Circumcision positions

NCbear,

You make a good point about (1) adult, (2) youth [w/o medical indication], and (3) youth [with a medical indication] cases being conflated together. The rationales are very different.

In general, most of the debate is about case 2 since hardly no one opposes 1 or 3, myself included.

At times they all get intermingled. I often try to make a distinction when I think it helps to clarify it.
 
One can't really compare male and female circumcision. While the name is the same, cutting off the clitoris is not quite the same as cutting off a bit of skin. I'm cut but I have not problems with my penis. It is still fully functional. I have a lot of sensitivity, sometimes too much. My glans is not keratinized. I have no skin bridges and I still have my frenulum, which is one of my most sensitive spots.

I don't feel that I've been "reduced" at all, certainly not in size.

this is true as from my hubby before and after his circa, he is the same way also. and he has been cut for 12 yrs. now and their has been no loss of drive, sensitivity, or any of the other bad things i have read about that is bad for cut guys, most would be i think offering advise that they know nothing about really, if they have never been cut latter all they know is what they have and same with foreskin guys all they know is a foreskin they can not know exactly how a cut guy feels unless he has been cut as an adult and a cut guy docent know what a foreskin guy goes through if he has never has one so like i said its just guessing as there is know real personal experience to draw on here just opinions, my opinion is from diffrent guys i know, past b/fs, and hubby,
and some reading up about this subject. but a survey isn't the same as someone who has actually gone through the process of it. so ill take advise and answers from a real person who been there an done it then from some thing i read about it.and there is a big difference in female circ, and a male circ, cutting off the clitoris in female circ, is like cutting off the head of the guys cock. fight all we want about this the difference is very diffrent indeed .
 
Last edited:
I saw an unusual circumcision style this weekend.

It was in the collective showers after a swim. A man of about 20 showered next to me : not unusual in any way, average height, not particularly athletic, average to thin cock. I did notice though that the head was visible, partly visible I thought, though I couldn't see very well. It looked as if he had a short foreskin, with about half the cockhead exposed. He eventually turned towards me when he soaped up, so I saw quite closely. What I had seen was in fact the whole cockhead, - it just wasn't a very big one. But what was more surprising was that the external skin seemed to come down to the glans itself. There was no sign of a scar, though it looked as if there was no loose skin at all, so I assumed he was circumcised. Another strange feature was the almost total lack of any rim: often circumcised men have very developed rims, flaring out, but everything seemed to be about the same diameter with this man.

Although it was unusual, I am sure I have already seen cocks like that before. I wonder if it is a special technique of circumcision, or if it' s just genetics at play, or possibly both.
 
Although it was unusual, I am sure I have already seen cocks like that before. I wonder if it is a special technique of circumcision, or if it' s just genetics at play, or possibly both.
I know a cut guy with a small glans like you describe--the skin comes forward because he doesn't have much of a corona. It would be easier for someone with a small tip to restore because they wouldn't have to overcome the natural tendency for the restored skin to stop at the corona instead of rolling over and hugging the glans the way the natural foreskin usually does. This is because the orifice has been amputated. Skin is naturally elastic, but it is impossible to replace/restore the specialized whorl of skin that forms the preputial opening or lips.
 
I know a cut guy with a small glans like you describe--the skin comes forward because he doesn't have much of a corona. It would be easier for someone with a small tip to restore because they wouldn't have to overcome the natural tendency for the restored skin to stop at the corona instead of rolling over and hugging the glans the way the natural foreskin usually does. This is because the orifice has been amputated. Skin is naturally elastic, but it is impossible to replace/restore the specialized whorl of skin that forms the preputial opening or lips.

Yes, I suppose this guy would be a good candidate for restoration. He certainly didn't seem to have any corona at all. But then as he washed, he didn't seem to have much spare skin at all either.
 
re: skin flush to the rim "unusual circumcision".

This is likely the result of poor parental care during first weeks of the newborn, allowing the circumcision scar to heal against the rim of head and "bind" to it. (the glans at that time is still of a skin surface that makes it easy for another skin to adhere to it).

