Thanks for the clarification about the retraction differences between flacid & erect. It makes sense that, when erect, the foreskin would function exactly in that way, rather than retracting all the way to the pelvis. Although I was assuming that it would push back further than that, depending on depth of thrust or something. That the gliding mechanism would somehow function in that way.
Originally Posted by phatchristy
Thanks for the explanation! Somewhere online I saw a picture of someone doing the same thing. They marked skin above the coronal ridge and the end of the foreskin (ridged band). I remember in that picture, the guy was fully retracted and when he pulled back all the way it too was at the base of the penis! It's just amazing, when you see that you *know* how much sensitive nerve dense skin was removed.
It's pretty horrifying!
: I'm horrified by it, especially being married to a circ'd man (knowing exactly what is missing can be a difficult thing to deal with). DH here never wants to know...he wouldn't want to see this stuff, I think it would be too difficult.
Here's what I don't get, though. Is that much sensitive nerve-dense skin really removed? Is circumcision removal of the foreskin or removal of part of the foreskin (exposing the glans.) To me, any is "too much," when it comes to function and sensitivity. I tend to think of my circ'd husband as being "without a foreskin," because I don't notice anything covering his penis, but the men in those photos look pretty much like him when erect & retracted. The shaft looks the same and it makes me wonder if that part of the foreskin is there while the important end is cut. And then with every circumcision, it is a matter of how much they cut. Then again, we are talking about infants here, and the amount of skin that is cut perhaps really does remove most or all of the foreskin (even what would cover the shaft)???
My husband may even have had a "loose circ" (I don't think he really looked "uncirc'd" as a baby the way loose circs often do, though, and he was cut in the 60's so I doubt it was stylistically a "loose circ") because he does have some skin that he can pull down over his penis/glans when flaccid (he has tried to show me what a foreskin might look like) but this is not skin that peels back from his penile shaft as a layer on top, so I don't know.
So given that an intact, flaccid male can retract all the way back to the base of his penis, is ALL of that skin gone in circumcised men? Is that extra "play" in the shaft skin (that might get pulled back that far as easily as pulled toward the glans, as in my husband's case) the remaining foreskin? (Even though it doesn't seem like a separate layer of skin that peels back to reveal anything underneath; it just seems like skin on the shaft.)
I just wondered at the statement that all of that skin was removed. We can see a flaccid penis being "fully retractable" but does that mean we can assume that ALL of that skin was removed in circumcision?