersions, confusing or impossible to prove questions, and you casting doubt on the credibility of anti-circ websites and information (all of which, by the way, is no more dubious or fishy than the rhetoric spouted by your own pro-circ sources). Please try to keep any questions or comments non-personal.
Something I've said all along. It's called skin expansion. I have always said that some men might have luck getting faster gains doing skin expansion, even if they do not want to go the whole FR route, because of mild forms of trapped penis caused by circumcision.
I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your post because, frankly, it's just more typical "swank manuevers": personal aspersions, confusing or impossible to prove questions, and you casting doubt on the credibility of anti-circ websites and information (all of which, by the way, is no more dubious or fishy than the rhetoric spouted by your own pro-circ sources). Please try to keep any questions or comments non-personal.
I think it is logical to assume that there may be milder cases of trapped penis that persist untreated into adulthood. By milder, I theorize, an adult male having perhaps 10 to 20 percent of total length trapped. By expanding the skin with Penis Enlargement or FR techniques, this may account for some of these 1" or slightly more quick gains that some of us see here at [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words]-- with these "fast gainers" doing no more than anyone else...and restorers who do no Penis Enlargement at all. You don't really think that this trapped penis complication is ONLY confined to severe childhood cases that MUST ALWAYS be treated with surgery, do you?
Well, I'm afraid that so far I do, because those are the only cases I've been able to find.
Trapped penis seems to be deformity from the circumcision resulting in clear physical indicators of the condition and associated problems From the descriptions of the condition I find it difficult to believe that parents would leave it untreated or that a man could go his entire life wihout noticing the problem. If it were something that trapped up to 20% (this could often be an inch) of the penis, I would surmise that there would not only be pain, but clear evidence and deformity of the penis.
I found no cases of adult trapped penis discussed online, even on FR and anti-circ sites. Just because you feel it is possible, does not mean it is logical to say that it is likely. Just because it has not been proven to not exist, it does not automatically follow that it does. These are both classic logical fallacies of weak induction. A restated example would be: UFOs could pssibly visiting earth, therefore they must definately be visiting earth. And the second: We have not proved that UFOs are not visiting earth, so they must be visiting earth. Neither is a logical argument. Again, perhaps I do not have your sources and so that is what I am asking about.
I simply asked if this was your opinion (i.e. adult trapped penis is a condition that you have surmised exists, or that there are verified cases of), and if it is a known condition, to please at least link or reference some sources. Your theory could be applicable if in fact there is any evidence that there are cases of men having 'trapped' penis as adults, but I have thus far not been able to find much information on the condition.
If it were something fairly widespread or even occurring at reportable levels, I feel the condition would have been made note of or diagnosed somewhere, especially considering the amount of information regarding circumcision that is on the web. My other question about trapped penis is if there are a significant percentage of men who are missing up to an inch of penile length and have it trapped in their body cavity by bad circumcisions as adults, why has no surgical procedure or study or mention of this phoenomena been created by doctors? Surely if there were thousands of men suffering from this condition, a simple surgery to loosen circumcision would be in demand and lucrative for doctors to develop. Again, perhaps I just don't have your sources.
So, my question is: do you have any sources for this (FR or anti-circ included), and if so would you please link them. I have been unable to find anything by google searching.
I would also still like to know if you have any statistics about the annual number or percentage of circumcisions that result in trapped penis, adult or infantile. I have also not been able to find any figures.
In your case, you would seem to be saying that you suffered from it and had over an inch trapped inside your body that was released by skin expansion of the shaft. If your own example is what you base the theory of adult trapped penis on, what do you feel are the specific conditions that create it? How are these different from the juvenile form where the condition is obvious and deformity is present? Would you say any tight circumcision is trapping penis inside the body cavity? How tight must this circumcision be, in your estimation, to prevent the pressure of the trapped penis from stretching the skin on its own during erection and growth during puberty. Any other information you have as to the mechanics of adult trapped penis would be welcome for purposes of explanation.
I would also appreciate it if you could explain or show a source for the 'lack of mucuscal tissue makes FR impossible or difficult' issue that you brought up before. This is another claim that directly involves anatomy and functionality that I would like to see some information on. If the sources are from FR sites that's absolutely fine (I have no problem with the majority of FR sites I have seen, except for some of their anti-circ claims, but their information on FR in general has been highly reasonable from what I have read).
