Foreskin restoration

[blackopal19]

Ok. I admit. I've read the entire column actively.

However, I would like to bring up a point. Isn't there something bigger or more important to worry about or to be angry about than whether or not your parents cut you? It seems a trivial matter to stay angry or as others have put it, been unhappy, with their parents choice. I would think that a man who is so worried about what his penis is like has deeper issues.

I know I've stated my preference above, but when it comes down to love it doesn't matter. I wouldn't ditch my true love just because he was uncut. Mind you, I'm not trying to impune on somebody's choice to cut or not to, or to face restoration. I'm just merely adding my other two cents.

 

[temp256]

In my case, it is not simply cut or uncut. I've been having plenty of complications to the point where sex can be rather painful, which is something few people can ignore. I can't blame my parents, so all I can do is try to fix myself and warn others.

I've never been in love, so I can't comment on it.

 

[gregor2001us]

This is where the issues get tricky to discuss. There are so many side issues related to how you feel. And so many gradations on those feelings. What may be unreasonable to one is prefectly reasonable to another.

Are there bigger things to worry about? Depends on who is worrying.

What makes a person feel it is necessary to restore? Depends upon the person.

A cut person may be too sensitive. And uncut person may have better control because they are fully functional. Depends upon the person. And the mind is the biggest player in all of this.

And the other issue that makes it difficult to know where the truth lies for you is that you can't repeat the life experiment you are running, changing only one variable at a time. So you try what you think is best, but can never try it another way. You are older, you have created changes that can't be undone, and you can't control a whole host of other varaibles related to but not directly involved.

Its like parents never really know how well they did. They know what they did, and can agonize over it, but in the end, they have to realize they get one shot and there are way too many variables and differences to know how well a specific choice worked. All they can really do is see the end result (children grown up to adults) and feel that they did the best they could.

 

[well]

never really thought about foreskin before like this but as a by the way...

when the penis is erect...how much of the head is normally covered by the foreskin???

 

[Halo_n_horns]

A cut person may be too sensitive. And uncut person may have better control because they are fully functional.

I've seen amputees who are able to climb mountains and cliffs. I strongly doubt that losing that little piece of skin makes the penis less functional in any way.

 

[gregor2001us]

Well: It varies widely from uncovered to completely covered. Search a bit on this site and others and you will find many examples, covering the full range.

Halo _n_ Horns: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, based upon your experience, observations, and knowledge gathering.

I and many others do not share your opinion based upon our experience, observations, and knowledge gathering. The words you use clearly indicate limited knowledge in the matter. I do like the quote you have as part of your signature, and feel it has some application to this discussion:

"Do not believe in what you have heard; do not believe in traditions because
they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe anything
because it is rumored and spoken of by many; do not believe merely because
the written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in
conjectures; do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and
elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up
to it."

 

[Halo_n_horns]

The words you use clearly indicate limited knowledge in the matter. I do like the quote you have as part of your signature, and feel it has some application to this discussion:

"Do not believe in what you have heard; do not believe in traditions because
they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe anything
because it is rumored and spoken of by many; do not believe merely because
the written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in
conjectures; do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and
elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up
to it."

Yeah. In short: Question everything.

Guys, I've read about this. I've had discussions about this outside of these forums with men who are and are not circumcized. I've discussed this with women who have been with both types of men. I've read the claims that this is a forced mutilation and the parents are going off of bad medical practices and bad medical information. I haven't heard or read of any mass movements of Jewish men trying to stop the practice within their religion because this is such a bad and terrible thing that's being forced onto them by their religion.

If your parents were so wrong or misinformed then why aren't there support groups trying to completely undue all the teachings and examples set by your parents for all the other aspects of your life? I mean, if they were so totally wrong about this, then they must have been pretty lousy parents in a number of other ways, right?

Their are far greater and much worse mutilations happening in this world to other people, but you guys want to focus in on the very small one that happened to your penises without, in most cases, any recollection of it ever happening?

