PDA

View Full Version : Penile Papules...


ReGrowthFanatic00
April 9th, 2010, 20:55
Have any of you encountered this problem after complete restoration? I stumbled upon it today, and I really don't understand who is capable of getting it. I know its nothing to be worried about, but once it happens I know it'll make me nervous.

Americut
April 9th, 2010, 21:28
Problem?? I got them a pretty good while back. I've only been restoring for about a year, and nowhere near complete. Some men get them, some don't. There is nothing to be nervous about. I actually like them, but that probably has something to do with it being one of the visual changes toward what would have been my natural state. Who's got a problem with 'em?

ReGrowthFanatic00
April 9th, 2010, 22:44
Okay, its only a problem for me because its freaking me out. I'm sure the way I think about will change completely when I know more about it. Its one of those things when ignorant people, like myself, see it and freak out until we learn about it. I just think that when I restore my foreskin, I'll have it and I don't want to. :(

Joseph
April 9th, 2010, 23:28
Pearly white papules are one of those things that you either get, or you don't.

I want to say it's hereditary, but don't quote me on that.

If I'm not mistaken, they're but a physical feature, and have nothing to do with disease whatsoever.

Tally
April 9th, 2010, 23:40
Pearly penile papules are a harmless feature that often appear on the body. I've had small ones on the edge of my corona for as long as I remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsuties_papillaris_genitalis

http://www.davidgault.co.uk/pearly-penile-papules.php

z726
April 10th, 2010, 00:04
From what I've read, it is not known what causes pearly penile papules, though they're more commonly visible on the corona of an uncircumcised penis.

I noticed a few on my corona after restoring for a while, after I started taking progress photos and experimenting with macro shots. They're barely visible from the distance I can see them with my eye, and only in the right lighting - not nearly as prominent as what you'd see when doing a Google image search.

Joseph
April 10th, 2010, 07:55
I've seen them on cut guys in pictures.

Me personally, never had them.

Just a thought... cats have backward-pointing barbs on their penis...

If I remember correctly, these barbs aren't present in neutered toms.

Maybe papules exist in some parts of our species as a way to...

... naw couldn't be...

:D

Aussiebloke
April 10th, 2010, 08:42
They are alot more common on uncircumcised men.

Tally
April 10th, 2010, 12:37
They are alot more common on uncircumcised men.
I'm curious, do you have a source to support that claim?

In various forums I frequent, I mostly hear the circumcised guys ask about ppp. I've never run across any statistical data on ppp.

alibi
April 10th, 2010, 12:51
Haven't seen the actual studies, but here is an overview:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1058826-overview

cobra
April 10th, 2010, 13:13
Interesting information.

I do not have them and have actually never seen anyone in real life with them, just pictures on the internet.

I wonder if the reason for the 10% difference between intact and cut is not that they don't form on cut men as much but that they are abraded away by friction as they try to form on cut guys, from the glans rubbing on underwear all day every day.

I recently saw an article online of a guy who was suing a doctor who recommended he have them removed via laser surgery... only to cause him extreme pain and give him a damaged looking penis. Guess they had the power set to "vaporize entire cock". :eek:

Tally
April 10th, 2010, 15:37
Haven't seen the actual studies, but here is an overview:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1058826-overview
Thanks for the link. It provides a good overview of the current medical knowledge on PPP. Statistically speaking, with the reported incidence level being between 8 and 48%, the statistical analysis of the studies should not have a high confidence level. The relationship between intact and circumcised incidence seems to be consistent even with the widely varying results.

I've had pearly penile papules as long as I remember. I never thought anything of them. They seemed to be a normal part of my penis. They do not feel any different than surrounding tissue. I started restoring at 52. Until then, I never paid any attention to the penis of anyone else. While researching restoration I realized that my PPP were not the norm.

As I restore, my PPP are becoming less pronounced. Before, they were all the way around the corona in two rows between the coronal ridge and the sulcus. My glans was dried out and rough and the PPP were prominent, although not as much as often seen in pictures (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Hirsuties_papillaris_coronae_glandis.jpg/220px-Hirsuties_papillaris_coronae_glandis.jpg).

Now, my glans is smoother and fuller. The PPP on the dorsal side seem to have all but vanished and the PPP on the sides are less prominent, although they are still visible.

Either way, I have never noticed that they helped or impaird the sexual performance of my penis.

