I have no idea how many years ago you got circumcised
For newborns adhesions are generally weak and easy to separate because they haven't finihsed fusing skin to glans which comes later (until they then start to break down later)
Honestly, how do you come up with so much bullshit?
Was the white area between glans and your real circumcision scar always there or did it appear at puberty ?
Circumcision techniques in current use are designed to not damage the glans or remaining inner foreskin. Perhaps your inner skin was really adhered strongly to glans. For newborns adhesions are generally weak and easy to separate because they haven't finihsed fusing skin to glans which comes later (until they then start to break down later)
What is your source for this statement? I've never heard of the degree of adhesion increasing naturally (read: without doctor interference) after birth, then disengaging from the glans at a later time. Not trying to be critical, I'm curious.
I doubt he has one as it's categorically wrong. :nono:
Since it was scar tissue, where the foreskin was torn from the area, it took a second session to get it done. The first session, the artist broke the skin with the tattoo gun--intense pain--then he applied lidocaine and it wasn't bad. The secon session, I applied the baby teething solution and deadened the skin so when the artist hit it with the tattoo gun it wasn't bad. Not a piece of cake either !! Happy with the results.Since the scar wasn't even, the flame desigh was an efficient coverup. Gives new meaning to the phrase "HOT ROD" !!! The circumcision scar itself is nice and looks good.To rollerboy, how painful was getting the tatto? That must be a very sensitive asrea to get a tat.