I'm wondering just how informed you guys really are when one of you defined "priapism" as an "inability to retract the foreskin." It's not.

"... when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it" is the equivelant of common sense, which is painfully uncommon. You guys are putting a huge question mark over a "mutilation" that was, in fact, a lesser loss of skin than most skinned knees or elbows that kids get, and that they will remember later in life. And chances are that none of them will be trying to get that skin back.

Also, even if the proceedure is a success, in so far that a foreskin is created, since you honestly have no memory, nor do you have any real experience with your original foreskin (barring any circumstances where one did have a foreskin further into life that was removed for whatever reason), you will never ever honestly know if the forsekin that has been created is actually creating all the same effects as the original would have.

"... when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it"

Your "restoration" of a foreskin does nothing to "benefit one and all." It also leaves or gains nothing to live up to. I'm sure that if all of you guys and "The National Organization for Restoring Men" were to really be men about this, three things would become obvious: 1)The only reason that this conversation is happening is because someone has found yet another way to make money off of mens' insecurities about their penises. 2)It does just stem from an insecurity about the penis. 3)There are, in fact, many much greater and worthwile endeavors that all you guys could be putting time into that would actually benefit people in greater ways than fretting over their dicks would.

 

[temp256]

Yeah, I meant phimosis, not priapism.

As for why there is no widespread anti-circumscision organizations, they have a number of things to contend with.
First, the damned taboo. This makes it difficult to get media coverage.
Second, too many fight back with a passion, refusing to even listen. They seem to be the ones with more money too.
Third, with the worldwide effort to stop female mutilation, they have intentionally ignored male circumscision until female mutilation has been stopped.
Fourth, common culture imposes circumscision for the most pathetic cosmetic, and often female based reasons. As intellegence no longer reigns, these opinions have greatly influenced society.

Since time machines do not exist, there is no way to perform proper imperical testing. What we do know is the testimonials of those who "restored" their foreskin. They say it is better. Can you find any testimonials of adult circumscision who claim cut is better (for non-fetish reasons)?

As for why we're arguing about "petty" things, 1) there are plenty of cheap/free methods of restoration. 2) Erectile pain is not an insecurity. 3) I'm a selfish bastard, so I'm going to fix my problems before worrying about someone elses.

Just remember: it can always be cut off later, but it can never be completely restored.

 

[gregor2001us]

Halo_n_horns: It sounds like you have arrived at a comfort level that is right for you. Nothing wrong with that. But you also jumped in to this discussion stating that you didn't get it and appearing to ask for some other's opinions and knowledge. When that was offered you began and continue to try to judge and put a negative spin on what they say. Maybe you should consider why you feel a need to do this.

A few points related to your last message:

"If your parents were so wrong or misinformed then why aren't there support groups trying to completely undue all the teachings and examples set by your parents for all the other aspects of your life? I mean, if they were so totally wrong about this, then they must have been pretty lousy parents in a number of other ways, right?"

REPLY: You are ignoring the second of the two alternatives you yourself presented. If they were misinformed, it does not follow that they were lousy. But even if that were true, it also does not follow that they were lousy in any other areas of their life. Many people are wrong about some things while being right about many others. Why do you feel a need to paint with such a broad brush?

"Their are far greater and much worse mutilations happening in this world to other people, but you guys want to focus in on the very small one that happened to your penises without, in most cases, any recollection of it ever happening?"

REPLY: Greater and worse is value judgement. Your perceptions of what is great and what is small is yours alone. And there is some work and evidence that suggests that some may indeed have recollections of it. And that it may have some measurable effect on them later in life. Probably impossible to tease out to everyones (or even a majorities) satisfaction, but I am not going to tell someone else what they should or not believe. Finally, implying that there are better things to do with ones time is again your value judgement, but implies a negative connotation to them when the worlds other bad things is raised. Why do you feel such a need to paint restorers in a negative light?

