Originally Posted by tlh
I wonder if the whole foreskin nerves,ridged band,frenulum etc. is there but it is just so short that it doesn't cover the glans?
I believe this is quite true. The unique horizontal nerve system of the penis is intact regardless of the natural length of the foreskin, as long as there is no cutting to short-circuit the system. Natural frenula range from prominent and breve to virtually invisible. (For parents who want to take this to email, I can explain this with examples.) Nevertheless, the frenular artery still runs under that area and does its job or delivering blood to the glans/meatus unimpeded since there has been no perpendicular cut from circumcision.
Originally Posted by Lucy Alden
Just had to chime in. My DS2 was born with a very very very short foreskin.
Fast forward, he's now 17mo and has a foreskin! Its the weirdest thing. Its like he's a lizard that re-grew a tail. His foreskin completely covers his glans.
We know enough about normal embryonic development to see that the glans is not covered in early fetal development, but the foreskin grows over and attaches to the glans in the second and third trimesters. We also know that the penis is not done "incubating", if you will, until puberty in some boys when the natural adhesions resolve. So, perhaps this is a case of your second son just experiencing some of his natural preputial development outside of the womb rather than before birth? Simply more reason that parents should not interfere with the natural development of the penis by performing surgery early-on. It's not done being what nature wants it to be!