The frenulum - removed or what?

[JCT3]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my somewhat scrambled prose! I was trying to shine a little light on a somewhat complex point which as you note, is little understood - both this site and off it.

[Reality]

Overall, you're right, assuming a typical American circ. Kudos. You have to realize that most of the chatter on restoration forums is done by guys almost totally ignorant of their own anatomy (not to mention the physiology involved), and this is compounded by the inevitable simplification due to repetition over time. For them, the simplification becomes "fact" en toto.

So, ordinarily they don't want to hear what you've just posted (some simply can't understand), or hear anything else in the way of the simple, factual truth associated with circumcision, especially from a clinical standpoint, which you've touched on here. They make terrible resources for the intactivist message, and this sadly includes some who try to assume that identity. Hopefully, though, a few here appreciate it and will say so.

Thinking that non clinically indicated circ is "bad" is fine for the average member, but the problem involved is it's become an "us versus them" mentality on forums, primarily because then they can then belong to an internet group, preach to the choir, sometimes promoting their own murky (to be kind) agenda, rather than sifting through the crap to find out why and how it's harmful. They pray to the harm, in other words, not the truth.

[JCT3]

My thoughts regarding circumcision and the frenulum. Please note - everything here may be completely incorrect.

The normal, intact frenulum is an extremely variable piece of anatomy. They can be very prominent and tendony and ropelike, or conversely, they can barely exist at all. There is a somewhat similar situation in frenulums on penises that have been cut.

Unless there is visible scarring between the circ scar and the underside of the glans, I do not believe a cut man with little to no visible frenulum can know whether there was anything cut off him in this area at all. A simple featureless area might indicate a post-circ atrophy of tissue, which however atrophied, to a significant degree, remains in place. And possibly, a simple featureless area could just as well be one where no frenulum developed in the first place.

The position of whatever tissue is left in the area is changed by circumcision up to 180 degrees; what was facing /hugging the glans in now either hanging loose (if a loose cut) or stretched up along the undersurface of the penis (if a tight cut). This is bound to influence the appearance of the remaining surface anatomy, especially considering the weak, delicate texture of the mucous membrane involved. Visually streamlining the neo-natal frenulum out of existence is simply accomplished by the removal of the foreskin itself (via the loss of the blood supply to the frenulum) and the unnatural stress on a delicate tissue forced in an unnatural direction.

There has been the suggestion that the normal blood supply to the remaining frenulum is greatly affected by the destruction of the foreskin, causing the frenulum to wither/atrophy. Anatomy in this part of the body is variable from person to person and some post-circ partial frenular deltas probably remain well supplied with blood after circumcision, and retain to one degree or another, a normal appearance in the space between the glans and the circ scar. Most do not.

While the mucous tissue of the inner foreskin remnant is probably capable of healing from minor injury without much scarring, I doubt that the complete removal / excavation of the entire frenular/structure/delta could be accomplished without significant, visible remaining irregularities (scars).Some cut men have a mess where the frenulum should be; an irregular, “erased” looking area, in other words a frenulectomy. I’m not denying that frenulum removal occurs during neo-natal circs; just that it’s considerably rarer than it’s thought to be.

Circumcisers are generally interested in doing what’s expected and wanted and paid for by parents: causing the permanent, complete exposure of the glans - period. This is accomplished by a circumferential crush / amputation. To accomplish this quickly and simply and bloodlessly as possible is their goal. Removal of the triangular (delta) form of many (bleeding) frenulums would complicate a simple circ. Fussing over a frenulum to most circumcisers is (IMO) pointless and time consuming.

Additionally, I doubt that one parent in a thousand would inspect the underside of their son’s cut penis and find remaining frenulum (which they would probably be unable to name) objectionable enough to request further surgery.

I think with plastibell circs frenulum cutting would be more problematic than with other methods. The frenulum would have to be excised before the placement of the clamp and after, there would be no way to check on the frenular wound for infection or bleeding once the bell is in place. So in my opinion, one more reason for it not being done.

From my personal restoring experience, beginning with a featureless frenular delta area punctuated only with an inconspicuous lightish strip running from the channel of the glans to the circ scar (in my case, originally a little less than an inch), the loosening of the area in restoring has freed up what certainly appears to be what’s left of my remaining frenulum. Now loosened, this bit of tissue is smooth and symmetrical and looks entirely to be an original anatomical part (very like the frenulum under the tongue) and not one which seems ever have been cut on or scarred. From what I’ve seen, this is the standard American penis underside, varying only in length of the inner foreskin remnant and prominence of (atrophied) frenulum.

Summing up: In my opinion - despite beliefs to the contrary - most American men have their original - if atrophied frenular tissue up to the circ scar.