Inner foreskin remnant.

[arsenic]

I see conversation on this website discussing inner foreskin remnant and how much foreskin is left. ('Loose Cut' vs 'Tight Cut'). I think that in reality, with infants, there is VERY little difference between a loose cut and a tight cut. When you consider that an infants penis is just over an inch long, (with variable length of foreskin tube) the difference in loose or tight can't be more than 1/8" of tissue. The foreskin is separated from the glans down to the corona and by what ever surgical technique is used, the goal of the surgeon is to remove the tissue at the plane of the corona. It seems to me that even a 'loose' cut would not leave much more than 3/16" of inner foreskin tissue. We are adults, dealing with and talking about adult sized penises. NOT the very small structures that the infant has.
I started restoring my foreskin 5 weeks ago. When I started, my circ scar was about 1 1/4" below my corona. To put this in MY perspective, my BODY has been "restoring" my inner foreskin my entire life. My circ scar was certainly just below my corona when I was circumcised (as an infant). Over the years of my life, as my penis grew in proportion to my whole body, The skin of my inner (as well as outer) foreskin grew to accommodate the increase in length of my penis shaft. This caused my circ scar to migrate down the shaft of my penis.
I do not think that the distance between the corona and the circ scar is ANY indication of loose cut vs tight cut. I think that the only time 'loose' vs 'tight' may be appropriate terms to use, would be when discussing circumcision on adult or near adult sized penises. As an example, I would use the OLD Jewish tradition of cutting the foreskin back to the meatus, NOT all the way to the corona. This was an intentional 'loose' cut aimed at preserving the glans 'covering' function of the foreskin. At 13 yrs. old, it would be possible to estimate how much skin can be removed and still leave enough skin to cover the glans when the young man's penis reached it's full adult size. There is NO way to guess how much tissue to remove on an infants penis. The only goal of modern circumcision is to remove the ENTIRE structure. Loose vs tight is irrelevant on an infant.
The 'inner' skin relative to the 'shaft' skin (location of the circ scar) is simply the result of which type of skin grew more than the other, under the influence of the stretching forces exerted by the growing, elongating penis shaft.
The whole purpose of this and other similar websites is to CONTINUE the stretching and skin growth that our bodies have been doing since we started growing physically bigger. We just need artificial means to continue the growth past the limits of our shaft length.
The FACT that our circ scars migrate down the penile shaft, (due to NEW skin growth) is proof POSITIVE that we can continue to grow our skin. NO-ONE contemplating this endeavor need question whether they can grow their skin. Look at the location of your scar and you will see that you already have begun to succeed!!!

[Anon47]

No you are confused.

Some people are cut extremely tight and other not.

Some people with extremely tight cuts could even have the scar line tear during an erection.

Or have their ball skin very far up their shaft to compensate.

Or have their dick wanting to sit upwards instead of downwards because the top of the shaft skin is too tight.

[arsenic]

"Some people are cut extremely tight and other not."

Look at the size of the structures on an infant. Then watch a video of a circumcision. The difference between what would be a 'loose' vs 'tight' cut is a miniscule amount of tissue.

"Some people with extremely tight cuts could even have the scar line tear during an erection."

Scar tissue is stronger than the native tissues surrounding it. ANY tearing in an infant OR adult would be due to the stress that an erection would have on the NOT YET HEALED wound. Any erection on either an infant or adult would have the propensity to tear the wound (Prior to complete healing) regardless if you were able to classify the circumcision as 'loose' or 'tight'.

"Or have their ball skin very far up their shaft to compensate."

Again, scrotal skin migrating up the shaft, as well as the inner foreskin growth (resulting in the scar migrating down the shaft) is simply the result of the difference between the growth of new skin (shaft skin as well as inner foreskin skin) and the increase in shaft length as the young man (boy) grows. A rapid increase in shaft length is going to pull skin from what ever source of skin is available to cover the increasing length of shaft. The skin can only grow at a finite rate. RAPID shaft growth will result in scrotal skin up the shaft and relatively little inner skin growth down the shaft. The scar will be fairly close to the glans.
On the other hand, SLOWER shaft growth, will give the shaft skin and the inner foreskin more time to grow and keep up with the growth of the shaft. This will result in less scrotal skin up the shaft and more inner foreskin down the shaft. The scar will be farther away from the glans.

Like I said, the so called 'remnant' is really NEW inner foreskin growth resulting from the force on the skin by the growing penile shaft. On INFANTS, the concept of 'loose' vs 'tight' is irrelevant. On an older fully grown or nearly fully grown penis (13 yr old Bar Mitzvah) the decision to perform a 'loose' vs 'tight' circumcision would depend on the knowledge and compassion of the person performing the operation.

