6 moving photo gifs & 3 brief video clips of real penises showing foreskin mobility - Page 2

[hakunangovi]

incorrigible, if you want to know more about the structure of a foreskin, try www.cirp.org , and click on "Anatomy of the foreskin, Mechanics of intercourse". There are many interesting articles listed and accessible in the "references" section at the bottom.

[AmyC]

Originally Posted by incorrigible

. . . . So, I have a ? now....does the foreskin only retract enough to uncover the glans, or the shaft too? I thought in the condom discussion, one suggestion was to pull it back and get the condom under the foreskin but on the shaft...and I'm thinking I may have misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Papai

It uncovers a little of the shaft that's underneath the head.

I thought it pulled further back, too. The photos were enlightening for me. So it's all one piece, covering the shaft as well as the glans, but it only retracts a little beyond the glans? Or is it that it will/can retract all the way, but functionally (during intercourse), it only moves to uncover the glans?

So when a man is circ'd (as a baby), what is left? There's skin further up on the shaft, and that is a remnant of the foreskin? There's no lip to get under, though, so it doesn't seem like a foreskin layer to me, just kind of looser skin that he can pull forward.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by AmyC

I thought it pulled further back, too. The photos were enlightening for me. So it's all one piece, covering the shaft as well as the glans, but it only retracts a little beyond the glans?

The foreskin itself is indeed all in one piece but along the underside there is another part named the frenulum which serves as a connective band between glans and prepuce and is also exceptionally erogenous. That is often destroyed during a circumcision although remnants do remain in many cases.

Furthermore some people's do not cover the entire glans while some extend quite some way beyond it. That varies but the latter seem more common.

Or is it that it will/can retract all the way, but functionally (during intercourse), it only moves to uncover the glans?

Uh...Kinda tricky to explain really, let me have a go:

Generally while the penis is flaccid you can pull back the foreskin to expose its entirity (all of the mucosal tissue and blood vessels etc) and it extends quite some way down the shaft since the rest of the skin is pushed down.

Generally this is not entirely possible while erect but that really varies a lot too dependent upon how long your foreskin is, how tight it is and how large your glans it. Normally it can't be stretched all the way back while erect and sort of curves behind the glans. Personally I can probably reveal all of it while hard but it's not immensely comfortable and is invariably grooved around.

So when a man is circ'd (as a baby), what is left? There's skin further up on the shaft, and that is a remnant of the foreskin? There's no lip to get under, though, so it doesn't seem like a foreskin layer to me, just kind of looser skin that he can pull forward.

That really varies depending upon the circumcision. Normally quite a lot is taken but sometimes a lot of what is called the mucosal tissue is left.

It is important to bear in mind that foreskin is definetely not "Just a piece of skin"; although the outside is pretty much indistinguishable from the rest of the penile skin in anything other than its enhanced mobility the inner lining tissue similar to that found in your eyelid, mouth or nose and it serves a similar function, really. That is normally the most erogenous area of a man's body thus the more left the luckier the man is.

With the luckiest of all being the one who was left alone all together...

[Papai]

Originally Posted by AmyC

I thought it pulled further back, too. The photos were enlightening for me. So it's all one piece, covering the shaft as well as the glans, but it only retracts a little beyond the glans? Or is it that it will/can retract all the way, but functionally (during intercourse), it only moves to uncover the glans?

I'm confused by what you mean by "retract all the way."

The foreskin retracts, exposing the glans and sits behind the glans when retracted. If you want you manually retract a little further and see some shaft.

But if you're asking if the foreskin retracts all the way back to the pubic bone, no, it doesn't.

[AmyC]

I probably sound like a dunce! My experience is only with my partner, who is circumcised. But I guess I thought of the foreskin as covering the whole penis. Three of my nephews are intact, as well as half of the boys in my daughter's preschool class (I know from going along on their swim days), and they look like the classic "elephant trunk" or "anteater" with the continuous skin covering the whole penis and ending with a little shrivelly tip. It looks so perfect and normal to me, now. Anyway, being continuous skin, I guess I assumed that when they became retractable, that all would pull back exposing the complete penis from under the foreskin.

