[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by halfclip at 08 Jun 2003 04:15:10: Re: Yet another foreskin question sorry
As an answer to: Re: Yet another foreskin question sorry written by Ralesk at 07 Jun 2003 21:57:26:
>I sure am loose. I wonder if those textbooks you mention are American ones
>where foreskins are rare anyway, not to mention normal-length ones.Nop, I distinctly remember reading french books which described the foreskin is covering all bit tip when soft, and covering none when hard. I aklso remember reading some article in a newspaper (french canadian university paper) describing the foreskin is retracting during erection, thus making no difference with those who are cut). Those really stuck to my mind because I read them at a time where I was looking for information about what a "normal" foreskin was suppose dto be like. (the few freinds I had spoken to all said the foreskin was supposed to go back by itself during erection). Seemed I was the only one with a foreskin that continued to cover head when hard.
The american urology books I read at university library had no descriptions of the foreskin, just descriptions of the circumcision operation.
> As we know, earlier a good deal of males only escaped circumcision because
>they had a short foreskin, ie. were "naturally circumcised" (the bullshittest
>description EVER). Those males can easily be expected to autoretract upon
>erection, dont you think?While the above statement is "logical", I am not sure it truly applies. I am not sure there rteally is a way to tell; a long/short foreskin at birth. Even Van Howe has some paper on cirp.org which states that many babies can appear to be partly circed until age 3 when almost all grow out of foreskin remnant and become fully circumcised. It would be therefore logical to state that the same process would apply to uncuts who, by age 3 would have outgrown some of the foreskin they had at birth. How much they outgrow out would probably dictate if they will end up with long or short skin when adult.