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

[Tinker]

Originally Posted by titania8

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

Well I guess that would be better than a fruit cake!

[Microsoap]

Originally Posted by 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

Thanks, Christy. That's the series of pictures I was thinking about when I did it. I couldn't recall the exact URL.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by AmyC

Here's what I don't get, though. Is that much sensitive nerve-dense skin really removed?

That depends on the doctor.

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.

Regardless of how "Loose" his circumcision was your husband's certainly sounds "Low", as in not much was taken and the cut happened not to far up the penis.

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?

That's more the skin being pushed out of the way really...

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.)

Yes, that does sound like remnants to me. Obviously I can't see it or anything but from your description that is what it sounds like.

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?

It really often is, it sounds like your husband is one of the lucky few. In most cases you can find the scar way up the shaft and a lot of muscosal tissues missing.

[hakunangovi]

AmyC, I sense a bit of a misunderstanding as to how you view the skin system of the penis. My apologies if I'm wrong. The outer skin starts at the base of the penis and goes to the tip of the foreskin where it then doubles back on itself (becoming mucosal tissue) as the inner foreskin and attaches just beneath the glans at the coronal sulcus. So when a foreskin is fully retracted, the doubled up bit is all stretched out, being pulled down the shaft, and exposing the glans. None of the "shaft" is ever uncovered/exposed because the inner foreskin is attached where the glans and shaft meet.
The foreskin is then all the outer skin extending from this point forward and all of the inner skin. Did I help or confuse you further ???

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by AmyC

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?

It honestly depends on how the doctor does it as to how much innerforeskin is left. Where is the scar? That is the big question. The closer to the base of the penis (groin) the scar is, the more innerforeskin remains. Hope that makes sense. I've seen some photos online where the scar was practicaly at the coronal ridge. In that case, pretty much all the innerforeskin was removed : . More typically, a man may find that the scar is 1/2 to 1 inch below the coronal ridge, and so they have about 1/2 to 1 inch of innerforeskin remaining.

Which, if you are planning on venturing towards restoring part of what is lost, is the tissue which you WANT to concentrate on expanding : . That is the mucosal tissue, with is nerve sensitive.

As for whether or not your DH has a looser circ...what they are when flaccid isn't as meaningful as when they are erect. Some men are "growers" as in, they may more than double in size when erect. So, they may seem to have a lot of wrinkling behind the shaft when flaccid, but be tight as a drum when erect. The question is...when erect, does the tube of skin easily and effortlessly move back and forth over the glans about halfway. I'd say then it's a loose circ.

THOUGH, I have seen men who have loose circs AND hardly any innerforeskin. It seems some doctors take care to make sure that they remove all the innerforeskin, but are pretty generous with leaving shaft skin (which sadly isn't that sensitive )

[AmyC]

My head is spinning.

I am not even certain where his scar is. Isn't that wacky? I have wondered about it and have tried to find it, but I'm aware that he is less comfy with my scrutiny since I've become intense about this issue.

I don't think he has a loose circ. I don't think the tube of skin moves that much when erect. It moves, but I don't think there's a lot of play.

hakunagovi, I think you're right that I have some misconceptions. I was going to post more questions in response to your post, but I JUST got it. What you see on a baby or on a flaccid, intact male is the outer foreskin. The inner foreskin is the mucosal membrane and it is like the inside layer of the "tip," the part that pulls back to expose the glans.

It's one of the more sensitive parts of the penis. Some circumcised males have some of this tissue preserved, while it is completely missing on others.

I am having more trouble with the "where is the scar" question (besides that I don't know where his scar is, precisely!) I'm having trouble visualizing why those scar locations would result in some inner foreskin left, that's all.

Is the scar basically where the cut ends of the foreskin fused to the penis?

What a whole, upsetting thing, regardless! Just trying to understand basic anatomical function makes you think "How could people do this, over and over?" Not only how could they cut, but how could they just trust a doctor to do it, and do it 'right.' And who even knows what's 'right,' anyway? It's just a look, (he looks circ'd or he doesn't look circ'd), no thought to function. It just makes it so hard to understand how it's supposed to function. When it should be a matter of course. (If you're sexually active with a man, understanding penis/foreskin function shouldn't require a mental exercise and diagrams. You should be able to have an "in the flesh" consultation if you have questions.)