Science Monk
April 10th, 2010, 17:37
Penile pearly papules (PPPs), are normal anatomical variants that appear as a series of raised white spots that run around the coronal ridge or sulcus of the penis, and sometimes partway down the frenulum. Double or triple rows of PPPs in these locations are common.

Only about 20-25% of males have penile pearly papules (PPPs). Being in the minority with respect to a genital trait can be disconcerting to them, especially when misidentify themselves as having a STD, or possessing an abnormality.

PPPs look like a cross between a pimple and and a small skin polyp, They are sometimes mistaken as genital warts. However, PPPs are not pathological, and treatment or removal of these normal structures for cosmetic reasons is counterproductive.

For photo see:
http://www.the-penis.com/problems.html#2
Scroll to B2 OTHER GENITAL CONDITIONS
Many other photos can be found with a Google Image search (with filters off).

PPPs are thought to be an evolutionary vestige of the spiny penile structures seen in some of our primate relatives. These spines, projecting outward from around the coronal ridge of their glans penises, are there, presumably, for extra stimulation during sex. So, if a man has PPPs, he should appreciate that they are innervated, sensitive, and that he should enjoy them.

Whether a male has PPPs is genetically determined. Cornification can mask the presence of PPPs. It is, thus, a common misconception that PPPs are more common among genitally intact males.

During the dekeratinization portion of their foreskin restoration journeys, restoring men are sometimes stunned to learn, for the first time, that they possess PPPs.

David
World As Monkey Island

ReGrowthFanatic00
April 13th, 2010, 15:22
From what I'm understanding is that the men who have been restoring and who are active in this forum have them until the dekaratinization process is complete. Well, There is still some, but its not as noticeable. I found a picture of what looks similar to my penis, except mine are less pronounced as his (http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/p3.jpg).

Joseph
April 13th, 2010, 21:50
I found the WikiPedia article to be quite accurate, and there's even a good picture of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearly_penile_papule

Hirsuties papillaris genitalis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirsuties papillaris genitalis (more commonly referred to as 'pearly penile papules', or PPP) is a clinical skin condition of the male genital organs. It is a harmless anatomical variation with no malignant potential, although it can be mistaken for HPV warts by inexperienced doctors. The papules appear as one or several rows of small, flesh-colored, smooth, dome-topped bumps situated circumferentially around the corona (see image) or sulcus of the glans penis. Pearly penile papules are not a sexually transmitted disease and are in fact quite common. Various studies have shown that the incidence may be in the between 8% and 48%, varying with region and whether or not the subjects are circumcised. Lesions typically are asymptomatic and persist throughout life; however, they gradually may become less noticeable with increased age. Sensitivity may or may not be a problem.

There is no need for treatment, however some people choose to get them removed for cosmetic reasons. There are now many cosmetic surgeons around the world who can remove the papules either with a CO2 laser or with a hyfrecator.

A similar condition, vestibular papillomatosis of the vulva, occurs in females and similarly can be misinterpreted for HPV infection. Like hirsuties papillaris genitalis, it is a normal variation on human anatomy.[1]

Contents
1 See also
2 References
3 Further reading
4 External links


See also
List of cutaneous conditions
References
^ Colposcopy of the Vulva, Perineum and Anal Canal

Further reading
Sonnex C, Dockerty WG (November 1999). "Pearly penile papules: a common cause of concern". Int J STD AIDS 10 (11): 726–7. doi:10.1258/0956462991913402. PMID 10563558. http://ijsa.rsmjournals.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10563558.

KniteShayd
April 15th, 2010, 08:04
I have heard they are more common on uncut guys too.

I have em as well. Got em when I started puberty, had em ever since. Most guys that I have seen both cut, and uncut, have em to varying degrees. Mine seem to be more obvious and visible after long bouts of stimulation (both sex and masturbation; more so if i use lube and not my skin) or if I over wash and don't moisturize the glans. It's a rather annoying anotomical feature I would personally like to do without...

I read once that the reason they are more likely to appear on some men, is due to the fact that their skin tissue is thinner, allowing the papules to be more visible. Which could explain why cut guys have em less. The keritanization of the skin, when cut, may prevent them from being as obvious than the thinner lined skin of some one who is intact.

I read that you can get em blasted with a CO2 laser, if the appearance is bothersome. I've considered it, but still haven't decided.