[Distalero]

Originally Posted by arsenic

I see conversation on this website discussing inner foreskin remnant and how much foreskin is left. ('Loose Cut' vs 'Tight Cut'). I think that in reality, with infants, there is VERY little difference between a loose cut and a tight cut. When you consider that an infants penis is just over an inch long, (with variable length of foreskin tube) the difference in loose or tight can't be more than 1/8" of tissue. The foreskin is separated from the glans down to the corona and by what ever surgical technique is used, the goal of the surgeon is to remove the tissue at the plane of the corona. It seems to me that even a 'loose' cut would not leave much more than 3/16" of inner foreskin tissue. We are adults, dealing with and talking about adult sized penises. NOT the very small structures that the infant has.
I started restoring my foreskin 5 weeks ago. When I started, my circ scar was about 1 1/4" below my corona. To put this in MY perspective, my BODY has been "restoring" my inner foreskin my entire life. My circ scar was certainly just below my corona when I was circumcised (as an infant). Over the years of my life, as my penis grew in proportion to my whole body, The skin of my inner (as well as outer) foreskin grew to accommodate the increase in length of my penis shaft. This caused my circ scar to migrate down the shaft of my penis.
I do not think that the distance between the corona and the circ scar is ANY indication of loose cut vs tight cut. I think that the only time 'loose' vs 'tight' may be appropriate terms to use, would be when discussing circumcision on adult or near adult sized penises. As an example, I would use the OLD Jewish tradition of cutting the foreskin back to the meatus, NOT all the way to the corona. This was an intentional 'loose' cut aimed at preserving the glans 'covering' function of the foreskin. At 13 yrs. old, it would be possible to estimate how much skin can be removed and still leave enough skin to cover the glans when the young man's penis reached it's full adult size. There is NO way to guess how much tissue to remove on an infants penis. The only goal of modern circumcision is to remove the ENTIRE structure. Loose vs tight is irrelevant on an infant.
The 'inner' skin relative to the 'shaft' skin (location of the circ scar) is simply the result of which type of skin grew more than the other, under the influence of the stretching forces exerted by the growing, elongating penis shaft.
The whole purpose of this and other similar websites is to CONTINUE the stretching and skin growth that our bodies have been doing since we started growing physically bigger. We just need artificial means to continue the growth past the limits of our shaft length.
The FACT that our circ scars migrate down the penile shaft, (due to NEW skin growth) is proof POSITIVE that we can continue to grow our skin. NO-ONE contemplating this endeavor need question whether they can grow their skin. Look at the location of your scar and you will see that you already have begun to succeed!!!

The difference between a free floating, and misapplied, theory, and the real world.

1. You've forgotten, or weren't aware of, the anabolic effect of hormones and their effect on zones of growth, most particularly sex hormones, vs your apparent believe that tissue growth is steady. This is the primary effect at play. Maybe more reading?

2. Do you know, or remember what a pantograph is? Apply a sort of mental pantograph to the two basic scales you've presented. What do you get, especially when you keep point #1 in mind?

3. It really doesn't matter how a "tight cut" was produced (primarily natural vs strictly iatrogenic), it's real, it's a dysfunction in varying degree, and it results from circumcision, a procedure that in the overwhelming case, should not happen on a routine basis, and can produce other types of dysfunction as well. I appreciate theoretical exploration, but you need a few more ducks, to make that row.

[arsenic]

My statements are not intended to be a complete dissertation on the subject of skin growth.
Without a LOT more study on "the anabolic effect of hormones and their effect on zones of growth, most particularly sex hormones", I would not argue against the effect these have on the differences in length of skin growth between the growing inner foreskin and the shaft skin. These may very well have some influence on the growth rate of these two different types of skin tissue.
I am saying that as an adult, you cannot look at your penis and say that when you were an infant, you were cut 'loose' OR 'tight'.
I CAN say that when I was an infant, my 'remnant' was NOT 1 1/4" long. Unless my parents had measured my 'remnant', and told me how much inner foreskin was left intact, (the distance between the scar and the corona), the fact that my inner tissues grew to 1 1/4" long, makes it impossible to characterize whether I was 'loose' cut or 'tight' cut.
Hormones, rate of shaft growth, and who knows what other factors affect the skin growth (shaft as well as inner foreskin tissue). If you could quantify, how much influence hormones had, how much shaft growth had, how much all the other mitigating influences had, then maybe you could calculate for each of these, and go back and decide that you were 'loose' cut or 'tight' cut. You would also have to change that formula for each and every individual who wanted to figure this out. Even if I knew how much tissue I had left after my circumcision, the best I would be able to say is that I may have been left with a little more, (or less) than the guy next to me.
From the minute we discover our penis, we begin to pull on it. From the very first time we stroke our penis, we begin to stimulate skin growth. Unintentional as it is, we began, on that day, to lengthen our skin tube. Yet another reason why we cannot look at our penis and state that we were 'loose' or 'tight' cut.
We CAN look at our penis, compare it to the charts, and decide whether or not we are starting to restore from a relatively, 'loose' beginning or a 'tight' beginning.

I would say that you cannot apply a pantograph to this scenario because the three, (correction; four, for most of us) tissues on the penis shaft, (inner foreskin tissue, circ scar tissue, the shaft skin, AND the scrotal skin that migrated up the shaft), ALL have differing growth rates under the various stretching influences our penis is subjected to. It would be impossible to develop a formula and determine that, Let's say.. "1 lb. of stretching force for 10 minutes will result in; .5 mm growth in scrotal skin, .75mm growth in circ scar skin, 1 mm growth in shaft skin and finally 1.2mm growth in inner foreskin". Add to this the fact that NO two people react the same to these stretching forces and there is NO way to apply a pantograph, theoretically OR practically.