"You guys are putting a huge question mark over a "mutilation" that was, in fact, a lesser loss of skin than most skinned knees or elbows that kids get, and that they will remember later in life. And chances are that none of them will be trying to get that skin back."

REPLY: You use the word "fact" when you really are giving opinion. You say others are raising a question as if they have no facts. You equate circumcision as a lesser issue than a skinned knee. That is your opinion. You refer to it as skin. Implying that it is nothing much. It is not just skin. Nor is it just a little skin. It is a highly specialized combinantion of muscles, nerves and skin. In addition, it is at least 50% of the skin on the penis. Sure no one tries to get back the skin off a scrapped knee. It grows back naturally. They don't have to try and restore it. But maybe a better analogy would be if a finger was amputated accidentally. From what I have seen, people don't just say, "Oh well, just a little piece. No need to worry about it." Instead every possible attempt is made to reattach and save it. At great expense. And if regrowing it was a viable option, I firmly believe that most people would do so. Doctors even reconstruct alternative structures so patients regain some lost function if it is the thumb. Would you belittle them as well?


"you will never ever honestly know if the forsekin that has been created is actually creating all the same effects as the original would have."

REPLY: True. And on the flip side you have no idea if you are missing something important. No way for you to know, you don't have one. You may be completely satisfied, but you still don't know how it compares or would be different for you with one. No one is expecting to regain everything by restoring. It will be less than the original. Does that make it not worth doing? That is a judgement call we each have to make.

"Your "restoration" of a foreskin does nothing to "benefit one and all." "

REPLY: So are you suggesting that everything anyone does has to be measured by this standard? Does just this particular activity have to meet this standard? And even if it does, How do you quantify whether it sufficiently meets this standard? Why do you feel a need to put it in thes terms?

"I'm sure that if all of you guys and "The National Organization for Restoring Men" were to really be men about this"

REPLY: Are you saying people who choose to recover something taken forcibly away from them are not meeting the definition of a man?

"The only reason that this conversation is happening is because someone has found yet another way to make money off of mens' insecurities about their penises."

REPLY: I would be interested is seeing your evidence for money being made from this. I have seen nothing. It appears to me that you are giving an opinion based upon guess work.

"It does just stem from an insecurity about the penis."

REPLY: Opinion based on guess work as far as I can tell.

"There are, in fact, many much greater and worthwile endeavors..."

REPLY: This is a curious standard upon which to measure this or any other activity. Can you hold all your activities to this same standard? How about your activities here on this board?

Maybe you should examine your motivations for jumping into this discussion. You started as if you wanted information. But you only seem to want to argue and make a case for your opinions. Why?

 

[Eilan]

Maybe you should examine your motivations for jumping into this discussion. You started as if you wanted information. But you only seem to want to argue and make a case for your opinions. Why?

And you're not doing this?

 

[Just_4_Giggles]

Huby's Restoration - So Far

My husband started restoring about 6 weeks ago. We had stumbled upon the subject and both of us were intrigued. I am "anticirc" anyway, and knowing that tons of nerve endings are cut off during a circ, the regaining of skin to cover the glans seemed, at least, a decent way to enhance feeling. While I am totally turned on by the fact he is doing this, I keep reinforcing that this is *his* decision, not mine.

He is taping right now and there has been a significant difference in many ways. The skin has thickened and stretched to the point that his erections are no longer painful - there's room to grow. His glans has become more and more sensitive with each passing day it's not rubbing against his jockeys. The skin pulls up and over (not completely - yet!) during intercourse, and I notice a definite difference in the sensation - more of a sleevelike action than friction.

So far, so good...it will take a while, but it's like a cool experience we both enjoy!

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Sorry for the long wait for a response. Some drunk nut tried to straighten out a curved road near my house and took out the power for most of our area. I'll have to remember to put that guy in my asshole thread.

Anyway ...