Looking at the photos, I see it's different.

Of course I knew the foreskin covered the glans, but I thought it extended back (as it does) and that you could retract it all the way back, revealing a pink and shiny penis--glans and shaft all covered & protected by a foreskin. I was imagining a good handful of skin that you'd somehow be holding back (like for cleaning, if not erect.)

And the whole idea of "just cutting off the tip or the end of the foreskin" sort of implies that there is more to the foreskin that is left alone, but in effect, it's basically removed if you circumcise at all because the functional part is gone. I know there are "loose circs," but from watching the process in those photos, it seems the whole point is the part that completely covers the glans, not anything else. If that's removed, the foreskin is essentially removed, even if there's technically more of it remaining further up the shaft.

Anyway, that's all. I just thought there was more skin pulling back further. And I haven't really thought about the particulars all that much, beyond simply wishing my husband were intact....

[Revamp]

You don't seem like a dunce, it really isn't your fault at all. The reason they do not peel back up the entire penis is because that would probably be problematic and more complex and their real protective function is mainly for the glans.

And the whole idea of "just cutting off the tip or the end of the foreskin" sort of implies that there is more to the foreskin that is left alone, but in effect, it's basically removed if you circumcise at all because the functional part is gone.

You are not the only one to have thought that! When I first had circumcision explained to me (very poorly indeed both on an anatomical and theological level, by an R.S. teacher) I had presumed they just meant the protuberance and when I first saw a Jewish friend naked I literally did not believe my eyes!!

[lemurmommies]

Wow, thanks for posting this. It never occurred to DP and I to circumcise DS, because in our reasoning, we wouldn't circ a girl, so why would we circ a boy? But, as we are not intimately acquainted with penises in general , this was really neat to see.

[painfulquestioning]

Photo Comparison of Cut and Uncut Penises

I'm glad the page has been helpful:-)

Additionally, viewing the photos on the following two links also helps deepen and clarify ones understanding.

The three zones of penile skin shows just how extensive the foreskin is:
http://www.foreskin.org/3zones-c.htm

Contrast and compare pictures of cut and uncut penises:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

[buckeyedoc]

Thanks for the link. I have intact sons, but they are not retractable, so I also wondered "how far it goes back."

I can also now see how some female partners might not know a man is intact if they only see him erect, since the penis doesn't look that different unless you pay close attention to the little gathered foreskin behind the glans. That's not to say it doesn't function differently, of course. Not that I would know

[fek&fuzz]

Do you know how many times I saw the title to this thread and thought it said "gifts" as in presents? I kept wondering why someone would give a present of a moving photo of foreskin retraction. Was it some weird baby shower gift to try to convince someone of the beauty of the natural intact penis? I was baffled. Finally, my curiosity overcame me, and then it turns out they are "gifs" not "gifts".

[Microsoap]

Intact guy here

I don't know if this is scientific here, but with my foreskin totally covered and me totally flaccid, I got a pen and drew a line on my foreskin where I could see/feel the ridge of my glans. With two fingers pulled my foreskin out away from myself and it's pretty far away from the tip of my glans (if you can picture it). But more importantly, I pulled my foreskin BACK as far as I could and I could get that line all the way to the base of my penis.

The intact penis is one long skin from base to tip. The foreskin glides back and forth from the tip of the glans all the way to the base of the penis. To say masturbation and/or intercourse only implies the foreskin gets pulled back to behind the rim, isn't accurate and doesn't give credit to the full benefit of its use.

[angelcat]

Originally Posted by buckeyedoc

Thanks for the link. I have intact sons, but they are not retractable, so I also wondered "how far it goes back."

I can also now see how some female partners might not know a man is intact if they only see him erect, since the penis doesn't look that different unless you pay close attention to the little gathered foreskin behind the glans. That's not to say it doesn't function differently, of course. Not that I would know

I was surprised at least once when I saw a guy un-erect, and discovered he was uncirced. I can't tell any difference either way, though, so I don't care. (as far as partners go, I wouldn't have son circed, if I had one.)