None of this is in any way a personal commentary on Kong, they are legitamite questions about claims made by Kong concerning FR and circumcision. I am simply asking for further explanation and information and would appreciate a reasonable answer that addresses my questions in a clear manner.
Trapped penis seems to be deformity from the circumcision resulting in clear physical indicators of the condition and associated problems From the descriptions of the condition I find it difficult to believe that parents would leave it untreated or that a man could go his entire life wihout noticing the problem. If it were something that trapped up to 20% (this could often be an inch) of the penis, I would surmise that there would not only be pain, but clear evidence and deformity of the penis.
I found no cases of adult trapped penis discussed online, even on FR and anti-circ sites. Just because you feel it is possible, does not mean it is logical to say that it is likely. Just because it has not been proven to not exist, it does not automatically follow that it does. These are both classic logical fallacies of weak induction. A restated example would be: UFOs could pssibly visiting earth, therefore they must definately be visiting earth. And the second: We have not proved that UFOs are not visiting earth, so they must be visiting earth. Neither is a logical argument. Again, perhaps I do not have your sources and so that is what I am asking about.
I simply asked if this was your opinion (i.e. adult trapped penis is a condition that you have surmised exists, or that there are verified cases of), and if it is a known condition, to please at least link or reference some sources. Your theory could be applicable if in fact there is any evidence that there are cases of men having 'trapped' penis as adults, but I have thus far not been able to find much information on the condition.
If it were something fairly widespread or even occurring at reportable levels, I feel the condition would have been made note of or diagnosed somewhere, especially considering the amount of information regarding circumcision that is on the web. My other question about trapped penis is if there are a significant percentage of men who are missing up to an inch of penile length and have it trapped in their body cavity by bad circumcisions as adults, why has no surgical procedure or study or mention of this phoenomena been created by doctors? Surely if there were thousands of men suffering from this condition, a simple surgery to loosen circumcision would be in demand and lucrative for doctors to develop. Again, perhaps I just don't have your sources.
So, my question is: do you have any sources for this (FR or anti-circ included), and if so would you please link them. I have been unable to find anything by google searching.
I would also still like to know if you have any statistics about the annual number or percentage of circumcisions that result in trapped penis, adult or infantile. I have also not been able to find any figures.
In your case, you would seem to be saying that you suffered from it and had over an inch trapped inside your body that was released by skin expansion of the shaft. If your own example is what you base the theory of adult trapped penis on, what do you feel are the specific conditions that create it? How are these different from the juvenile form where the condition is obvious and deformity is present? Would you say any tight circumcision is trapping penis inside the body cavity? How tight must this circumcision be, in your estimation, to prevent the pressure of the trapped penis from stretching the skin on its own during erection and growth during puberty. Any other information you have as to the mechanics of adult trapped penis would be welcome for purposes of explanation.
I would also appreciate it if you could explain or show a source for the 'lack of mucuscal tissue makes FR impossible or difficult' issue that you brought up before. This is another claim that directly involves anatomy and functionality that I would like to see some information on. If the sources are from FR sites that's absolutely fine (I have no problem with the majority of FR sites I have seen, except for some of their anti-circ claims, but their information on FR in general has been highly reasonable from what I have read).
None of this is in any way a personal commentary on Kong, they are legitamite questions about claims made by Kong concerning FR and circumcision. I am simply asking for further explanation and information and would appreciate a reasonable answer that addresses my questions in a clear manner.
Hmm...just say I don't believe it. Its more concise and less confusing. I think the information I presented is clearly stated and logical. "Mild forms of circ-induced trapped penis, persisting into adulthood, account for some of our 'fast gainers' and also for restorers getting length gains without Penis Enlargement." What's so farfetched about that? You want me to prove it? I challenge you to DISprove it! Respectfully, K
Well, like I said, just because it can't be disproved (especially if we don't even know whether or not it exists), it does not follow that it must be real.
Is adult trapped penis a recognized condition, or have you diagnosed it yourself? I also asked a number of questions about the physiology and conditions required for adult trapped penis as well as if you have any statistics on the matter. Please respond to those parts of the post as well.
If you have some info on adult trapped penis, or know of any place where it can be read about, personal reports, anything really, please post some links.
The physiology of the juvenile cases is clear, and it seems that the condition comes with obvious physical indicators and requires surgical correction. Yout contention is that there is a latent form with no physical indicators whatsoever that affects men often enough that there is a decent chance they'll see fast gains of up to an inch.