The fact is that when an infant boy is circumcised, the INTENT is to produce a result in which there is just enough skin left to cover the shaft. Individual surgeons and differing techniques do have variable results. Placing the ring over the penis with the plane of the device angled towards the babies head would leave MORE frenular tissue than if the device were angled more down towards the feet. Angled more to one side or the other would probably explain why some circ scars are so angled or crooked.

I read others in this Forum stating that they were cut 'tight' or as I recall some one stating that 'fortunately I was one of the lucky ones. I was cut 'loose'." Unless we had a picture taken at the time, we have no way of knowing how tight we were cut. THEN try placing two pictures of two different boys side by side. The tiny size of the structures involved would make it a moot issue when trying to determine which one was cut tighter than the other.

ALL we can do is look at our penis TODAY and determine that TODAY, we are 'tight' or 'loose'. Hopefully we are looser than yesterday.

[greg_b]

I do not think it is worth discussing whether the amputation an infant suffered was tight or loose.

What counts is how it turned out when he reached sexual maturity. That is why RIC is such a bad choice...the doctor has no way to predict how the amount of skin will turn out.

Nor do we typically know if the doctor intended a tight or loose cut.

I also think that when most people say they "were cut tight" or "loose" as an infant, they are simply using short hand speak to say that the end result was tight or loose.

Regards

[Distalero]

In the military my first MOS was as a Pharmacist. There was a fellow student in Pharmacy school who could argue all around a subject, had enough general knowledge and good linguistic skills to sound as though he actually knew something about the issue, but because I could speak his language, and because I smelled something "off" and told him so, he confided in me that he actually didn't know anything specific, was just scared all of the time (where we were going, that was justified). The military finally caught on, gave him a psych eval, sent him home.

[arsenic]

OHHH Was that a slam???

Look. I am an intelligent man. I am NOT stating that I know more than ANYone on this website. I work in medicine. While I would have a difficult time regurgitating the laws of physics, I KNOW how to use them. I have been perusing the things written on this website, and have questions AND skepticisms regarding some of the concepts and ideas I have encountered.

There is a LOT of talk about 'loose' and 'tight' circumcisions. The goal of EVERY infant circumcision is to result in a 'tight' circ. Differences in technique and surgeon capabilities aside, every infant circumcision is tight. When you are dealing with the structures as small as they are on an infant, a millimeter or two difference in remnant is NOT going to make a difference in the end product when the infant grows to be a man. If the penis ends up being 6" long, some of the skin is going to be STRETCHED inner foreskin tissue, some will be STRETCHED scar tissue, some will be STRETCHED shaft skin and some will be STRETCHED scrotal tissue. SOME of all this tissue will have grown because of natural growth as the body grows. SOME of it will be because of the expansion of the penile shaft expansion at puberty. Some of it will even be as a result of "the anabolic effect of hormones and their effect on zones of growth, most particularly sex hormone" ( which I still have not studied. Any resources you can recommend?).

The point is: Other than the fact that we HAVE indeed suffered a circumcision, a procedure designed to remove ALL loose skin on the penis, the result that we see as an adult, is really dependent upon ALL the other factors determining how each type of skin tissue grows, resulting from those factors (influences). WE ALL START WITH A TIGHT CIRC.

I question why anyone would discuss in terms describing being cut as an infant as 'tight' or 'loose'. Comparisons to the CI charts as an adult makes perfect sense to me. Discussions about how straight or crooked the scar is makes sense to me. Discussions about how much frenular tissue remains, makes sense to me. These are ALL variable results due to techniques and skills of the surgeon performing 'tight' circumcision procedures.

Everyone on this and other websites come from differing backgrounds. One of the purposes of these sites is to establish concepts and methods, AND terminology to formalize and develop the SCIENCE of foreskin restoration. This fringe group (200,000???) of foreskin restorers will only be a fringe group until the science is more developed than it is. This community will have to answer more challenging questions than I posed, if this community is ever going to gain respect and acceptance into mainstream society.

I agree with Greg_B. "I do not think it is worth discussing whether the amputation an infant suffered was tight or loose." I think that any such discussion distracts from the important questions we are seeking answers for;
How do we enlighten the community of the destruction that circumcision causes? How do we repair what damage was done? How do we become accepted as the answer and solution to the problems that circumcision causes? This community needs to develop terminology and nomenclature so that everyone can understand and speak on the same page. Those on the outside looking at what we are saying will have questions and demand answers before they will give us credibility. Our discussions must make sense to them.

Distalero. You do not have to agree with the concept of my question. BUT, IF you have an answer to my query, then PLEASE teach and enlighten me why I am off base. DO NOT ridicule me because I question what is generally accepted, From the dawn of man, the world was flat. A mere 500 years ago someone proposed that the world was actually round. Imagine that. A kid sitting on the docks had a new idea. Also, please explain how you would apply the concept of a Pantograph. I must be stupid because I simply cannot picture it.