Basically, a huge skin bridge.

Another possibility is that the guy was uncut (or very loosely cut) and "rolls" his foreskin over itself behind the rim of head, which "stores" extra skin behind head and the skin then stops neatly at the rim of head. This lasts until the next erection.

Some uncuts have a foreksin configuration that lends itself to a good portion of foreksin rolling over itself behind rim, giving a shorter foreksin appearance when flaccid.
 
Yes, I suppose this guy would be a good candidate for restoration. He certainly didn't seem to have any corona at all. But then as he washed, he didn't seem to have much spare skin at all either.
I've got a friend kind of like this. We played with each others' dicks once. When he is hard his corona is stretched to the point of disappearance because he's got a long thin cock and very tightly cut. Some cut guys barely have enough skin left for erections.
 
Why cutting proper amount of skin (much enough to provide bare glans when soft) at the base of the penis is not practised? It'd preserve ALL the inner skin and the sensitive connection between inner and outer skin. It would also hide the scar somewhere at the base of penis covered by pubic hair.

Why ALL circumcision styles invole cutting the penis' skin around this conjunction?
 
>>Why ALL circumcision styles invole cutting the penis' skin around this conjunction?

Because the surgery is FAR simpler when removing excess skin over glans. When removing it from base, you have importnt blood vessels and nerve bundles passing under the skin.

For an adult, I guess it isn't much differet from a freehand sleeve resection circ. But for babies, thre is a huge difference.

Remember that for a baby, the doctor would still need to retract the foreksin, which mean freeing adhesios and likely making a dorsal slit to allow foreksin to go back, and if you're going to mess with the foreskin and damage it, you might as well remove that skin.
 
>>Why ALL circumcision styles invole cutting the penis' skin around this conjunction?
For an adult, I guess it isn't much differet from a freehand sleeve resection circ. But for babies, thre is a huge difference.

You're right. I should have limited my question to adult circumcision only. So, why it is not practised for adults? It is still open question...
 
You're right. I should have limited my question to adult circumcision only. So, why it is not practised for adults? It is still open question...
The answer Sirconcis gave still applies.

Think of when you're erect. [If you're imagination is impaired then rub one up. :biggrin:] The shaft skin slides a good bit and can be thought of as a "tube". There are no connections between the "tube" and the lower tissues. All of the blood vessels and nerves enter via either end. Most enter at the proximal [base] end. Some are at the distal [glans] end; those of course are severed by circumcision.

Cutting at the proximal end is much more problematic and there would be more risk of complications. In spite of that, I've read of it being done on an adult. Just one is all that I've read about. Took him a while to find a surgeon willing to chance it. So it IS possible.
 
I knew, that i have somewhere seen this method described:

A New Method for the Relief of Adult Phimosis

all the nerves and veins go under the skin, so cutting the skin only shouldn't hurt them. The procedure is done by surgeons, not by butchers ;)

When I was researching before my circumcision I came across this, I asked 3 doctors and when they came back with their quotes I cringed. It's rather expensive and is not covered by medical insurance because there is normally a cosmetic component to it.

It is a good alternative if one can afford it.
 
darkbond - you have a great looking circ. Are you in the US? How much, if I can ask, was the going rate? My Bf is talking about it and is scared to have it done here because he doesn't think the docs will know how to do it as well as a doc in the US. I think he should think about going to Turkey or Egypt where it's routinely done.
 
That's too bad Johnny. Encouraging men to get circumcised for shits and giggles. I doubt if darkbond wants to discuss that with you. Sounds like a good way to destroy a relationship.
 
darkbond - you have a great looking circ. Are you in the US? How much, if I can ask, was the going rate? My Bf is talking about it and is scared to have it done here because he doesn't think the docs will know how to do it as well as a doc in the US. I think he should think about going to Turkey or Egypt where it's routinely done.



yes i have seen a few circumcisions that was done. in Egypt an another in Turkey. an they were all very smooth an nice looked like they were done here in the states. i thought they were till i ask who done it an the guys told me where they had it done. was soft an smooth as the cut cocks i had here in the states.