I was just wondering really. I'm 17 now and when i was around 13/14 i noticed that my foreskin was attached to the head of my penis. I know its supposed to be attached at the bottom with that strip of skin, but mine was also attached at 10 and 2 o'clock roughly. It hurt to pull the foreskin back so i ended up pulling it back anyway thus "tearing" the foreskin and penis head join. It was weird because it didnt bleed, it was more like it was held together with glue. It was sore for about 24 hours but has been fine since. Just wondered if anyone else had this, and also am i right in saying that there should be a strip of skin under the head?
........the underside strip of skin is the frenulum, like the one under the tongue. I pulled mine apart in the bathtub at age 7. Don't remembering it hurting. Very natural, just needs a 'helping hand' to improve things! So keep on pulling and pumping (about once or twice a day should do it!)
It is normal for many uncircumcised males to have trouble retracting the foreskin entirely until they are teenagers, when the attached skin on the underside of the foreskin is "torn" much the way the hymen is torn in a female. The strip of skin in the "inverted v" on the underside of the glans (head) is called the frenulum, and it too should stretch when the foreskin is pulled back entirely over the head. But perhaps 10% of uncut guys have problems retracting the foreskin entirely due to a too tight foreskin or a too short frenulum. If you have problems retracting the foreskin, consult a doctor to see if you are just late maturing at 17 or if some further treatment is needed, such as foreskin stretching or even circumcision (a last resort).
Goddamit, the forums keep deleting my post. I will suffice it to say that I read about this on Wikipedia, and it seems to be not uncommon.
No, the frenulum is intact and isnt too short. Everything is fine. Its just when i was younger the foreskin was attached to the head at 10 and 2 o'clock, but it was almost as if it was attached with glue (obviousl wasnt though) because when i pulled it it tore free but didnt bleed. I could pull it back anyway when i was younger but not all the way, by tearing the 2 joins i could then pull it right back. Maybe it was just a very minor birth defect or something, what im trying to describe has nothing to do with the frenulum btw.
If you Google "foreskin problems" you should find reference to this. Or "care of the uncircumcised penis", which will provide advice to parents of uncut boys telling them to leave the foreskin alone, it will usually take care of itself as the boy gets older, as it did in your case.
sounds like a skin bridge, often caused by retraction at too early of an age a foreskin is supposed to be attached to the glans possibly till puberty, a caretaker may not have known and retracted it causing it to re heal incorrectly at that position it may be the frenulum as well but it sounds like a skin bridge
Quit making a big deal of this guys. Cutted, thanks for pointing it out as a problem of natural men. Boy, you use every question and your own inuendos in your fanatic war for the knife. It is not a problem, it is not a reason to get circumcised. The lad is healthy as a horse, maybe with a cock to match. Like I said it is so natural to us natural men, most kids have the same results when they begin wanking it, he just got to it in a different way. No, he did not circumcise himself! Geesh! He just pulled back his 4skin like millions of us do several times a day. Then he noticed his frenulum. You cut guys for the most part have had your fren cut in two and then over the years it withered away in the cold and the dry. No 4skin, no need of anything to hold it on. And it wasn't a skin bridge, never before having been pulled back, it had adhered a bit. When he pulled gently, it became unstuck! Geesh number two! It's no big deal!
I don't see how you can read into my comments a fanatical innuendo to have the boy go under the knife. His problem has gone away and all he needed was some assurance that all is OK. If he is happy with his foreskin, that's great. And I still have my frenulum - it was not cut in two; it did not wither away. And I still have most of my foreskin - it just does not hide the good part of my penis.
Yeah that happened to me when I was 12 It was attached to the crown of the head. The little round ridge, right? You described it really well, glue is the word I'd use, too. It just comes off like its meant to.
Because i still have most of what you consider the best part, and it is not the best part in my opinion. The best part is the glans - why hide it?
the sorrells sensitivity study found the most sensitive parts to be the parts removed in any circumcision primarily the ridged band around the opening which since it is the furthest point out it is the first part removed http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
A study of thousands of sexually experienced African men who were then circumcised found no difference in the sexual satisfaction cut or uncut two years later. So either African men are different than you, or you don't know what you are talking about. The ridged band bull is just a pretext for justifying Nocirc.
I'd like to see the link to that study, not some page saying it's true but some link that goes to the actual study from/in a medical journal where they have published all the details about how they did the study, any good study will be published in this way and yes, I do place my personal observations ahead of a study that depending on what questions they asked and how they asked them could be turned to say anything they want there have been many studies on whether it makes a difference, about half has said it does, half have said it doesn't, but no study has ever said that circed is better. plus circumcision as an adult is different, and there are many different variables such as style of cut, many africans that claim to have been circumcised have been cut differently from the U.S., it involves a cut but nothing removed similar to the Philippines style