Halo_n_horns: It sounds like you have arrived at a comfort level that is right for you. Nothing wrong with that. But you also jumped in to this discussion stating that you didn't get it and appearing to ask for some other's opinions and knowledge. When that was offered you began and continue to try to judge and put a negative spin on what they say. Maybe you should consider why you feel a need to do this.

I'm sorry that you feel so defensive about my commentary as to think that I'm simply putting a negative spin on this subject. I'm still trying to get why anyone would go through this aside from some sort of actual medical condition that would warrant it.

A few points related to your last message:

"If your parents were so wrong or misinformed then why aren't there support groups trying to completely undue all the teachings and examples set by your parents for all the other aspects of your life? I mean, if they were so totally wrong about this, then they must have been pretty lousy parents in a number of other ways, right?"

REPLY: You are ignoring the second of the two alternatives you yourself presented. If they were misinformed, it does not follow that they were lousy. But even if that were true, it also does not follow that they were lousy in any other areas of their life. Many people are wrong about some things while being right about many others. Why do you feel a need to paint with such a broad brush?

That's not a broad brush stroke. If they were that misinformed about this subject then how misinformed were they about any other subject regarding their children?

"Their are far greater and much worse mutilations happening in this world to other people, but you guys want to focus in on the very small one that happened to your penises without, in most cases, any recollection of it ever happening?"

REPLY: Greater and worse is value judgement. Your perceptions of what is great and what is small is yours alone. And there is some work and evidence that suggests that some may indeed have recollections of it. And that it may have some measurable effect on them later in life. Probably impossible to tease out to everyones (or even a majorities) satisfaction, but I am not going to tell someone else what they should or not believe. Finally, implying that there are better things to do with ones time is again your value judgement, but implies a negative connotation to them when the worlds other bad things is raised. Why do you feel such a need to paint restorers in a negative light?

I once read a story about a woman who died in an insane asylum after having been there for many, many years. She died an exceptionally happy woman because she always had her newborn child with her who was also known to the staff as a size 11 1/2 tennis shoe. Point is that thinking that anyone can recall any portion of anything from their time as an infant, especially that close to birth, is an earmark of gullibility and little more. People can talk themselves into pretty much anything they wish to, and then believe it as if it were always there. That has been proven over and over again. The memory centers of the brain aren't developed yet at that point of life. If they were we'd all remember the events of that part of our lives.

"You guys are putting a huge question mark over a "mutilation" that was, in fact, a lesser loss of skin than most skinned knees or elbows that kids get, and that they will remember later in life. And chances are that none of them will be trying to get that skin back."

REPLY: You use the word "fact" when you really are giving opinion. You say others are raising a question as if they have no facts. You equate circumcision as a lesser issue than a skinned knee. That is your opinion. You refer to it as skin. Implying that it is nothing much. It is not just skin. Nor is it just a little skin. It is a highly specialized combinantion of muscles, nerves and skin. In addition, it is at least 50% of the skin on the penis. Sure no one tries to get back the skin off a scrapped knee. It grows back naturally. They don't have to try and restore it. But maybe a better analogy would be if a finger was amputated accidentally. From what I have seen, people don't just say, "Oh well, just a little piece. No need to worry about it." Instead every possible attempt is made to reattach and save it. At great expense. And if regrowing it was a viable option, I firmly believe that most people would do so. Doctors even reconstruct alternative structures so patients regain some lost function if it is the thumb. Would you belittle them as well?

Check your anatomy. There's no muscles in the penis at any stage of life, lest there be some sort of morphism or mutation. It is a fact because I've seen a newborn's penis prior to circumcision and there's no way that there's more skin there than I've seen torn from knees or shins or elbows. Also, once those nerve endings are severed, they become new endings at the point where they were severed to re-establish the functionality of the damaged part.

As far as amputees are concerned; I brought up that earlier in the thread. I've seen people who were missing limbs still go through life as if the limbs had never left. They run, hike, bike, climb, swim, etc., etc., etc. After seeing such accomplishments of human foritude I can hardly start to fathom that a piece of foreskin being lost can ever be as debilitating as is being described.

