Variations in foreskin length. A wild guess at distribution

[Ionto]

Having a particularly short foreskin myself I have always been very much aware of how much foreskins vary between individuals. I have often wondered what the distribution of foreskin length over the whole male population is like (what percent with overhangs, what percent just covering, etc.). From this point of view it was a great discovery to find the coverage index http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm , which gives an scale to measure and compare. However the coverage index was developed for men restoring their foreskins, and it is rather too fine grained to record casual observations from dressing rooms, showers, nude beaches, etc. I suggest grouping further into half as many categories that are more easily observable to suggest what I think is the approximate distribution of foreskin length in the French population.


CI1 to 3 : skin does not cover the glans at all : 12%
CI4 to 5 : half the glans is exposed or more : 3%
CI6 to 7 : most of the glans is covered, but still visible : 35%
CI 8 to 9 : glans fully covered and/or with a slight overhang: 40%
CI10 : long overhang : 10%
The result is a sort of bell curve, though the left hand base is higher because a big majority of those in CI 1 to 3 would in fact be circumcised. One man in ten was the proportion claimed when I did military service, though in Paris, with its cosmopolitan population, you would see more completely exposed glans than this. Those in CI 4 and 5 may be partly circumcised, or just have a naturally short foreskin. I’d say three quarters of men would have a foreskin that either just about covers the glans give or take a bit in length.
How does this tally with other people’s estimations ? Has anyone seen any evidence of a clinical survey of foreskin length?

 

[2891]

Having a particularly short foreskin myself I have always been very much aware of how much foreskins vary between individuals. I have often wondered what the distribution of foreskin length over the whole male population is like (what percent with overhangs, what percent just covering, etc.). From this point of view it was a great discovery to find the coverage index http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm , which gives an scale to measure and compare. However the coverage index was developed for men restoring their foreskins, and it is rather too fine grained to record casual observations from dressing rooms, showers, nude beaches, etc. I suggest grouping further into half as many categories that are more easily observable to suggest what I think is the approximate distribution of foreskin length in the French population.


CI1 to 3 : skin does not cover the glans at all : 12%
CI4 to 5 : half the glans is exposed or more : 3%
CI6 to 7 : most of the glans is covered, but still visible : 35%
CI 8 to 9 : glans fully covered and/or with a slight overhang: 40%
CI10 : long overhang : 10%
The result is a sort of bell curve, though the left hand base is higher because a big majority of those in CI 1 to 3 would in fact be circumcised. One man in ten was the proportion claimed when I did military service, though in Paris, with its cosmopolitan population, you would see more completely exposed glans than this. Those in CI 4 and 5 may be partly circumcised, or just have a naturally short foreskin. I’d say three quarters of men would have a foreskin that either just about covers the glans give or take a bit in length.
How does this tally with other people’s estimations ? Has anyone seen any evidence of a clinical survey of foreskin length?

Those are interesting observations. I was surprised by the circumcision factor in France. I presumed most in France were uncircumcised. I agree the coverage index chart is too generalized and doesn't give better examples of the various lengths and coverage.
Trying to find a true coverage index may be hard to formulate due to the variations of coverage one can have. As an uncut guy I typically I fall in the C3 for catagory most of the time however I could go to a 4 or even 5 if I really shrink up. It mean it just depends.
What I have observed while visiting the UK and Mexico is there are a higher number of C3's in Mexico compared to the UK. I saw more C6 through 8 in the UK. These were just casual observations at public facilities. I am sure there may be others who may differ with my observation.

 

[basque9]

I can only give an example of my own adult cutting experience in U.S.
I began as a C1-9 before cutting in 1977 at age 45.
I became a C1-1 after cutting
I am now a C1-4 at age 73 , almost 29 years later

My foreskin underwent a slow process of natural self- regeneration until four years ago. At that time , I began jelquing and the regrowth of the foreskin accelerated dramatically and is continuing at that accelerated rate!

 

[Dr Rock]

I was surprised by the circumcision factor in France. I presumed most in France were uncircumcised.

there's a lot of arabs and west africans in france owing to the nature of their former colonial territories.

 

[2891]

there's a lot of arabs and west africans in france owing to the nature of their former colonial territories.

Thanks makes sense now. :smile:

 

[Ionto]

Those are interesting observations. I was surprised by the circumcision factor in France.

You’re right. Relatively few French men are circumcised; I reckon it at just over one in ten, from observations in Paris changing rooms, showers, sports clubs, and from military service, but when I was a student at a university in the east of France I noticed it was less than that.

 

[Flotiz]

In my opinion the majority of uncircumcised boys have a foreskin that covers the entire glans (without overhang) or that leaves a small part visible (usually the urinary meatus)

 

[SirConcis]

In hight school, of the peers I saw naked, only one other had long overhang like me. The rest either had normal foreskis (short, leaving tip of glans exposed) or were cut. (one friend whome I assume he was cut once "showed" me he was uncut too by pushing his skin to cover almost all of glans for a minute while we were alone in shower room and then retracted it again before going back to lockers where there were others - as kids, I had asked him if he was cut and he had refused to tell me , so as late teenagers, he finally gave me the answer

Side note: last year at pool, a group of french buddies entered the showers. Their French accent wasn't all, they also wore DIM underwear (no longer available in Canada). One guy caught my attention as he dropped underwear to show a bare glans. (after a gyn workout, dick is not normmally at biggest, so one woudl assume retracted foreskins would come forward). he buddies were all uncut. Not long after, while facing his buddies, he pushed his skin forward and it came to cover about 3/4 of glans. He sent them a message "I am uncut too". But I took peeks now and then, and that skin progressively pulled back and within a minute of two, he was back to bare glans.

back to the Québec situation:
While circ wasn't as widespread here, I think that doctors still recommended circumcision by age 10 if the foreksin was "undully long" or coudln't retract. I know my pediatrician recomjmended it to my dad a number of times till I was 11. (dad always refused it). In hindsight, I suspect that the reason I didn't see many long foreskins back then is that they were culled before the guys weere old enough to be seen naked at school.

I have known a number of guys who got circumcised at 10.

Cue the end of the cirucmcision trend circa 1980 in Québec.

These days, locker rooms are quite different not only because circumcision at birth pretty much stopped, but doctors have accepted long foreskins and no longer circumcise unless an adult is persistent enough after having tried the steroid creams (which don't work). This means that long foreskins is far more common now, and short ones not so common (I suspect this stems from parents not retracting foreskins of their boys anymore so phimosis persists longer and every erection stretches foreskin so foreskin grows with penis).

Note that the dictionaries from France when I was youngter described the foreskin as covering PART of the glans in the adult. (or more prcisely, tip of glans protruding from foreskin). And an anatomy book from France showed adulst with tip of glans exposed.

Yet, I recently went though a gallery of vintage male images, so dating from before circumcision became universal in the USA and while short foreskins were common, full foreskins (but no overhang) were also common.