[titania8]

Originally Posted by fek&fuzz

Do you know how many times I saw the title to this thread and thought it said "gifts" as in presents? I kept wondering why someone would give a present of a moving photo of foreskin retraction. Was it some weird baby shower gift to try to convince someone of the beauty of the natural intact penis? I was baffled. Finally, my curiosity overcame me, and then it turns out they are "gifs" not "gifts".

that is so funny!! "....and look what we have here, from auntie helen...wait a minute....what the freak???"

[kldliam]

Microsoap: I don't know if this is scientific here, but with my foreskin totally covered and me totally flaccid, I got a pen and drew a line on my foreskin where I could see/feel the ridge of my glans. With two fingers pulled my foreskin out away from myself and it's pretty far away from the tip of my glans (if you can picture it). But more importantly, I pulled my foreskin BACK as far as I could and I could get that line all the way to the base of my penis.

The intact penis is one long skin from base to tip. The foreskin glides back and forth from the tip of the glans all the way to the base of the penis. To say masturbation and/or intercourse only implies the foreskin gets pulled back to behind the rim, isn't accurate and doesn't give credit to the full benefit of its use.

Thanks for posting this. Gotta give credit where credit is due!

[Papai]

Originally Posted by Microsoap

I don't know if this is scientific here, but with my foreskin totally covered and me totally flaccid, I got a pen and drew a line on my foreskin where I could see/feel the ridge of my glans. With two fingers pulled my foreskin out away from myself and it's pretty far away from the tip of my glans (if you can picture it). But more importantly, I pulled my foreskin BACK as far as I could and I could get that line all the way to the base of my penis.

The intact penis is one long skin from base to tip. The foreskin glides back and forth from the tip of the glans all the way to the base of the penis. To say masturbation and/or intercourse only implies the foreskin gets pulled back to behind the rim, isn't accurate and doesn't give credit to the full benefit of its use.

Wait a minute, I'm intact as well. You're saying you can pull your foreskin all the back to the base of your penis? But only when flaccid, right? There's no way that's possible when erect, which is what I was talking about.

When erect, the foreskin retracts and sits behind the glans. It doesn't go all the way back to the base of the penis. Unless somebody has a magical inside/out penis. :

[baybee]

Thanks for posting these links. Another great link to get an education about
the perfect functioning of the intact penis is the medical student teaching video at



(WMP, download)

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...TSC_256k_D.wmv

[AmyC]

Originally Posted by fek&fuzz

Do you know how many times I saw the title to this thread and thought it said "gifts" as in presents? I kept wondering why someone would give a present of a moving photo of foreskin retraction. Was it some weird baby shower gift to try to convince someone of the beauty of the natural intact penis? I was baffled. Finally, my curiosity overcame me, and then it turns out they are "gifs" not "gifts".

So you misread gifs for gifts, and interpreted "Five moving photo gifts" in the sense of emotionally moving? That's priceless. Perhaps they are moving enough to convince someone not to circumcise. But a sort of scary thought (photos of adult men) at a baby shower!

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Microsoap

I don't know if this is scientific here, but with my foreskin totally covered and me totally flaccid, I got a pen and drew a line on my foreskin where I could see/feel the ridge of my glans. With two fingers pulled my foreskin out away from myself and it's pretty far away from the tip of my glans (if you can picture it). But more importantly, I pulled my foreskin BACK as far as I could and I could get that line all the way to the base of my penis.

The intact penis is one long skin from base to tip. The foreskin glides back and forth from the tip of the glans all the way to the base of the penis. To say masturbation and/or intercourse only implies the foreskin gets pulled back to behind the rim, isn't accurate and doesn't give credit to the full benefit of its use.

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.

Though, the other day he "happily" showed me that article about the lowering number of circs here. He is so proud (as am I) that we protected our son from MGM!

[phatchristy]

OK, someone sent me the link that I described in my last post. Here it is:

Warning: contains color photos of human male penis

http://www.foreskin.org/3zones-c.htm

[AmyC]

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.

(emaphasis mine)

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?