[Tinker]

AmyC I'm following this conversation closely. I'm just as difficult a time grasping all the intricacies of this. I consider myself an intelligent person but trying to understand the anatomy of the foreskin, and how it functions in all ways, well it just boggles my mind. My hub and I have been together 10 years and I just the other day realized he is loosely circ'ed. I too don't think he'd be real comfortable with me scrutinizing his penis for the circ scar. It's sad when you think about it, that we've been sold this bill of goods for so long that we know next to nothing of what should be basic penis anatomy. And we wonder why guys are so wrapped up in their penis's!: ( that of course is not an insult to any guy anywhere, I'm just beginning to grasp the complexities of this)

[l_olive]

Originally Posted by hakunangovi

AmyC, I sense a bit of a misunderstanding as to how you view the skin system of the penis. My apologies if I'm wrong. The outer skin starts at the base of the penis and goes to the tip of the foreskin where it then doubles back on itself (becoming mucosal tissue) as the inner foreskin and attaches just beneath the glans at the coronal sulcus. So when a foreskin is fully retracted, the doubled up bit is all stretched out, being pulled down the shaft, and exposing the glans. None of the "shaft" is ever uncovered/exposed because the inner foreskin is attached where the glans and shaft meet.
The foreskin is then all the outer skin extending from this point forward and all of the inner skin. Did I help or confuse you further ???

This post is extremely helpful to me in figuring all this out. But where I'm lost is, where do they cut? The cut is not at the base of the penis, is it? I've actually never seen a newly-cut penis (thank the heavens), and I've never really understood this. When I look at my intact and unretractable son, all I see is foreskin right? Would every piece of skin that I'm looking at have been removed? Or is there a point somewhere in the middle where the foreskin is completely adhered (and stays adhered) to the penis -- and the butchers try to guess where this point will be when the baby is an adult?

I'm' not even sure my question makes sense. I've wanted to know all this for ages, but I'm not brave enough to look for the information on the internet. I wouldn't be able to handle the images that I would dig up on the way.

Thanks for this thread, by the way.

--Olive

[AmyC]

Originally Posted by l_olive

This post is extremely helpful to me in figuring all this out. But where I'm lost is, where do they cut? The cut is not at the base of the penis, is it? I've actually never seen a newly-cut penis (thank the heavens), and I've never really understood this. When I look at my intact and unretractable son, all I see is foreskin right? Would every piece of skin that I'm looking at have been removed? Or is there a point somewhere in the middle where the foreskin is completely adhered (and stays adhered) to the penis -- and the butchers try to guess where this point will be when the baby is an adult?

I'm' not even sure my question makes sense.

Your question makes perfect sense to me, and it's what I wanted to ask. Yes, you see one continuous length of skin (like a finger.) I thought that all was retractable, and underneath was a shaft & glans.

The post about the foreskin beginning at the base of the penis, continuing to the tip, then doubling back on itself (underneath) and attaching just beneath the glans helped me see. It's like one long (external) part, with a shorter segment that doubles back underneath. That segment is the retractable part. You might be able to pull it back further when flaccid, but it has that attached point behind the glans. (I'm still not sure where they cut, given that....)

I see now that every bit of skin you're looking at on your son's fused penis (all of which is external) would NOT have been cut in a circumcision. (Well, I'm assuming not at this point in time. Though of course, it's all up to a doctor. Is that what a "high and tight" circ actually IS? ALL the visible external skin of the penis being cut off???)

I, too, wonder where the cut would be (and why the scar is only on the underside, if that's even true), but I think the main thing that is cut is the part that doubles back. The part that is eventually retractable.

I hope you get an answer because I think your question is pretty clear.

[emma_goldman]

Wow. This vid is amazing. I learned a LOT! Now I am a better/more incensed intactivist.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by AmyC

Is that what a "high and tight" circ actually IS? ALL the visible external skin of the penis being cut off???)

I, too, wonder where the cut would be (and why the scar is only on the underside, if that's even true), but I think the main thing that is cut is the part that doubles back. The part that is eventually retractable.

I hope you get an answer because I think your question is pretty clear.

I'll try to answer some of the questions as best I know them. I think some may send you some links to photos to better understand. High and tight is exactly what circ'd men DON'T want to be. Sadly, it is what a lot of men in our generation are though : . The scar is rather close to the glans (high) and there is little slack in the skin (tight). That removes the most errogenous tissue : .

As for the scar, depending on what method is used some scars are darker and more obvious than others. Though, I've seen some photos where the main difference is color. The remnant innerforeskin, because it is mucosal tissue (like the inside of your mouth) is going to have a more pinkish/purplish hue than the shaft skin. That would be how you could tell how much innerforeskin is left as well.

I have to say, it can get emotionally overwhelming at times after finding out more and knowing what in fact your signifigant other is missing. It's sad that it seems that the majority of people in our generation tend to suffer from a tight circumcision with little innerforeskin or frenulum remaining. And, for many of us, we didn't *know* any of this because we grew up in a culture where we never had any experience with the normal male penis : . I honestly didn't know that my husband was *missing anything* until when I researched it while pregnant. Yep, I was pretty horrified. I still am when I think about it.

[AmyC]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

High and tight is exactly what circ'd men DON'T want to be.

