Adherent prepuce = more protection

[baybee]

This is new food for thought for me. On one of my lists, there's a discussion about boys who can retract later (e.g. in their late teens) having an advantage in that, every time they get an erection, they are doing natural stretching of the skin (much like circ'd men do to restore). The thinking is that this will lead to a longer, and therefore more protective, prepuce in their adult years.

This would be another good reason to make sure that forceful retraction is ended as well. Has anyone ever thought about this?
Baybee

[pdx.mothernurture]

Interesting point, Baybee...you may be right.

Jen

[Revamp]

As a fellow in his late teens recently rendered ex-phimotic via the Beauge Method I suppose this applies to me, right?

Well I would give you my imput but I am afraid that I am not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps you could rephrase? Sorry for the bother and thank you in advance.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I hadnt thought of that baybee but it certainly makes sence. If it is attatched it has to stretch more so in theory the older the man is the more skin will be stretched meaning he will have more skin in the long run.

[baybee]

rendered ex-phimotic via the Beauge Method I suppose this applies to me, right? James

Hey James, I don't know what the Beauge Method is?

What was being discussed is that we know from the guys who restore that the penile skin has an ability to stretch and stretch and, with enough persistence and tugging, the foreskin that was obliterated can be stretched to give skin coverage to the entire glans. Similar to cultural practices where weights are attached to the ear lobes and the skin can be stretched over time right down to the shoulders.

So, then, if you think of boys who don't retract till into their teens but are having regular erections, does this mean that they are doing Nature's own stretching/tugging and that, even if that is uncomfortable, it actually leaves that boy/man with a longer foreskin (more glans coverage) than, say, a boy who self retracts at 4 y.o. I'd like to hear your experience. Baybee

oh, here's a link to Beauge info on the cirp site. Man, I learn something new every day. B.
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/beauge/

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by baybee

Hey James, I don't know what the Beauge Method is?

The funnest method of curing phimosis that there is.

Looks like you found out most of what you need to know already. As far as my experience goes by a fortnight it was possible and by around a month it was comfortable. If I have not TMIed you already you can read some more on an e-journal I kept here: http://beaugeblog.blogspot.com just as long as you do not mind occasional moments of neccessarily vivid detail.

What was being discussed is that we know from the guys who restore that the penile skin has an ability to stretch and stretch and, with enough persistence and tugging, the foreskin that was obliterated can be stretched to give skin coverage to the entire glans. Similar to cultural practices where weights are attached to the ear lobes and the skin can be stretched over time right down to the shoulders.

Yeah, an approach both simple and obvious when considered and utterly ingenius. It seems even a form of circumcision designed specifically to be irreverssable (through the removal of the mucosa) can be defeated by the straightforward application of mitosis.

So, then, if you think of boys who don't retract till into their teens but are having regular erections, does this mean that they are doing Nature's own stretching/tugging and that, even if that is uncomfortable, it actually leaves that boy/man with a longer foreskin (more glans coverage) than, say, a boy who self retracts at 4 y.o. I'd like to hear your experience. Baybee

Hmm...

Well in all honesty I have not had that many opportunities to compare and contrast my foreskin's length with other men (if only all of those paranoid locker-room fantasies were true hmm?) but judging by certain cyber-media which shall remain anonymous but most probably easy to guess I reckon my foreskin is over average length, but not immensely lengthy.

I certainly do have more coverage than some men, in some cases the foreskin even fails to cover the tip of the glans (which, oddly enough, was actually all that I could expose previously). Whether this was the result, cause or totally unrelated too my phimosis I am uncertain but I reckon that erections probably would stretch the foreskin to some extent, in fact that is part of the theoretical basis of the Beauge Method (that it is easier to acheive the neccessary stretch while erect than flaccid due to the additional lateral pressure).

So you could well be right there, it certainly is an interesting line of inquiry.

As for the discomfort you referenced well from my experience at least I did not encounter that (I suppose mine was towards the more mild end of the spectrum of severity) although when I actually attempted to do something with the erection it occasionally did.

[Revamp]

Hope I did not TMI this one to death...