"you will never ever honestly know if the forsekin that has been created is actually creating all the same effects as the original would have."

REPLY: True. And on the flip side you have no idea if you are missing something important. No way for you to know, you don't have one. You may be completely satisfied, but you still don't know how it compares or would be different for you with one. No one is expecting to regain everything by restoring. It will be less than the original. Does that make it not worth doing? That is a judgement call we each have to make.

I guess some people just feel the need to micro-manage.

"Your "restoration" of a foreskin does nothing to "benefit one and all." "

REPLY: So are you suggesting that everything anyone does has to be measured by this standard? Does just this particular activity have to meet this standard? And even if it does, How do you quantify whether it sufficiently meets this standard? Why do you feel a need to put it in thes terms?

A quote was taken from my sig line in an effort to use it against what I'm saying. It wasn't. Now you're trying to take it out of context to bolster your point of view. It won't.

"I'm sure that if all of you guys and "The National Organization for Restoring Men" were to really be men about this"

REPLY: Are you saying people who choose to recover something taken forcibly away from them are not meeting the definition of a man?

Again, you're moving out of context. As a man looking back into my childhood and seeing that not only can I not recall the event, but also common sense dictates that I wouldn't have known any better if I could recall the event, how was it that it was taken from me by force?

Also, looking upon this whole scenario, as a man I cannot see why this one little thing should be so all-consuming that an entire organization had to be started over it. There are so many pleasures to be had that permanantly tripping myself up over something that may or may not help my sex life in what seems to be such a small way, just doesn't make any sense.

"The only reason that this conversation is happening is because someone has found yet another way to make money off of mens' insecurities about their penises."

REPLY: I would be interested is seeing your evidence for money being made from this. I have seen nothing. It appears to me that you are giving an opinion based upon guess work.

There's an entire organization devoted to this "problem" and you don't think that someone is profiting from it??? You don't start organizations of any kind without someone making money from it. Not in America anyway.

"It does just stem from an insecurity about the penis."

REPLY: Opinion based on guess work as far as I can tell.

Really? By putting a foreskin back on the penis are you somehow not increasing its girth? What guy wouldn't want that? Just the guys who are secure with what they have.

"There are, in fact, many much greater and worthwile endeavors..."

REPLY: This is a curious standard upon which to measure this or any other activity. Can you hold all your activities to this same standard? How about your activities here on this board?

Actually, outside these boards, one of my activities is in helping abused women and children. I'll dare you find anyone's foreskin to be of greater importance than that or any other activities that help those who are actually less fortunate.

Maybe you should examine your motivations for jumping into this discussion. You started as if you wanted information. But you only seem to want to argue and make a case for your opinions. Why?

I'm not making a case for my opinions. I'm wanting to know why there is so much discussion and energy being put into something so small. If challenging people will bring out the reasons for this, then I have no problem with doing so.

 

[temp256]

I once read a story about a woman who died in an insane asylum after having been there for many, many years. She died an exceptionally happy woman because she always had her newborn child with her who was also known to the staff as a size 11 1/2 tennis shoe. Point is that thinking that anyone can recall any portion of anything from their time as an infant, especially that close to birth, is an earmark of gullibility and little more. People can talk themselves into pretty much anything they wish to, and then believe it as if it were always there. That has been proven over and over again. The memory centers of the brain aren't developed yet at that point of life. If they were we'd all remember the events of that part of our lives.

Since infant circumscisions are usually perforemed with inadequate (or sometimes no) anesthetic, they are in a tremendous amount of pain. Although unable to directly recall the incident, it did have an influance. Sort of a supressed post traumatic phantom pain. It has been documanted.

