Exposed glans
Mufti the Great
I've been following the discussion in this group for quite a while now,
and it seems that there are only two opinions prevailing:
a) to have a long foreskin covering the glans totally, even showing a
kind of "trunk" (phimosis)
or
b) to be radically circumcised.
Let me remind you of a natural fact many of you seem to have forgotten:
these are extremes.
Much more common, at least here in the more southern parts of Europe, is
the following fact which also happened to me.
When you are a child, the head of the penis is usually covered by the
foreskin, serving as a natural protection for the glans.
But when puberty comes (at the age of 10 to 13) and the penis commences
developing, the foreskin starts to retract itself under the influence of
hormones, thus giving room for the glans to pop out and come free, at
first only with hard-ons, but later on constantly even when flaccid and
not aroused.
My foreskin started to retract when I was about nine yoears old, leaving
my glans fully exposed with 13 to 14 years of age. The same happened to
a friend of mine, and to his son, who is now 14 years old.
This seems to be the case with roughly one third of the male youth. The
next third walks around with a partially covered glans, and when we talk
about circumcision, we mean the last third of youth, who, at the end of
puberty, still have their glanses covered by foreskin like children.
They, of course, need to be circumcised.
Whether this is the result of genetic predestination, or of exceedingly
pulling one's foreskin forward instead of backward, I can't judge, but
abnormally long foreskins seem to be more common with people from
northern and eastern Europe than with people from southern Europe or
even with black Africans who tend to have very short foreskins by birth.
Visit the nudist beaches of France, Germany, or Croatia, and have a look
yourself.
ran...@geocities.com
In article <3382B2...@karlsruhe.netsurf.de>,
Mufti the Great <mu...@karlsruhe.netsurf.de> wrote:
>
> and it seems that there are only two opinions prevailing:
>
> a) to have a long foreskin covering the glans totally, even showing a
> kind of "trunk" (phimosis)
> or
> b) to be radically circumcised.
>
> Let me remind you of a natural fact many of you seem to have forgotten:
> these are extremes.
> Much more common, at least here in the more southern parts of Europe, is
> the following fact which also happened to me.
>
> a friend of mine, and to his son, who is now 14 years old.
>
> This seems to be the case with roughly one third of the male youth. The
> next third walks around with a partially covered glans, and when we talk
> about circumcision, we mean the last third of youth, who, at the end of
> puberty, still have their glanses covered by foreskin like children.
> They, of course, need to be circumcised.
^ (not necessarily, if it is rectractible)
> abnormally long foreskins seem to be more common with people from
> northern and eastern Europe than with people from southern Europe or
> even with black Africans who tend to have very short foreskins by birth.
(^ I'm not too sure this is true)
Interesting observations. I recollect reading a UK edition of Forum
Magazine in the early 1970's which contained an article giving almost
exactly the same figures (i.e. one third) for each of the three coverage
categories you mention. It was derived from a study of European men. The
same article also gave an age breakdown for glans coverage from a
different study. (I would not be able to provide a reference for this
after all this time.)
Of course anyone brought up in Europe (as I also was), is well aware of
this variability in coverage. It is only the Americans, with few
foreskins to study, wqho do not understand this and have so many
misconceptions about the subject. (Not that it ever stops them talking so
"knowledgably" about it.)
Your observation about Southern Europeans having less coverage than
Northerners and Easterners is new to me. It would be interesting to know
if this is a genuine ethnic difference or even climate dependent. A long
foreskin would certainly seem to have an evolutionary advantage in very
cold climates. I am reminded that a few years ago, Sir Ranulph Fiennes,
the British polar explorer, swore he would never again take a circumcised
man on a polar walk, after one of his party had to be helicoptered back
to base with frostbite on his bare glans (OUCH!) With a long foreskin,
the odd case of frostbite on the tip would merely mean losing a few
millimetres off the end, not serious damage to the glans itself. Nature
sure thinks of everything. I wonder if the proposed Northern/Southern
difference has been explored scientifically?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Martinwing
I found that observation interesting, also...and I agree, as long as it's
retractable, no need to remove.
I'll second the observation about insulation...I live in Minnesota, where
we experience some pretty cold winters (esp on the Canadian border, where
I was born)....that skin is important when "nature calls" on the ski
slopes or on the lake while fishing!! :)
Mufti the Great
Subject: Re: Exposed glans
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
> Northerners and Easterners is new to me. It would be interesting to >know if this is a genuine ethnic difference or even climate dependent. >A long foreskin would certainly seem to have an evolutionary advantage >in very cold climates. I wonder if the proposed Northern/Southern
> difference has been explored scientifically?
I would be interested too. If someone knows of such a study, let me
know. The following thoughts are primarily based on my own observations
on nudist beaches in southern France.
I personally think the extent of foreskin coverage of the partly or
totally exposed glans is
a) a genetic matter
b) climate dependent
c) a result of masturbation practises
to a)
when I was traveling the north of Nigeria, a noticed that most of the
boys of about 10 to 14 years bathing in local rivers had penises that
were considerably longer and thicker than the equivalent northern
European boys. Almost none, except the younger ones, had their glans
covered by foreskin. They didn't seem to be circumcised.
Boys from the Mediterranean states usually have half-exposed glans,
rarely can you see one with a "trunky" foreskin.
Dutch boys of 10 to 14 seem to have long penises with a full coverage by
the foreskin, and German and French boys seem to be in the middle.
I am quite certain that there are ethnic differences.
to b)
I noticed that boys and men "hang out" more extensively when the weather
is warm. In this state most foreskins retract behind the glans.
to c)
You can avoid "trunky" foreskins by firmly stretching the shaft of your
penis when masturbating, thus lengthening it considerably in the course
of time, and directly rubbing your glans at the same time. When you
start at an early age (childhood), you will have develop a considerably
longer penis than the average male with a "mushroomy" glans when you
reach puberty.
I am quite curious about your observations, because this would mean that
infant circumcision is simply not necessary.
Hschoenbru
I think it is normal in Germany that the glans is half to nearly covered.
I have seen a lot of penises of all ages. before puberty,the foreskin
covered the glans. After puberty it´s different, 10% are full covered with
overhang, 50% nearly covered, 20% tip of glans exposed, 10% half exposed
and 10% fully exposed without circumsision. It is difficult to see the
status of a Penis, because I know a lot of man how wear there foreskin
permanent retract behind the glans.
for myself i was circumcised in age of 25, i have had a overhang foreskin
(2 cm flaccid). Iwant to have an exposed glans. Now 15 years later i was
glad to do it.
I don´t missed the skin, and i agree with myself that I don´t do it
earlier.
RLS3439
To Mufti The Great --who wrote the dissertation on various types of
foreskin covered and exposed glans:
I have not had an opportunity to view the nude beaches of Europe, so I
certainly can't contest your observations, but I certainly don't
understand your rather offhand statement that if at some point in life,
the foreskin does not retract naturally, "then of course, circumcision is
necessary."
Do you mean that IF the foreskin CANNOT be retracted? Even then -- which
is extremely rare -- there are better ways to accomplish the retraction
than amputation! Simply stated, apart from the fact that 60% of our sadly
uninformed parents continue to have their sons "altered" at birth -- there
is almost NEVER a medical reason for the procedure, at ANY age!