Joseph
April 15th, 2010, 08:08
Yep... just like written in the post above...

A-heh!

:D:o:rolleyes::cool::eek::p

mattboy115
April 15th, 2010, 12:34
I've been cut my whole life and I've had those as far back as I can remember but they were really unnoticeable. But now that I've read this I understand that by restoring I have the rick of making it worse? This is actually a little discouraging. It almost makes me want to stop. Sorry to say it. Papules removal just doesn't sound good.

Joseph
April 15th, 2010, 17:26
And I've been uncut my whole life, and I've also never had them my whole life...

Your point?

Just because you restore, and you might have PPPs doesn't necessarily mean they'll get bigger.

And if they do, who says you've got to remove them?

PPPs are part of a person, just like big/small ears, large/small nuts.

I think it's up to you whether you want to see these as a "problem" or not.

mattboy115
April 16th, 2010, 01:28
Forget what I said. Serious overreaction on my part. I don't think I would see something like that as a problem unless it was as extreme as the pic in that Wikipedia article.

And you are indeed correct, though. If it's not a medical disorder it's a distinguishing feature. (That is a gross over-generalization of what I really mean but you get the idea.)

VeryDepressedAboutBeingCirced
April 16th, 2010, 05:01
Mammalian "pearly white" penile papules ARE NOT a "clinical skin condition of the male genital" as the WikiPedia page states! Remember "anyone" can contribute to WikiPedia pages and this includes "pro circ/mutilation" contributors... as is very evident on some of the word definition pages on WikiPedia. Remember... you are reading "WikiPedia" and the admins there do not always know what are correct or incorrect contibutions to a page.

Penile papules are a normal feature of many different mammal species' penises. They are present in other primates besides Humans. Other vertebrates, such as reptiles also have penile (hemipene) papules, but they are relatively longer and pointed toward the males body. When the penis is inserted into the female it expands more with blood. After it expands more, the pointed papules keep the penis from being pulled out of the female if she tries to pull away, etc. After ejaculation and deflation of the penis, the penis can then be retracted or pulled out of the female. Papules in other species were naturally selected for over time because males that possesed larger papules were more successful in ejaculating into the females and, thus, passing on the genes for larger papules onto the offspring. Human penile papules are no longer a help in producing offspring. They are an artifact from our pre-Human ancestors...all the way back to reptiles.

In male Humans, papules vary in size just like penises, noses, ears, etc. The size and shape of one's papules depends on one's genes. I dont know if they are more prominent on natural penises or circumcised penises. Both natural and circumcised men possess penile papules. I believe all men posses penile papules, except that on some men they are very small and flat. Maybe circumcised men have their papules flattened out or shrunk more due to years of rubbing on clothing.

Larger papules are actually a benifit to both the male and female. If you rub them you should notice that the papules are the most sensitive/pleasurable part of the glans when aroused, but produce a " stop... don't touch" annoying sensation after ejaculation just like the rest of the glans, but unlike the junture of the inner and outer foreskin, inner mocosa, frenulum, and frenular area which can continue to be stimulated for pleasure directly after ejacualtion. When the male foreskin makes contact with the papules when the inner mucosa of the foreskin is moving on and off of them, pleasure is produced by the foreskin hitting the papules and the papules hitting the inner mucosa. The body and, thus, brain know when both hit each other at the same time and it produces pleasure.

Also, when the papules rub against the vaginal walls, pleasure is produced via the papules. The papules also stimulate the female when they rub against the vaginal walls. They act like natural mini "French ticklers". The larger the papules, the more pleasure they can produce for the owner and the receiver.

I was circed at around 17 and have small to average-size papules. I have seen pics of men with much larger papules than mine. I have been circed for over 25 years and my papules have not become smaller with time. They stayed the same size. I doubt whether being natural or circumcised has alot to do with the current size of one's current penile papules. The only factor determining the natural size of one's penile papules is one's genes.

The bigger the papules, the better...for the pleasure of both genders. I am a biologist, zoologist, etc. and have studied genetics, animal physiology, animal development, etc. for many years. I tried not to get too scientific on you. I hope this helps. If your papules get larger you should be happy about it.

KniteShayd
April 17th, 2010, 07:27
Mammalian "pearly white" penile papules ARE NOT a "clinical skin condition of the male genital" as the WikiPedia page states! Remember "anyone" can contribute to WikiPedia pages and this includes "pro circ/mutilation" contributors... as is very evident on some of the word definition pages on WikiPedia.