Check your anatomy. There's no muscles in the penis at any stage of life, lest there be some sort of morphism or mutation. It is a fact because I've seen a newborn's penis prior to circumcision and there's no way that there's more skin there than I've seen torn from knees or shins or elbows. Also, once those nerve endings are severed, they become new endings at the point where they were severed to re-establish the functionality of the damaged part.

Check again. The foreskin has a ring of muscles at the tip to keep it closed. Less than skinned knees? Are you blind? Skinned knees are merely an abrasion on the surface, the entire thickness is not removed. And I'm sure amputees have just as much sensitivity in their stumps as they did in their entire limb.

As far as amputees are concerned; I brought up that earlier in the thread. I've seen people who were missing limbs still go through life as if the limbs had never left. They run, hike, bike, climb, swim, etc., etc., etc. After seeing such accomplishments of human foritude I can hardly start to fathom that a piece of foreskin being lost can ever be as debilitating as is being described.

If they had the choice, would they want their limbs cut off at birth? If they had the chance, how many amputees would want their limbs back? Sure you can still live, but it's not quite as nice.

Again, you're moving out of context. As a man looking back into my childhood and seeing that not only can I not recall the event, but also common sense dictates that I wouldn't have known any better if I could recall the event, how was it that it was taken from me by force?

Even infants have the instinct to avoid pain. I've seen video of babies strapped to a board, flailing and screaming as they are mutilated. Had they the choice, I guarantee you none of them would have accepted.

There's an entire organization devoted to this "problem" and you don't think that someone is profiting from it??? You don't start organizations of any kind without someone making money from it. Not in America anyway.

Do you condemn Literotica for having a store? Do you hate Google for advertising?

Really? By putting a foreskin back on the penis are you somehow not increasing its girth? What guy wouldn't want that? Just the guys who are secure with what they have.

Yes, who wouldn't want increased sensitivity?

Actually, outside these boards, one of my activities is in helping abused women and children. I'll dare you find anyone's foreskin to be of greater importance than that or any other activities that help those who are actually less fortunate.

And helping abuse victims is of little importance if you're fighting for your life. Everything is relative.

I'm not making a case for my opinions. I'm wanting to know why there is so much discussion and energy being put into something so small. If challenging people will bring out the reasons for this, then I have no problem with doing so.

I wonder that too. Why do you keep posting?

--------------------
Back to the original question... For those who have restored, has the glans returned to a shiny red colour like all mucous membranes should be?

Also, what confuses me is that my glans can be pushed inward quite far, folding the skin around it. I don't see how taping can work if the glans will naturally move back. Or is it just me who is able to do this?

 

[gregor2001us]

Halo_n_horns: Sorry. My misunderstanding. It is always interesting to see how difficult effective communication can be in a medium like this. You said:

"I'm wanting to know why there is so much discussion and energy being put into something so small. If challenging people will bring out the reasons for this, then I have no problem with doing so."

So if I understand you, you would like to have better insight into why someone would take the time and trouble to restore their foreskin. Your method of challenging does not seem to work for me. Instead it feels like you are making statements that negate others reasons and them as well.

A number of reasons have been given so far in this thread. Which of them would you like to explore further? What additional information would you like? Perhaps you could try a different technique that would better give me an idea of what you would like to find out?

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Halo_n_horns: Sorry. My misunderstanding. It is always interesting to see how difficult effective communication can be in a medium like this. You said:

"I'm wanting to know why there is so much discussion and energy being put into something so small. If challenging people will bring out the reasons for this, then I have no problem with doing so."

So if I understand you, you would like to have better insight into why someone would take the time and trouble to restore their foreskin. Your method of challenging does not seem to work for me. Instead it feels like you are making statements that negate others reasons and them as well.

A number of reasons have been given so far in this thread. Which of them would you like to explore further? What additional information would you like? Perhaps you could try a different technique that would better give me an idea of what you would like to find out?

Ok. I went over to the N.O.R.M. site and checked it out again. It's changed since the first time I saw it, so I read and re-read the info on the site.

I still don't see it.

