Frenulum Implants or Foreskin Donors?

[deja_ale]

I have been tossing around this crazy idea in my head and wondering if anyone else with a greater medical understanding could shed light on the idea. So we know that restoring will never replace our frenulum, and without it we have to rely on an extra amount of skin to maintain coverage. So the question is, once we have enough skin and know where we want our rollover point to be, could a frenulum implant be possible? As far as the source and material of the implant I could think of three options. A partial removal of the frenulum holding our tongue in our mouth, a deceased intact males, or some form of safe artificial material. To delve deeper into the issue, can we not convince the medical community to allow circumcised males who want foreskins back to get on a donor list and just surgically replace the foreskin with the recently deceased like every other organ. They have replaced an entire penis, why not the foreskin?

[mjwise]

Well, for my part:

1. I don't want a dead man's frenulum. Or a plastic frenulum. That's just weird on its own, and would be unlikely to have the function you want it to have.
2. I'm not paying more money to a profession that was paid to remove my frenulum in the first place. Even if Foregen succeeds, I'm going to have swallow some resentment when I pay money to get something that should have never been taken away in the first place.

[Guest]

I have been tossing around this crazy idea in my head and wondering if anyone else with a greater medical understanding could shed light on the idea. So we know that restoring will never replace our frenulum, and without it we have to rely on an extra amount of skin to maintain coverage. So the question is, once we have enough skin and know where we want our rollover point to be, could a frenulum implant be possible? As far as the source and material of the implant I could think of three options. A partial removal of the frenulum holding our tongue in our mouth, a deceased intact males, or some form of safe artificial material. To delve deeper into the issue, can we not convince the medical community to allow circumcised males who want foreskins back to get on a donor list and just surgically replace the foreskin with the recently deceased like every other organ. They have replaced an entire penis, why not the foreskin?

Ok, like mj did, let's take this in order:

1. There's still debate among anatomists about the function of the frenulum. Some think it HELPs to keep the foreskin covered, but not as a primary function, many don't think it plays a part in that at all.

2. "Extra amount of skin" is needed, but that amount is roughly double the distance from scar to glans tip because you are taking that extra skin and making a temporary tube out of it, by doubling it over. In other words that tube is made from two layers of shaft skin.

3. It's a locked-in guarantee that when you have this amount finally grown, the dartos sheath which lies under your shaft skin will constrict enough to keep that tube from rolling back to being just loose shaft skin again. Remember, you have two layers of dartos sheath working for you in that temporary tube.

4. So the above means that a frenulum isn't what you think it is, in terms of the function you give it. It's a whole lot less important to us (other than having some sensation to it, which it wouldn't have if its surgically messed around with).

5. That aside, nobody will do a frenulum transplant for you, the surgeon would in all likelihood instead choose a purse string suture.

6. A frenulum transplant, or a donor "foreskin" would require anti-rejection medication for the rest of your life. And you would face the high risk of infection anyhow, and a resulting rejection of the foreign tissue. Back to square one, only worse.

7. A foreskin is a continuous covering of shaft skin on the outside and mucosa on the inside, so it isn't "thing" in itself, per se. In other words you cant really take it from "there" and put it "here" without ending up with more scars, and a real decrease in function and sensation, assuming a surgeon COULD somehow attach it surgically. All those nerves would be chopped.

So all in all, it's like you say, a crazy idea because it has no counterpart in reality. What you read in non scientific articles is superficial, and virtually never tells you the truth of the situation, aka the whole story.

[parsecskin]

I don't believe a "transplant" is necessary. If you google "frenulum reconstruction" a bunch of stuff comes up. I have been thinking about this with my own restoration too. I have noticed that if I take the skin at the transition from inner to outer where my little nub of remaining frenulum is and pull it up to the V in my glans where the original frenulum was anchored and hold it there, it looks A LOT like the frenular delta and ridged bands of an intact penis. Even so much that the "ridge" wraps all around my penis. Why couldn't a surgeon just "tack" it there with a couple of stitches? I realize something must be done to eliminate a "tunnel" there, but it does seem possible.

[Guest]

I don't believe a "transplant" is necessary. If you google "frenulum reconstruction" a bunch of stuff comes up. I have been thinking about this with my own restoration too. I have noticed that if I take the skin at the transition from inner to outer where my little nub of remaining frenulum is and pull it up to the V in my glans where the original frenulum was anchored and hold it there, it looks A LOT like the frenular delta and ridged bands of an intact penis. Even so much that the "ridge" wraps all around my penis. Why couldn't a surgeon just "tack" it there with a couple of stitches? I realize something must be done to eliminate a "tunnel" there, but it does seem possible.

"Stiches" can rip if they are the non dissolving (permanent) type, and if they are the dissolving type you lose the attachment between the tissues (they don't permanently attach one tissue to another). A transplant, which doesn't exist (so: dead in the water, much like foreskin "regeneration"), isn't needed for the reason I stated. Finish with this whole process and you will find out that what you guys think a frenulum does, isn't even needed. Ask any finished guy. Your skin will stay forward. My skin stayed forward most of the time when I had about half of what I needed for full coverage. It stays forward now, all of the time. Sure, thicker skin has an effect, but not that much when you grow enough. So much of what is discussed on forums is by guys who haven't seen the finished result, which is one reason nonsense gets taken for "real" as it gets repeated. So much of what is apparently worried about is really a non issue when you get closer to where you wanted to go in this thing.

This all comes from thinking that an intact foreskin comes in just one form, one model. It doesn't. Intact guys often tug at their foreskins because they roll back and become uncomfortable. Ask one, see what he says. How does THAT figure into the scenario usually thought of as "real" by guys on forums? Intact frenula can, and many do, rip. It's delicate tissue, mucosa, not a bungee cord. Doesn't matter, though, your shaft skin will narrow down on its own, JUST LIKE AN INTACT GUY'S DOES. Interesting, isn't it? Nobody ever mentions this because most guys on forums are clueless about general human anatomy and physiology, and totally clueless about intact foreskins (which isn't surprising, of course). No need for them hold on to what they think is true because some fellow unfinished member says so. Tug, finish, be pleasantly surprised with the result, pass it on to the readers.