Well, I can only speak for myself here, but in the interests of science I shall explain what goes on for me (As I mentioned, I have been circumcised as an adult). I shall refrain from personal pronouns however, because they freak me out in this context.
When flaccid, the penis looks very much as it would do when erect, just smaller. However, there is a little excess skin, which collects around the shaft. The skin can be pulled and manipulated. The skin can even be pulled back over the head (although that could be because the circumcision to fix phimosis wasn’t a complete one), but it quickly retracts and collects once more just below the head (in a ring).
When erect, this skin obviously stretches, however, there is still a very faint ring where the foreskin was previously connected.
Actually, I’m not sure if this explains anything whatsoever.
The only thing I’ve got now is, check out this gif and notice the collection of skin when the foreskin is pulled back. That’s what mine looks like normally, but with less skin collected. All I can really say is, there’s a lot of skin on the penis and it’s very stretchy. This is what makes erection possible! (No flux capacitor).
Damn, I used a personal pronoun. Let me just skulk off into the darkness now.
It’s not a question of having too much skin. Penis skin is very, very stretchy. Some people have a condition called phimosis where the opening of the foreskin is too tight for it to retract. Everything just stretches.
As do the many videos available on the net. Just go to xtube and search for either foreskin or uncut. The clearest one I found is titled “uncut 18 yo foreskin play”.
(I would link to it, but I’m not sure that’s allowed even if I “break” the link.)
Wow, phimosis should NOT be treated with circumcisions. I had it well into puberty, but after enough years of jerking off enough, it just stretches out. (Ok, there was also irritation and chaffing involved.) Everything in your body can always be stretched out. Even your teeth can be rearranged just by pulling on them long enough. Probably way too much information, but cutting the whole thing off to fix this one problem just seems… (opinion omitted)
P.S. YES, the foreskin is definitely two-ply, like the OP implied.
P.P.S the wiki pic on phimosis is weird. the guy is not even trying to pull it back. It looks like his dick has grown shut, lol
As a gay man with much direct and indirect (i.e., photographic) experience, I can always and easily tell the difference between a cut and uncut penis, no matter how erect. Although I can readily understand why many if not most people have trouble telling the difference between erect penises of the two types (the difference is fairly subtle, after all), to me, the visual difference is always quite obvious.
It’s probably a matter of experience. Consider it akin, perhaps, to how experienced people can immediately tell one gender from another in an animal species in which the difference is not apparent to non-experts.
On the contrary, it’s not uncommon for uncircumcised men to experience pain from erections because the “cap” is too tight when they’re aroused. The technical term is “phimosis”. Such problems do not occur in circumcised men.
In fact, there are several medical problems that only arise (as it were) in uncircumcised men. While it is certainly not true that there are no medical problems related to circumcision, uncircumcised men are substantially more likely to experience health problems arising from their penises.
If phimosis was the single, solitary reason to undergo circumcision, I would agree. But that is never the case. There are always other considerations, the most important of which involve serious health issues.
Since this is GQ rather than a debate forum, I’ll simply report the facts: The WHO and the American CDC and many other preeminent public health authorities assert that the degree of prevention afforded by male circumcision against HIV infection is hugely significant. It is not perfect, of course, but it’s enormous all the same. How enormous?
Aside from its powerful protective effect against HIV, it is an established fact that circumcision is also nearly perfect in preventing penile cancer, a disease which is considerably more common than most people suspect. In “The Highly Protective Effect of Newborn Circumcision Against Invasive Penile Cancer” (2007), Schoen, Oehrli, and Machin demonstrate that, of those with invasive penile cancer where the circumcision status is known, 97.7% of them were uncircumcised. Worldwide, Israel has the lowest number of cases while countries where circumcision is rare can see as much as 4000% higher incidences. In Uganda, penile cancer is the most common cancer among men, and it results in 17% of all malignancies in some areas of Brazil. (Owor R. Carcinoma of the penis in Uganda. IARC Sci Publ. 1984;63: 493–497; Ornellas AA, Seixas ALC, Marota A, Wisnescky A, Campos F, de Moraes JR. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol. 1994;151:1244–1249)
Thus, someone suffering from phimosis, paraphimosis, and other penile medical problems should thoroughly avail themselves of all the latest medical evidence concerning the risks and benefits of circumcision. In the Western world, complications arising from circumcision occur in approximately 0.2% of cases, while the risks of remaining uncircumcised are considerably greater. Parents and individuals need to make their decision with these data in mind.