Remember... you are reading "WikiPedia" and the admins there do not always know what are correct or incorrect contibutions to a page. Penile papules are a normal feature of many different mammal species' penises. They are present in other primates besides Humans.
Other vertebrates, such as reptiles also have penile (hemipene) papules, but they are relatively longer and pointed toward the males body. When the penis is inserted into the female it expands more with blood. After it expands more, the pointed papules keep the penis from being pulled out of the female if she tries to pull away, etc.
After ejaculation and deflation of the penis, the penis can then be retracted or pulled out of the female. Papules in other species were naturally selected for over time because males that possesed larger papules were more successful in ejaculating into the females and, thus, passing on the genes for larger papules onto the offspring.
Human penile papules are no longer a help in producing offspring. They are an artifact from our ancestors...all the way back to reptiles. In male Humans, papules vary in size just like penises, noses, ears, etc. The size and shape of one's papules depends on one's genes. I dont know if they are more prominent on natural penises or circumcised penises. Both natural and circumcised men possess penile papules. I believe all men posses penile papules, except that on some men they are very small and flat. Maybe circumcised men have their papules flattened out or shrunk more due to years of rubbing on clothing.

Larger papules are actually a benifit to both the male and female. If you rub them you should notice that the papules are the most sensitive/pleasurable part of the glans. The glans...not the frenulum, frenulum remnents, or frenulum scar on a circumcised male.
When the male foreskin makes contact with the papules when the inner mucosa of the foreskin is moving on and off of them, pleasure is produced by the foreskin hitting the papules and the papules hitting the inner mucosa. The body and, thus, brain know when both hit each other at the same time and it produces pleasure.
Also, when the papules rub against the vaginal walls, pleasure is produced via the papules. The papules also stimulate the female when they rub against the vaginal walls. They act like natural mini "French ticklers". The larger the papules, the more pleasure they can produce for the owner and the receiver.

I was circed at around 17 and have average-size papules. I have seen pics of men with much larger papules than mine. I have been circed for over 25 years and my papules have not become smaller with time. They stayed the same size. I doubt whether being natural or circumcised has alot to do with the current size of one's current penile papules. The only factor determining the natural size of one's penile papules is one's genes.

The bigger the papules, the better...for the pleasure of both genders. I am a biologist, zoologist, etc. and have studied genetics, animal physiology, animal development, etc. for many years. I tried not to get too scientific on you. I hope this helps. If your papules get larger you should be happy about it.

Ouch for my eyes! Paragraphs next time, please!

As I have stated previously, It was found that the thickening, and de-keratinizing, of the mucosa tissue can lead to varying degrees of appearance for some men. So no, they don't remain the same size circ'd to restored for everyone.

I also stated that my own PPP's vary in size and appearance due to environmental factors; i.e. length vs. duration vs. intensity of stimulation to the area, and varying degrees of clealiness.

Also, clinical is a broad term used for many skin conditions. A definition of it is: pertaining to or founded on actual observation and treatment of patients, as distinguished from theoretical or basic sciences. So clinical can be an appropriate term, along with the use condition. As long it doesn't say disease, I have no objection to that term.
I also have Keratosis Pilaris. It is clinical, but not detrimental to my well being. Do I hate it? Yes. Would I like to get rid of it? Yes. Is it dangerous to me? No. Can it be corrected? Yes. Is it normal? Yes. Same goes for my PPP. No matter how normal a condition may be due to genes, the said condition may still be corrected if need be.

I have to disagree with you on the notion that PPP is pleasurable. Just because the tissue has nerves, does not mean everyone derives pleasure from them. Running my finger along them, whether I am aroused or not, is not pleasurable for myself at all. Not before restoration, and not during.

You also base your suggestions on it being pleasurable for Male/Female relations. Again, with varying degrees of length vs. duration vs. intensity, this may not always be the case.
I can say, through personal experience, that PPP has no basis in Male/Male relations in regards to pure pleasure. I have been asked a few times to stop due to my PPP. And that is both with and without condoms. Keep in mind my PPP is not as large, or full blown, as some pics I have seen. But I do have em in varying degrees.
And, obviously, it would have no biological function with male partners.