I want to know if this is a condition you have just theorized, or if there is information about it elsewhere, that is all. I have only ever found information regarding juvenile cases where there was definate deformity to the penis that is recognized as the result of a botched or badly healing circumcision. I have seen no reportages of adult cases or milder forms with no deformity or physical symptoms.
Also you have still not addressed the questions about the mucuscal tissue. Please answer the questions directly. I would appreciate a topical answer when I take the time to ask very clear and specific questions about a specific claim you have made. Your post addressed none of my points, only restated that you feel it is logical.
Is adult trapped penis a recognized condition, or have you diagnosed it yourself? I also asked a number of questions about the physiology and conditions required for adult trapped penis as well as if you have any statistics on the matter. Please respond to those parts of the post as well.
If you have some info on adult trapped penis, or know of any place where it can be read about, personal reports, anything really, please post some links.
The physiology of the juvenile cases is clear, and it seems that the condition comes with obvious physical indicators and requires surgical correction. Yout contention is that there is a latent form with no physical indicators whatsoever that affects men often enough that there is a decent chance they'll see fast gains of up to an inch.
I want to know if this is a condition you have just theorized, or if there is information about it elsewhere, that is all. I have only ever found information regarding juvenile cases where there was definate deformity to the penis that is recognized as the result of a botched or badly healing circumcision. I have seen no reportages of adult cases or milder forms with no deformity or physical symptoms.
Also you have still not addressed the questions about the mucuscal tissue. Please answer the questions directly. I would appreciate a topical answer when I take the time to ask very clear and specific questions about a specific claim you have made. Your post addressed none of my points, only restated that you feel it is logical.
Last edited:
How does that answer any of my questions, in any way? To be honest I feel like you are avoiding answering them.
Kong, you've said that you will debate anything FR and circumcision related. These are topical and non-personal questions about claims you have made, anybody can see that.
I am beggining to harbor the opinion that you simply do not have an answer for the questions and are copping out.
This happened before when you refused to link your sources for whatever reason. I have asked oyu specific questions about things you have claimed about FR and circumcision and given you an opportunity to explain what you have claimed. What is the problem here?
I have reserached on the internet attempting to find any information that supports your claims on the tissue and trapped penis questions, and so far have found nothing. This either means that you have some sources I don't, or you have diagnosed these conditions yourself.
If these are not things that you have come up with yourself, then post some links to info about them.
I am beggining to harbor the opinion that you simply do not have an answer for the questions and are copping out.
This happened before when you refused to link your sources for whatever reason. I have asked oyu specific questions about things you have claimed about FR and circumcision and given you an opportunity to explain what you have claimed. What is the problem here?
I have reserached on the internet attempting to find any information that supports your claims on the tissue and trapped penis questions, and so far have found nothing. This either means that you have some sources I don't, or you have diagnosed these conditions yourself.
If these are not things that you have come up with yourself, then post some links to info about them.
Well I shall take that as a clear indicator that there is in fact no information online regarding 'adult trapped penis' or 'lack of mucoscal tissue making FR difficult or impossible.'
That would also suggest that you have fabricated two penile conditions and presented them as a fairly standard diagnosis.
In this case I would conject that the "FR can enlarge your penis because some men have a trapped length from circumcision that has gone undiagnosed" theory to be rather unlikely of holding any water. The same goes for the statement "some men have a lack of mucoscal tissue that makes it difficult or impossible to restore."
Kong, all that you need to do to disprove this is link some information. I am still of the mind to think that perhaps I just have not come across anything and you may have found something in your own research that supports those claims.
If not, the above statements stand.
I do not believe that citing sources or explaining the origin for specific claims you make about supposed medical conditions and the process of FR is 'getting on a merry-go-round.' People are accountable for their words.
It is always an option not to answer, but in that scenario I am forced to posit that you most likely invented both of those scenarios and are attempting to dodge the issue. It is difficult for me to consider anything you say reliable when you are possibly intermixing pure fiction with your statements.
That would also suggest that you have fabricated two penile conditions and presented them as a fairly standard diagnosis.
In this case I would conject that the "FR can enlarge your penis because some men have a trapped length from circumcision that has gone undiagnosed" theory to be rather unlikely of holding any water. The same goes for the statement "some men have a lack of mucoscal tissue that makes it difficult or impossible to restore."