The site reads like an advertisement for E.D. or one of those sites like Enzyte. They've thrown together a whole slew of their medical opinions and basically said, Being circumcized as a child was one of the most harmful things that could have happened to you.

In short: It reads like propaganda written by a used car salesman.

I was interested in one point that the site made in that they flat out said that complete restoration can never happen. Which brings me back my question of why do it then?

I'm sorry guys, but this all seems to be right up there with those activists who are fighting for the rights of chickens, or those senators who okayed the study of cow flatulence, or chewing gum. Yes, it's giving you something to chew on, but it isn't going to fill your belly.

I can understand the female genital mutilation subject that was brought up earlier in the thread simply because that has made it impossible for women to have sexual pleasure without the aid of some dramatic surgery, and maybe not even then. I know a kid who was born with a rare cancer of his bladder and prostate who will grow up never being able to have children or so much as an orgasm because of what they had to do to his body so he could survive. And, in addition to these things, I know that millions of males who have been circumcized are successfully having gratifying sex every hour of every day somewhere in the world.

So, why? What is the deep meaningful reason behind this subject becoming an issue?

 

[gregor2001us]

That's better, now I may be understanding you. I hadn't visited NORM for a couple years, so I went back and looked around a bit. Here are the two pages that summarize things best, I think:

http://www.norm.org/whyrestore.html

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Another site that is quite good is:

http://www.circumstitions.com/

But if you have explored and come to your own conclusion, then what more are you after? I guess I am not quite understanding what you want to know. I read it and it speaks to me. You read it and it doesn't. Nothing wrong with that. Like religion, politics, sex, and many other topics everyone has a different view and convincing someone to vote (or whatever) your way can be impossible at times. Is there something more you are trying to understand?

One point I will make is that while restoration may not return everything to normal, that does not mean it won't improve things. Perhaps on several different levels, depending upon the individual. One time I had photographs developed (slides) and they were given to me having been cut wrong by the lab. The film had been cut so that two different slides were in one slide holder. I recut them and carefully placed the pieces in a glass slide holder. Not as good as the original, but it was pretty good for sharing memories of my childs Christmas with family and freinds. Worked for my and my wife. Maybe someone else would choose to just throw it away. That's ok too. Different solutions for different people.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

*sigh*

I don't believe this discussion can be concluded with any real closure for either side. I cannot see why this is such an issue. You cannot see why I can't see this to be a viable issue.

I think that will be that.

 

[temp256]

--------

Back to the original question... For those who have restored, has the glans returned to a shiny red colour like all mucous membranes should be?

Also, what confuses me is that my glans can be pushed inward quite far, folding the skin around it. I don't see how taping can work if the glans will naturally move back. Or is it just me who is able to do this?

 

[gregor2001us]

Halo_n_Horns: Agreed. I have found that there are many times where people end up agreeing to disagree. Which is why I originally made the comment that this can be a difficult subject to discuss.

 

[gregor2001us]

temp256: I myself have not progressed far enough to have the glans covered all the time. Those who have report that yes it becomes moist and the color changes. I think they have reported some variation in color. But all that I can recall have reported it becoming moist and like it should be. You might want to join a list server group devoted to this. There are several, the one I frequent is

restore-list@eskimo.com


As to your second question, I could do this too, before restoring. It is the nature of the skin on the penis - mobile. If you have enough skin, it stays over the glans all the time. If not, it doesn't, but you can do what you describe.

In order to grow more skin, you need to have some way to apply tension. You are right that it takes some ingenuity. Most I have heard about start with what is called cross taping, and this allows the pressure of the penis trying to push back from being trapped to do the tensioning.

Most report that while it gives a simple and easy start, it won't be enough for the long haul. There are many different ways people choose, and many change methods over time to suit their lifestyle. Search the web for foreskin restoration and you will find lots of ideas. No hard and fast rules though. People are still learning what works best. Generally, do what you are most comfortable with, be cautious, and be patient.