Joseph
April 17th, 2010, 10:37
...No matter how normal a condition may be due to genes, the said condition may still be corrected if need be...

Keep in mind my PPP is not as large, or full blown, as some pics I have seen. But I do have em in varying degrees...

This spin on the normal skin variation that are the PPPs implies that they are indeed some sort of disease in need of "correction."

Even the wiki article goes on to say "It is a harmless anatomical variation with no malignant potential, although it can be mistaken for HPV warts by inexperienced doctors... Pearly penile papules are not a sexually transmitted disease and are in fact quite common. Various studies have shown that the incidence may be in the between 8% and 48%, varying with region and whether or not the subjects are circumcised."

You can't have "full blown" PPPs anymore than you can have a "full blown" penis.

I've heard of guys having such a large cock that they're asked to stop, by both male AND female partners. What's a guy to do to "correct his problem" then? Sounds like his partner just has to learn to get used to his natural feature, or simply find someone else.

We need to get away from this notion that PPPs are like warts that need to be elliminated; they're simply part of who a person is. (kind of like the foreskin)

Some people don't like the nose, lips, ears etc., they were born with, but that's a completely different thing.

We need to treat PPP removal as it is; cosmetic surgery, and not some "correction."

It's done merely to adhere to some arbitrary asthetic; dare I say it serves the same purpose as (cosmetic, non-medical) circumcision for the men who elect it?

KniteShayd
April 18th, 2010, 22:19
This spin on the normal skin variation that are the PPPs implies that they are indeed some sort of disease in need of "correction."

Even the wiki article goes on to say "It is a harmless anatomical variation with no malignant potential, although it can be mistaken for HPV warts by inexperienced doctors... Pearly penile papules are not a sexually transmitted disease and are in fact quite common. Various studies have shown that the incidence may be in the between 8% and 48%, varying with region and whether or not the subjects are circumcised."

You can't have "full blown" PPPs anymore than you can have a "full blown" penis.

I've heard of guys having such a large cock that they're asked to stop, by both male AND female partners. What's a guy to do to "correct his problem" then? Sounds like his partner just has to learn to get used to his natural feature, or simply find someone else.

We need to get away from this notion that PPPs are like warts that need to be elliminated; they're simply part of who a person is. (kind of like the foreskin)

Some people don't like the nose, lips, ears etc., they were born with, but that's a completely different thing.

We need to treat PPP removal as it is; cosmetic surgery, and not some "correction."

It's done merely to adhere to some arbitrary asthetic; dare I say it serves the same purpose as (cosmetic, non-medical) circumcision for the men who elect it?

Perhaps, I didn't read into it like some people have, where they feel like it is stating something other than literal. Implying, and actually saying, it's a disease-like condition are two different things, and I never felt either when reading any article on PPP so far.

I agree that people need to get over the stigmas of society and accept their bodies as they are. But, with that in mind, altering something that is natural due to personal preference, shouldn't be stigmatized either.
I think people who are obese should accept themselves, but that doesn't mean if they don't like being fat they shouldn't work out to change it. I love my fellow man, but I am not going to date someone I am not attracted to; conversely, I don't expect someone to fool around with me who may be turned off by PPP. If they don't like it, they don't like it.

I, personally, don't like having them. Even though I know they are a normal part of me. This not only stems from personal experience, but also from personal aesthetic. No one else has ever influenced my subjective opinion of them.

As far as comparing them as normal functioning parts like a foreskin, that's quite a stretch. Mainly because PPP appears mid to post-pubescence, where as circumcision is typically done neo-natal. So those that have PPP removal done, actually have say in the matter. So, in actuality, is isn't different than having cosmetic surgery on a nose.

I see that using full blown was a poor choice because someone misinterpreted my meaning. I should have used something else I guess..., but what I don't know... Extreme version? Severe case? I'm sure those would imply to people the same thing as well. But judging from not visible, to barely visible, to extremely visible on the pictures available online, I say full blown as extremely visible. Does that help ease your feelings of misleading information on my part?

VeryDepressedAboutBeingCirced
April 19th, 2010, 04:38
Ouch for my eyes! Paragraphs next time, please!

As I have stated previously, It was found that the thickening, and de-keratinizing, of the mucosa tissue can lead to varying degrees of appearance for some men. So no, they don't remain the same size circ'd to restored for everyone.

