Very High Circumcision

[CircVictim]

As I mentioned earlier, there is more inner skin than outer skin viewable when I have an erection. In other words, more mucosa than foreskin. I was cut pretty darn high. The scar is close to the middle of the shaft though.

I was wondering if anyone with the same type of circ knows in any way how this could impact future gains of sensitivity.

Please let me know.

[xx Royal xx]

Originally Posted by CircVictim

As I mentioned earlier, there is more inner skin than outer skin viewable when I have an erection. In other words, more mucosa than foreskin. I was cut pretty darn high. The scar is close to the middle of the shaft though.

I was wondering if anyone with the same type of circ knows in any way how this could impact future gains of sensitivity.

Please let me know.

Musoca is the sensitive skin, so many many of your nerves are still intact . You should'n't have a problem with sensitivity when you restore.

I pretty much have the same circumcision as well, but I haven't gotten very far in restoring. I had TOO much outer skin cut off leaving about 3/4 of an inch of it left on the back side.

[Barceno]

Most of the guys I've seen with "successful" restorations started out with some bunching behind the glans when very soft. They had much more outer shaft skin left than inner mucosa. Lately I've been seeing a lot of photos of guys who have been cut very severly, with not much outer skin left, and I always wonder how they would proceed with restoration. US circumcisions seem to be noticeably more severe than Canadian or Australian infant circs -- which needs to be adjusted into John Taylor's (Canadian) estimate of infant circumcision removing on average 51% of the skin system of the penis. American boys cut between 1960 and 1980 appear to have fared the worst.

I've never understood whether mucosa can be permanently stretched; somehow I doubt it. I don't think its cell regeneration works the same way as non-mucous membrane skin. Also, guys with fairer, non-oily skin seem to do a lot better with restoration for some reason. Still, I can't fathom how some of these guys with severe circumcisions (too much sausage for the skin) could effectively restore.

[Tally]

Originally Posted by Barceno

I've never understood whether mucosa can be permanently stretched; somehow I doubt it. I don't think its cell regeneration works the same way as non-mucous membrane skin.

We do not permanently stretch our skin. Applying stress by tension causes mitosis, which results in new skin growth at an accelerated rate.

Very little is known about mitosis, but observation shows that the inner foreskin remnant (the mucosal tissue) is lengthened by restorers.

I for one have almost doubled the length of my inner foreskin remnant. It grows slower than my outer skin, but it is growing. Others report that their inner foreskin remnant has grown just as fast as their outer skin.

[adamrestored]

Originally Posted by Barceno

Most of the guys I've seen with "successful" restorations started out with some bunching behind the glans when very soft. They had much more outer shaft skin left than inner mucosa. Lately I've been seeing a lot of photos of guys who have been cut very severly, with not much outer skin left, and I always wonder how they would proceed with restoration. US circumcisions seem to be noticeably more severe than Canadian or Australian infant circs -- which needs to be adjusted into John Taylor's (Canadian) estimate of infant circumcision removing on average 51% of the skin system of the penis. American boys cut between 1960 and 1980 appear to have fared the worst.

I've never understood whether mucosa can be permanently stretched; somehow I doubt it. I don't think its cell regeneration works the same way as non-mucous membrane skin. Also, guys with fairer, non-oily skin seem to do a lot better with restoration for some reason. Still, I can't fathom how some of these guys with severe circumcisions (too much sausage for the skin) could effectively restore.

Yeah I have this problem... it's weird.

I was cut pretty high and I only had maybe a half inch of skin between my scar and where the hair-bearing skin starts. It sucks! I think this means I had a fairly short foreskin from birth and I probably didn't need much removed.. even though I feel nothing should have been removed. stupid doctors

I have to manually stretch the crap out of that small area to try and make it bigger (it's at maybe an inch now, but still growing) and it can be really tough to stick with restoring even though I have the coverage I need for public places.