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....