Although what many people refer to as the penis is the part which is external, the organ itself extends into the body. During an erection, the entire penis becomes erect, which means that the entire erection is not attributed to just the visible portion. So if for example, the flaccid penis has 3 inches external and 3 inches internal, when that penis grows to 6 inches on erection, it’s not that the 3 inch external portion is increasing by 100% (from 3 to 6), but rather that the 6 inch total length is increasing by 50% (from 6 to 9).
The implication would seem to be that even if the external portion was completely severed, there would still be a small amount which would appear when erect, since the internal portion would still exist. So in the example above, the 3 inch internal portion should continue to grow by 50% and become 4.5 inches, which would mean that 1.5 inches would protrude.
The reason I ask is because in some cases on penis severing attacks reported in the media -including a case currently in the news - it is frequently reported that since the victim was left with almost no length, future sexual intercourse was now impossible. What I’m wondering is why this would follow, as above.
I’m not convinced your major premise is correct. Some experimentation suggests that the internal parts of at least one man’s penis do not extend themselves outward from the body.
The next major objection is that the parts of the organ most involved in the business of sexual pleasure are near the far end, near the tip. Take a guy with a six inch willie, and cut off three inches, and I guarantee, you’ve seriously diminished his enjoyment of sex.
Yes, the prostate gland and some other internal bits are also important, and, by remaining, might make a different kind of sexuality possible. But I’m pretty sure that if you cut of a flaccid weenie right at the surface, whatever’s left inside would not protrude to serve as a pseudo-dong.
Most of the internal portion of the penile shaft does not contain erectile tissue. In most penis-severage cases, erection is only possible afterwards by means of inflatable bladders placed within the reattached (or reconstructed) shaft.
I read that that’s how John Bobbitt was able to have a functional reconstructed penis, by using what is below the surface. That’s how they do penis lengthening surgery, by releasing the part that’s underground and bringing it up to the surface.
I’m not sure your experimentation is conclusive. You can’t see what might be moving under the skin.
It’s certain that internal parts of the penis do become erect (contrary to what RNATB seems to be saying) and it seems unlikely that the same erection acts differently on two parts of the same organ.
Well yes, no doubt. I don’t recommend any of this.
Nonetheless, it might be possible that it’s better than nothing, and possibly even better than phalloblasting an artificial penis out of elbow skin and similar. The question is that news reports seem to indicate that there’s really nothing left to work with.
One possibility is that these various penis-severers tend to yank on the penis while doing their evil work, which draws the internal portions outside to be severed, and thus leaves nothing even under the premise of the OP.
Not in Bobbit’s case. The photo looks to me like she cut off not much more than the tip.Link hidden, presuming that the photo is Not Safe For Work: photo of the severed portion
The amount of fat surrounding the penis is very relevant here. A heavy man will have more than the three inches hidden, and if he’s heavy enough the entire penis disappears. The rule of thumb is that 35 pounds lost or gained causes one inch of visible penis length. My partner is skinny as a rail, and ALL of his is external.
Yeah, I know. It’s just scary to think there’s more inside. What I meant was, there’s no fat around it, like with many people, causing it to look shorter.
Ah, yes, I was getting it mixed up with another local case involving a boy. In the boys’ case, they were supposedly able to refashion a functional penis with what was beneath the surface.