Kong, all that you need to do to disprove this is link some information. I am still of the mind to think that perhaps I just have not come across anything and you may have found something in your own research that supports those claims.
If not, the above statements stand.
I do not believe that citing sources or explaining the origin for specific claims you make about supposed medical conditions and the process of FR is 'getting on a merry-go-round.' People are accountable for their words.
It is always an option not to answer, but in that scenario I am forced to posit that you most likely invented both of those scenarios and are attempting to dodge the issue. It is difficult for me to consider anything you say reliable when you are possibly intermixing pure fiction with your statements.
Last edited:
In addition to that, and in light pf recent concerns about the threads, I'd like to clarify once more that this latest strain of conversation can in no way be interpreted as personal attack.
They are straight forward questions about statements which Kong has made. They contain no insults, no personal insinuations, and in no way resemble anything except a request for information regarding topical claims.
I don't see where a person could reasonably interpret this as either inappropriate forum behavior or as something outside the boundaries of discussion on the topic of FR.
Kong has proposed a theory that he claims is both reasonable and generally understood. Requestiong further explanation or documentation is not harassment, but a logical and justifiable request.
They are straight forward questions about statements which Kong has made. They contain no insults, no personal insinuations, and in no way resemble anything except a request for information regarding topical claims.
I don't see where a person could reasonably interpret this as either inappropriate forum behavior or as something outside the boundaries of discussion on the topic of FR.
Kong has proposed a theory that he claims is both reasonable and generally understood. Requestiong further explanation or documentation is not harassment, but a logical and justifiable request.
Kong, as I said before, just because you can't "disprove" something, does not mean it is true.
Disprove to me that aliens are controlling the government, then we'll discuss it.
Disprove to me that more than one person assasinated JFK.
It is a cop-out to say that on this matter - because there is absolutely no information on "adult trapped penis" anywhere online. It is difficult to disprove something for which there is no information available. So, if you have some, it would be cool if you could link it.
What I have done, since there is no information, is asked you some questions about the concept of trapped penis that I think are not only logical questions, but very much warranted by such a claim.
I am in no way attempting ot make it a personal matter when I say that I feel it is clear you are trying to avoid elaborating on it or explaining that it is something that you have only theorized exists.
Disprove to me that aliens are controlling the government, then we'll discuss it.
Disprove to me that more than one person assasinated JFK.
It is a cop-out to say that on this matter - because there is absolutely no information on "adult trapped penis" anywhere online. It is difficult to disprove something for which there is no information available. So, if you have some, it would be cool if you could link it.
What I have done, since there is no information, is asked you some questions about the concept of trapped penis that I think are not only logical questions, but very much warranted by such a claim.
I am in no way attempting ot make it a personal matter when I say that I feel it is clear you are trying to avoid elaborating on it or explaining that it is something that you have only theorized exists.
Swank, in the final analysis, there is no proving or disproving anything here. It is only a suggestion, an idea...you really shouldn't make it out to be more than it is. If you don't believe it, that's fine. It doesn't bother me. You seem to go out of your way to try to discredit everything I say, however, and if that isn't personal, I don't know what is. I will be the bigger man and not respond further. If you would like to proclaim some kind of victory, so be it. You win. I give up. This is all very silly and pointless.
Actually Kong, all I am asking at this point is if it is just something that you have persoanlly thought up.
I have looked far and wide for information about it and can find none, zero, zilch. All I'm asking is that you be a sport and make it explicitly clear whether or not you created this concept or not.
That's neither a patronizing nor malicious request, I just want to be clear on where it comes from.
I have looked far and wide for information about it and can find none, zero, zilch. All I'm asking is that you be a sport and make it explicitly clear whether or not you created this concept or not.
That's neither a patronizing nor malicious request, I just want to be clear on where it comes from.
It is clear now (I think): Adult trapped penis is something that have just theorized exists. There are no documented cases of it or any information concerning the idea to be found online.
It is a concept and idea that Kong created.
I just want to be clear on that before discussing it anymore so there are no complaints of confusion or otherwise.
It is a concept and idea that Kong created.
