Also when it is done don’t they carterise it at the same time.
I also do not see the need and think it should mostly be discontinued.
I’m not sure what you’re saying, here. If the foreskin is retracted past the head, then it’s kind of bunched up below that point. If it’s not, then it covers the head, just like it does when flaccid.
But it doesn’t just “bunch up,” it combines with the rest of the skin, which would be impossible if it couldn’t separate. When retracted, the two surfaces of the foreskin, inner and outer, both join the outer skin of the penis. This couldn’t happen if they were still together.
Getting back to nyctea scandiaca’s drawing:
The only inaccuracy is that the cut is made closer to the shaft. The gap between the blue arrows is not closed, but heals as new skin. That’s why, on a circumcized penis, the skin immediately below the head is of a different texture, and thinner, that the skin covering the rest of the shaft.
Well, I can only claim to have examined one, but probably more closely.
When retracted, the foreskin becomes just more of the skin on the shaft of the penis - in fact, it can be retracted by pulling backwards on the skin of the shaft - if the in-facing and out-facing surfaces were inseparable, how would this be possible?
Here is a diagram I found that demonstrates what I’m talking about:
In the lower (aroused) diagram, the outer and inner prepuce are no longer doubled back against each other, they’re pulled out flat, inline.
So the question is:
Is the foreskin single-ply or double-ply?
If it’s single ply, how is it possible to pull the foreskin back until it’s flat along the shaft of the penis?
If it’s double-ply, why doesn’t cutting it off cause the skin of the penis to become separated from the head?
It has to be double-ply, or it wouldn’t be able to retract flat, at least in adults, at least this one.
In infants, I believe it’s often still attached to the glans somewhat, so the configuration might not be the same.
It’s double-ply, and the “gap” becomes, after circumcision, the thinner skin right below the head. In my experience, nobody who has been circumcised has continuous same-textured skin all the way to the head; there is always that area where the skin is thinner and more sensitive. That is the area that had been the gap between the inner and outer surfaces of the foreskin.
Hijack:
Do I understand from that diagram that circumcised men cannot get HIV through contact with the penis?
I believe there is a misunderstanding and you are both saying the same thing.
I don’t think so. I’m disagreeing with Chief Pedant. I’m saying the inner and outer surfaces of the foreskin do not appear to be fused
I think it’s actually claiming that uncircumcised men can get it more easily, not that circumcised men are invulnerable
Apparently you can get it through the “inner prepuce” skin, which is very thin, but not through the skin of the glans. And of course you can get it through the urethra.
What about a V-neck? So much more stylish.
I think this animated gif is the clearest demonstration of what happens during retraction.
I wouldn’t trust that diagram or its source at all, since anyone who thinks that “aroused” implies “retracted” can’t know all that much about the uncircumcised penis.
And I think **Qadgop the Mercotan ** agrees with you.
[old joke] A rabbi saves all the foreskins he’s removed over the years. When he retires he takes them to a leatherworker to have some sort of memento made. He tells the guy to make whatever he can from them.
When he returns the leatherworker hands him a wallet.
“This is all it would make, huh?”
“Yes, but you rub it and it turns into a suitcase.” [/old joke]
Some people have so much skin that it remains covering the head when erect??
boggle