I knew that much, but had the sudden pang when reading Olive's question "Is everything I see cut off during circumcision?" I didn't think they cut at the base of the penis (thus, everything you see on a child would not be gone.) But then I thought "is THAT what high and tight is?!"

Okay, I am thinking that, relatively speaking, "low" relates to closer to the tip, and "high" relates to further up: close to the glans or past it?

If a boy "doesn't look circ'd" after the surgery, because there's a lot of skin left, he likely will look "more" circ'd as he grows, anyway?

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by AmyC

I knew that much, but had the sudden pang when reading Olive's question "Is everything I see cut off during circumcision?" I didn't think they cut at the base of the penis (thus, everything you see on a child would not be gone.) But then I thought "is THAT what high and tight is?!"

Yeah, quite horrible stuff huh?

It still baffles me that this is such common practice. Healers performing acts of such destruction, it's absurd...

Okay, I am thinking that, relatively speaking, "low" relates to closer to the tip, and "high" relates to further up: close to the glans or past it?

Yes, "High" means further down the shaft and "Low" means that they stopped after the covering layer was removed {barely any stop before that point}. The reason that there is sometimes some overlap for circumcised men/boys/babies is that the foreskin often grows at a different rate or to a different rate to the rest of the penis.

Thus when in infancy it seemed the "Right" amount to remove but later on in life it grew further.

Of course things can go the other way and a doctor ends up taking what was fine at the time but later proves to be way too much and that is when the real fun starts: we're talking conditions like painful erections, near to utterly densitized genitals, "Buried" glanses and a charming condition named "Webbed penis" that looks twice as disgusting as it sounds.

This is what you get when you apply guess-work to the human body. Doctors are physicians, not prophets.

If a boy "doesn't look circ'd" after the surgery, because there's a lot of skin left, he likely will look "more" circ'd as he grows, anyway?

That is the likelihood but not per se a certainty. It almost always ends up that way but that is often not good enough for mothers, as we can determine from the trend of "Re-circumcisions".

Because sometimes one set of traumas just isn't enough...

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by AmyC

If a boy "doesn't look circ'd" after the surgery, because there's a lot of skin left, he likely will look "more" circ'd as he grows, anyway?

Generally yes...in fact I know a few of us have sent a study saying just that to people who considered re-circing because some of their child's glans was still covered after circ'ing as an infant. As they grow and the penis grows generally more and more glans will be exposed. : If someone has a link to that research they could post it, I know it's been posted to share with pro-circ people who think they have to "recirc" a baby who still has glans coverage : so they can look circ'd.

[MonicaS]

Originally Posted by AmyC

I, too, wonder where the cut would be (and why the scar is only on the underside, if that's even true), but I think the main thing that is cut is the part that doubles back. The part that is eventually retractable.

I didn't see this question answered.

The scar goes around the cirumference of the penis shaft, not just under it. It may be just barely a different shade than the rest of the penis, it may be really dark, or it may only be visible b/c the mucosal tissue of the inner foreskin is a different shade than the reg skin of the outer foreskin. It may have an oblique shape where it is closer to the glans on one side and farther on the other, or it may go evenly around the shaft. If it wasn't a well done circ(I know no circ is "well done", but ykwim.) it may have a jagged or even stretched scar. It really varies w/ the individual.

Someone already posted this link, but judging by some replies that followed, I think many have skipped looking at it. It really visually compares intact vs circ'd. You can see various scars.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

It's really hard to discribe in type how the cut/scar is made, especially if you choose not look at sites that show circ pics. For illustrative purposes I'm going to be very general. Obviously, the location of the cut will vary w/ the person doing the cutting and the equipment they use. When the cut is made, they cut straight through the outer and inner foreskin at some arbitrary location depending on the preferences of the circer. This will leave a section of inner foreskin that will heal to the skin of the outer foreskin/shaft skin. The scar line is where those two surfaces heal. From the scarline to the glans is inner foreskin(mucosal membrane like in your mouth), and from the scarline to the pelvis is the shaft skin and what is left of the outer foreskin(one continuous section of skin). They have basically editted some very important parts of the penial skin.

[kldliam]

[littlemizflava]

BUMP ....... new pics added

[lynnloves2]

This is interesting to me, I have never seen this done IRL. Thanks for sharing.

[Pandme]

Is this thread stickied? It should be.

I feel pretty stupid....I have never seen an intact adult penis and I assumed it was "ugly" like everyone tells you. I did not circ my son and his penis looks so normal I found myself wondering at what age will it become "ugly". Now I see there is barely even a difference when erect, except the circed one looks uncomfortably tight and has those horrid scars.

I am so glad I did not circ my son. So, so glad. DH, while he is circed, does have a looser circ, thank goodness.

[mean_jeannie]

Wow, I'm impressed with the one that is of the man who has undergone restoration! Thanks for the link, it really broadened my understanding.