I also stated that my own PPP's vary in size and appearance due to environmental factors; i.e. length vs. duration vs. intensity of stimulation to the area, and varying degrees of clealiness.

Also, clinical is a broad term used for many skin conditions. A definition of it is: pertaining to or founded on actual observation and treatment of patients, as distinguished from theoretical or basic sciences. So clinical can be an appropriate term, along with the use condition. As long it doesn't say disease, I have no objection to that term.
I also have Keratosis Pilaris. It is clinical, but not detrimental to my well being. Do I hate it? Yes. Would I like to get rid of it? Yes. Is it dangerous to me? No. Can it be corrected? Yes. Is it normal? Yes. Same goes for my PPP. No matter how normal a condition may be due to genes, the said condition may still be corrected if need be.

I have to disagree with you on the notion that PPP is pleasurable. Just because the tissue has nerves, does not mean everyone derives pleasure from them. Running my finger along them, whether I am aroused or not, is not pleasurable for myself at all. Not before restoration, and not during.

You also base your suggestions on it being pleasurable for Male/Female relations. Again, with varying degrees of length vs. duration vs. intensity, this may not always be the case.
I can say, through personal experience, that PPP has no basis in Male/Male relations in regards to pure pleasure. I have been asked a few times to stop due to my PPP. And that is both with and without condoms. Keep in mind my PPP is not as large, or full blown, as some pics I have seen. But I do have em in varying degrees.
And, obviously, it would have no biological function with male partners.

I created paragraphs just for you.

You wrote:

Also, clinical is a broad term used for many skin conditions. A definition of it is: pertaining to or founded on actual observation and treatment of patients, as distinguished from theoretical or basic sciences.

I disagree with your statemant above. One can pull many conflicting definitions online, etc.

Penile papules are not a skin condition, just as hair on the legs is not. Some Asians have no visable hair on their legs...not even visable peach fuzz, while most Caucasians do have visable hair. This is due to genes. Some people have no visable hair and others have varying degrees of hair density, etc.. IMO, hair is not a "clinical condition". Penile papules and hair are normal...not a clinical condition.

The key words in your definition are "treatment of patients". With this definition, any form of plastic surgery, removal, modification, etc. on given normal genetic body structures would allow for the given body part to be called a clinical. Thus, hair on the body can be called a "clinical condition" if one has it removed via a dermatologist. The cuticles over the finger nails can be called a clinical condition if one has them removed at a salon. And so on. I guess genital mutilators consider the foreskin,frenulum, and frenular area a clinical condition. Sadly some do. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. No worries. Just responding.

Joseph
April 19th, 2010, 07:49
No, KnightShayd, your response still has that ring of calling PPPs some sort of "condition."

PPPs are like obesity now?

Really?

And now you're comparing "getting" PPPs to getting circumcised? Like it's some sort of infliction?

I'll agree with you as far as comparing PPP removal to nose cosmetic surgery. But "Extreme version? Severe case?" I'm afraid what is "severe" and "extreme" will be a matter of the eye of the beholder. What to one may be "extreme," to another may be "just right."

VeryDepressed hits it on the nail; PPPs would be more like hair. Some may choose to get their hair removed for "aesthetic" purposes; me personally, I'm a fan of hirsuteness. Hate to look at waxed girls as well as shaven boys. Where electrolisis would be a day of relief for one man/woman, it is a day of grief for me. But then, everyone is free to do whatever they want with their bodies, and this is the very crux of the intactivist movement.

As far as "personal aesthetic" and "stigma" goes, I'll agree with you that people should be free to alter their bodies however they want.

Good luck on trying to "destigmatize" that though.

I think that any alteration you do to yourself is going to carry some kind of "stigma." The trick is to do what you want and not care about it.

For example, I can't agree with a man that wants to circumcise himself, even though he has absolutely no problem with his foreskin.

Is it really his "personal aesthetic?" or is it the "personal aesthetic" of his partner who wants him to get circumcised?

But in the end, as I've mentioned, it really is "his body, his choice." This is what I, as an intactivist, am helping to fight for, and it is something that I have to learn practice what I preach.

A man should do what he wants to his body because he WANTS it, not because some people agree or disagree.

I think that nomatter what he thinks, however, some guy out there is going to have some sort of opinion, and he (the person who gets the alteration) will have to learn to deal with it. I simply don't think there is any way to get around the stigma; comes with the territory.