These facts are not open to debate, and thus are appropriate in this forum.
You can say whatever you wish, but it does not alter the fact that you made a flat, unambiguous assertion which is directly contradicted by compelling scientific evidence. As I wrote directly above, “[t]hese facts are not open to debate, and thus are appropriate in this forum.”
You use those “facts” to justify male genital mutilation. So when “facts” touting the same benefits apply to female genital mutilation why is that act considered evil?
"Mentioning some of these benefits, Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi says:
The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision."
From: Medical benefits of female circumcision - Islam Question & Answer
"Here are some of the benefits which have been discovered:
A reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris.
Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with men and women who have been circumcised.
A further benefit that is apparent for women and more so for their husbands, is that women of hot climates often have a large clitoris which arouses their desires when it rubs against the adjacent clothing. It may even grow to such a size that sexual intercourse is not possible. Therefore, circumcision reduces her desires and their effects in the first case, and makes intercourse possible in the second case."
From http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
Yes, this can happen. But everybody is different. According to my urologist, my phimosis was not going to sort itself out, no matter how many times I spanked the monkey. I noticed the problem ever since I remember, probably developed during puberty and I got it sorted when I was 21 (Insanely shy). It was obvious that it wasn’t just going to stretch back to normal. Medically speaking, my urologist said this was impossible.
There are other options though. However, again, in my case those options would not have worked. There is also a cream, which I tried, but it didn’t work.
Circumcision was the only option. I wouldn’t recommend it, but it’s better than the alternative (phimosis can cause great pain).
Sorry for posting this. A mod can delete it if they want. I just don’t think a personal anecdote with zero medical backing has a place in this forum and should be corrected. I suppose, since I originally come from the UK where the circumcision rate is around 6%, it’s not a common thing - only really used when necessary in medical circumstances I believe.
As this article says, steroid cream is the best thing to use, but infrequently circumcision is necessary. It’s definitely a last resort thing, but to say phimosis should not be treated this way is clearly wrong.
Your link do not have any real numbers, “many”, “less” but no specifics on how the results were found.
They are also discussing femile circumcision in the light of a religious duty.
And also while with male circ, we’re talking HIV and Cancer and with female it’s bad odours, the point is clear.
I don’t see it. Let’s recap: Chief Pedant says, in post #12, that the two layers of skin are not separate.
In post #19, I disagree with this description, based on a piece of evidence that is admittedly anecdotal, but one that I have studied in detail.
In post #20, Qadgop the Mercotan says: “What’s inaccurate about Chief’s description? It describes accurately many of the hundreds I’ve examined on adult males in my career.”
I don’t see how you make this out to be an agreement. Chief Pedant and QtM say the inner and outer layers of skin are fused, I say they’re not - or at least, don’t appear to be.
Fascinating. I provide several recent, scientifically confirmed factual reports from highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals and the CDC, none of which has been scientifically challenged, then you reply with some nutjob crank’s laughable bullshit in a non-respected, non-peer-reviewed personal opinion paper which cites cirp.org!
Who should put scare quotes around the word “facts” again?
The peer-reviewed, scientific medical facts I cited are not in doubt, nor are they a matter of opinion. Thus they are suitable for this forum.
It is the ethical and practical questions that surround what choices a given individual should make given these data that are open for debate, and I avoided those issues. For example, I wrote: “Parents and individuals need to make their decision with these data in mind.” I did not argue for one course or the other, which would have violated the GQ standards.
I don’t have a dog in this fight about if it’s appropriate or not to circumcise infants in the United States, but as pointed out, with references from ambushed it is now a very well established fact from well-conducted randomized clinical trials that male circumcision prevents HIV transmission to a very considerable degree.
This really isn’t a controversial statement at this point. It isn’t the definitive statement on whether or not you or your child should be circumcised, but if I lived in sub-Saharan Africa it means that I personally wouldn’t have to think twice about the decision to go ahead with circumcision for myself or anyone else I was in the position to make the decision for.
The evidence in support of this claim as compared to the rather odd citations put forth by other posters is enormous.