I just want to be clear on that before discussing it anymore so there are no complaints of confusion or otherwise.
kong1971 said:
GREAT, you finally said it, your just making a guess about the adult trapped penis.
that doesn't make it true or not, but because you are just guessing, DO NOT go around telling people advice relating to this, because that is completely misleading.
it'd be like if i guessed there was a monster in a house so i told everyone to blow it up.
get my drift.
kong1971 said:
this is the analogy from the other thread which you were also making guessing and giving people advice to work on just guesses.
imagin, you are GUESSING there is some evil monster from hell living in a house near you and you GUESS the only way to kill is to blow up the house, then after you blow it up you realise there was no monster, only a family.
you understand, if you keep stating these statistics and "facts" which you are just guessing at, you could hurt someone.
This is censorship, pure and simple. I rarely present anything as indisputable fact. I normally label my opinions and ideas and theories as such. Oops, I mean "hypothesis", not "theories". Sorry. Do you think you could put up with that kind of pressure? You say I am hurting people. Can you cite an example of how I have hurt someone? That's a pretty inflammatory statement itself. Most folks thank me for my advice. Most folks are also smart enough to know that I am writing from my own experiences and feelings. They don't need the three of you to qualify that. They are intelligent enough on their own to see what is fact and what is opinion. In the end, no one else on the forum has to put up with having his/her statements put to such scrutiny and criticism. And that is an "indisputable fact".
I disagree. I think it is unethical and inappropriate to post statements that you have made up, then not make this explicitly clear. As a person who places themselves in a leadership position you have an obligation to be clear and to place your claims within context.
A young person reading this would very easily assume that trapped penis was not something that you had just made up. I myself had a hard time figuring this out and I asked you about directly nearly ten times.
In the future I think it would be prudent to make it clear you are citing a theory that you have just made up yourself.
A young person reading this would very easily assume that trapped penis was not something that you had just made up. I myself had a hard time figuring this out and I asked you about directly nearly ten times.
In the future I think it would be prudent to make it clear you are citing a theory that you have just made up yourself.
Once again you are trying to "straw man" our argument. Lets say that a man is suffering from any sexual problem ranging from ED to some form of sexually transmitted disease. Were they to listen to some of the dogma here about FR they would be lead to think that everything was caused by their circumcision and this would prevent them from getting real help.raffiki said:
My "theory" was clearly labeled as such at the very start of the "trapped penis" thread. Why did you not catch that?
Skepdick, I am sure someone with green pus coming from his pee hole would read a thread here and say to himself, "Gee, I guess I need more shaft skin." Phhh! Stop treating our readers like they're morons.
Skepdick, I am sure someone with green pus coming from his pee hole would read a thread here and say to himself, "Gee, I guess I need more shaft skin." Phhh! Stop treating our readers like they're morons.
Asking that you please be explicit when stating something that you have fabricated is not the same as calling others stupid.
FR is in the same boat as Penis Enlargement. The medical community refuses to accept it, and therefore there are few if any regulated research regarding it. Kong has done his best to learn what he could so he could be more informative in his replies. Its the same as DLD stating that a new stretch targets the tunica, why dont you go demand medical proof of him? Because there isn't any! Kong HAS presented his ideas on the physical aspects of FR as theories. In further references to that idea he may not have made it clear that is a theory, but you cant expect him to repost it everytime someone asks a question instead of reading previous threads. People have injured themselves doing Penis Enlargement. Why don't you attack DLD for being irresponsible and causing harm to others? Be you agree that having a larger penis would be cool. However you do not believe the FR is cool, therefore you call it into question. Can Kong back most of what he says with acceptable proof? Nope. Can DLD? Nope. But they both do the best they can, SIMPLY TO HELP OTHER MEN.
I appreciate the hard work and dedication that Kong has put into FR. Whether his ideas prove incorrect in the future is not the point. He is doing more than anyone else to further what we are trying to do here. If you do not like it, you need to counter him using the same type of evidence that you are demanding of him. It simply is not available. I really wish that the people who do not like Kong's approach would make constructive criticism on why it is wrong, not just that they think he does not have enough evidence. I want FR to forward, and that can't happen, when all our time is spent is self-defense. This is what we choose to do, and we are doing the best we can. Some real help would be great.
I appreciate the hard work and dedication that Kong has put into FR. Whether his ideas prove incorrect in the future is not the point. He is doing more than anyone else to further what we are trying to do here. If you do not like it, you need to counter him using the same type of evidence that you are demanding of him. It simply is not available. I really wish that the people who do not like Kong's approach would make constructive criticism on why it is wrong, not just that they think he does not have enough evidence. I want FR to forward, and that can't happen, when all our time is spent is self-defense. This is what we choose to do, and we are doing the best we can. Some real help would be great.