But this is with anything, not just PPP removal; circumcision, tattoos, piercings, etc.

Americut
April 19th, 2010, 16:35
I have been asked a few times to stop due to my PPP. And that is both with and without condoms.

How did either of you come to the conclusion that it was due to the PPP? ...And through a condom? Now that's just plain silly. At least when compared to mine, which are very tender and so flexible that I can hardly feel them with my fingertip. It's a more likely that keratin on your coronal ridge caused the discomfort.

mattboy115
April 19th, 2010, 16:58
But "Extreme version? Severe case?" I'm afraid what is "severe" and "extreme" will be a matter of the eye of the beholder. What to one may be "extreme," to another may be "just right."

I understand that using words like "extreme" does make it sound like a disease but how else would you describe the degree of which you have them? Whether there's something wrong with them or not I would still call it an "extreme case" if you were to have them like in this [picture] (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Hirsuties_papillaris_coronae_glandis.jpg/220px-Hirsuties_papillaris_coronae_glandis.jpg).

I don't think "big" "medium" and "small" covers it well.

Joseph
April 19th, 2010, 18:43
@mattboy

Hrm... let's see...

What do you think of the word "prominent?"

Pronounced?

Definite?

I think these do a much better job than "severe," "extreme," or "full-blown."

I think Americut's onto something.

The discomfort may be due to keratin, or, it could be due to other factors.

It would be interesting to see Mattboy's PPPs and the head of his penis up close.

In some guys, they have visible cracks in their keratin, and it kind of hurts to touch there. It may be due to actual bits of the glans ripped off at circumcision. I'm wondering if there are cracks between Mattboy's PPPs, the keratin there is thicker, and THAT'S what's causing it...

This is the first time I've ever heard of PPPs actually "hurting" their owner.

mattboy115
April 19th, 2010, 20:02
Huh. I was going to put a picture in my last post but I didn't know if pictures would be okay in this thread.

Mine are not "pronounced" or "definite" but they are noticeable in the right light. Here is a picture of me spreading the skin of my Corona and another picture of my glans. There aren't really any cracks or anything.

KniteShayd
April 20th, 2010, 18:40
No, KnightShayd, your response still has that ring of calling PPPs some sort of "condition."

PPPs are like obesity now? I was only comparing to obesity on an aesthetic level. Some people like big boys/girls, others don't. But if you are big, my point being, you can change it just like removing PPP. It's a personal aesthetic choice.

Really?

And now you're comparing "getting" PPPs to getting circumcised? Like it's some sort of infliction? I didn't make that comparison, the person I quoted made that stretch of a connection...

I'll agree with you as far as comparing PPP removal to nose cosmetic surgery. But "Extreme version? Severe case?" I'm afraid what is "severe" and "extreme" will be a matter of the eye of the beholder. What to one may be "extreme," to another may be "just right."

VeryDepressed hits it on the nail; PPPs would be more like hair. Some may choose to get their hair removed for "aesthetic" purposes; me personally, I'm a fan of hirsuteness. Hate to look at waxed girls as well as shaven boys. Where electrolisis would be a day of relief for one man/woman, it is a day of grief for me. But then, everyone is free to do whatever they want with their bodies, and this is the very crux of the intactivist movement.

As far as "personal aesthetic" and "stigma" goes, I'll agree with you that people should be free to alter their bodies however they want.

Good luck on trying to "destigmatize" that though.

I think that any alteration you do to yourself is going to carry some kind of "stigma." The trick is to do what you want and not care about it.

For example, I can't agree with a man that wants to circumcise himself, even though he has absolutely no problem with his foreskin.

Is it really his "personal aesthetic?" or is it the "personal aesthetic" of his partner who wants him to get circumcised?

But in the end, as I've mentioned, it really is "his body, his choice." This is what I, as an intactivist, am helping to fight for, and it is something that I have to learn practice what I preach.

A man should do what he wants to his body because he WANTS it, not because some people agree or disagree.

I think that nomatter what he thinks, however, some guy out there is going to have some sort of opinion, and he (the person who gets the alteration) will have to learn to deal with it. I simply don't think there is any way to get around the stigma; comes with the territory.

But this is with anything, not just PPP removal; circumcision, tattoos, piercings, etc. Exactly

Ok, your choice in words are better suited. And less threatening.

You get the whole point I was trying to make though. Despite PPP being normal, if you want them gone, it's a personal choice when you know they are normal.

I never would do anything that would permanently alter my body for the sake of someone else. I don't advocate that any one should.

I see the PPP/hair comparison on many levels. But remember, PPP is part of the skin, and hair is not.

I guess Variation is a term we can all agree upon, instead of Condition.

deleted5201
April 22nd, 2010, 00:53
I developed something around a year ago and it looks like a pimple but I'm starting to think it may be a PPP. I'm not sure if it is a PPP because it doesn't seem like it's in the right spot (it's at the very base of the corona and close to the shaft) and its the same size as a pimple. I'm hoping it'll go away eventually.

mattboy115
April 22nd, 2010, 02:33
I developed something around a year ago and it looks like a pimple but I'm starting to think it may be a PPP. I'm not sure if it is a PPP because it doesn't seem like it's in the right spot (it's at the very base of the corona and close to the shaft) and its the same size as a pimple. I'm hoping it'll go away eventually.

Can you post a picture of it? I'm sure one of us can identify it. If you got it a year ago and it's still not gone odds are it's not a pimple.

Arthur
April 22nd, 2010, 03:00
I believe he's underage.

mattboy115
April 22nd, 2010, 03:37
Oh, never mind then. Sorry.

Terato
April 22nd, 2010, 23:49
I wonder if the reason for the 10% difference between intact and cut is not that they don't form on cut men as much but that they are abraded away by friction as they try to form on cut guys, from the glans rubbing on underwear all day every day.

Perhaps they also need a moist environment to form.... just throwing out another theory.

I recently saw an article online of a guy who was suing a doctor who recommended he have them removed via laser surgery... only to cause him extreme pain and give him a damaged looking penis. Guess they had the power set to "vaporize entire cock". :eek:

:mad: :( That's terrible... I hope he won the suit.

Personally I think that PPP are sexy as hell, especially when they're large and 'well-developed'. Something about them just says "touch me". Don't know if any other women or men feel the same way! :D :o

deleted5201
April 23rd, 2010, 00:56
I believe he's underage.

Yep and even if I wasn't I don't think I'd post that kind of picture online. :/

I looked at it closely and I do think it is a PPP.

It seems a little big right now (about pimple size) so I was wondering if it'll get smaller?

Joseph
April 23rd, 2010, 01:30
In your case, kid, it may very well BE a stuffed up pore.

But I don't think any of us can tell you without actually seeing it, and it sounds like you're way to young for us to see it anyway.

Most people have had PPPs their whole life.

From what I can tell it sounds like you got it just recently, and it's actually grown to the size of a pimple. PPPs don't really do that.

I'd tell my parents about it if I were you.

Ron, what's the policy on minors participating in the forum?

d0122
September 14th, 2010, 01:36
i think most people are confusing 'PPP' with 'Tyson Glands'. I noticed them about a year ago and googled it straight away, and mine were nowhere near as big and pearly as the pictures of PPP that i saw on the net. I went to the doctor, and he said they are normal ect ect.

not convinced, i did further research and came across a forum where somebody mentioned that alot of people confuse PPP with tyson glands (a form of sebaceous sweat glands). these are located around the corona and inner surface of the prepuce of the penis.

I did more and more extreme close examining, and realised that i have the same spots on the top my glans.

so yeah, just be 100% that it is actually PPP... because it is not the same thing as Tyson Glands...

"According to detractors, they are not glands but mere thickenings of the skin and are not involved in the formation of smegma"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preputial_gland

MattOC
September 14th, 2010, 04:56
After reading this entire thread I have some PPPs now. I didn't notice them before I reached CI-4 and CI-5 now when sitting or laying down. I have a couple near my frenulum too. I guess restoration has made them more noticeable. I take it as a sign of progress and will not seek to get them removed. Before reading this thread I thought it was just dry skin.

FL_Titan
September 15th, 2010, 02:51
...so how is it that these "things"....that normally only appear during puberty...just start appearing out of nowhere after starting to restore??

Tally
September 15th, 2010, 13:01
...so how is it that these "things"....that normally only appear during puberty...just start appearing out of nowhere after starting to restore??
I have had my pearly penile papules for as long as I remember, well before I started restoring. They have nothing to do with restoring.

Also, PPP are not a puberty specific occurrance. They can appear at any time and they are permanent, although their size and appearance may vary over time.