Intact CI-5 starting...

[ThoughtTHinking]

I wasnt circumcised as a child but am still unhappy with my current CI5 and was hoping to eventually hit CI7.5. How long would that take since I already have a lot of extra skin, thanks for the help.

[NITRO]

Well, that is pretty cool! Welcome to the site btw.

To be honest, it depends on age and how quickly you can grow skin. Everyone is different unfortunately.

Although, 1-2 years isn't totally out of the realm of possibilities. The best way to gauge progress is restore 1 month (to account for skin loosening due to tension) and then on the 2nd month, see how much skin you've grown. Use a measuring device to get your Forced Erect Coverage (FEC). This should give you a good number to gauge how much you can grow in 1 month and how much you approximately need left to grow to reach your goal.

Keep in mind you do need to grow both inner and outer skin, so while it might not seem like you are making length progress, it is really cut in half due to inner/outer growth.

Good luck!

[greg_b]

Welcome!

Other than saying it will take some amount of time that is probably measured in years, rather than months, there is no way to answer that, because, as NITRO said, everyone is different and the biggest factor, which is unknown, is how effective you will be at growing skin. That said, it can also be said that you can do this, it will work, and all you need to do is start.

Regards

[parsecskin]

Yeah, go for it! You still have all your parts and uninterrupted blood flow. Probably take you 1-2 yrs. Just be careful of your frenulum. You don't want to tear it.

[ThoughtTHinking]

Thanks everyone for the responses and your encouragement. Patience has begun.

[Frenulum2002]

What is the shortest foreskin an intact penis can possibly be? I was thinking CI-3 would be the minimum. What do you all think?

[salamander6773]

And yes, we all envy you.

[Frenulum2002]

I wasnt circumcised as a child but am still unhappy with my current CI5 and was hoping to eventually hit CI7.5. How long would that take since I already have a lot of extra skin, thanks for the help.

CI-5 is very close to naturally circumcised in biblical times.

[KragDragon]

CI-5 is very close to naturally circumcised in biblical times.

Getting "naturally circumcised" is like getting naturally stabbed in the back...

[Frenulum2002]

Getting "naturally circumcised" is like getting naturally stabbed in the back...

There is no such thing as getting naturally circumcised lol. Some men are born with a very short foreskin, which is more like a CI-3 to CI-5 range. Now a days these men would be mutilated even though these same men would have not been touched in biblical times because they had the appearance of being circumcised. Here is the difference between the biblical circumcision and modern day circumcision. Removing the tip of the foreskin is not a big deal and has health benefits to cut a baby down to a CI-5. Eliminating the preputial sphincter muscle is a great idea because you eliminate the possibility of phimosis and Para-phimosis:

https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

[KragDragon]

There is no such thing as getting naturally circumcised lol. Some men are born with a very short foreskin, which is more like a CI-3 to CI-5 range. Now a days these men would be mutilated even though these same men would have not been touched in biblical times because they had the appearance of being circumcised. Here is the difference between the biblical circumcision and modern day circumcision. Removing the tip of the foreskin is not a big deal and has health benefits to cut a baby down to a CI-5. Eliminating the preputial sphincter muscle is a great idea because you eliminate the possibility of phimosis and Para-phimosis:

https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

That makes about as much sense as surgically removing a baby's toenails to prevent ingrowns.

I consider it insanity to amputate body parts to prevent them getting health problems. Wait and see if they develop a problem at all (99% of the time they won't), then treat the problem if it occurs. In the rare unfortunate event that it cannot be treated, then amputation becomes a sensible option.

But in the case of phimosis, why cut off the whole lovely ridged band? Why not just cut a small notch in it to widen the opening without losing any of your precious anatomy? I swear, people are just hell-bent on finding any excuse they can come up with to push circumcision just because it's "normal". It's ridiculous.

I feel this way about tonsils and wisdom teeth as well. People are far too quick to remove "disposable" piece of their body. I refused to have either removed and I have zero problems with them. They're not as important as foreskin, but they're still nice to have for that feeling of having all your anatomy intact.

[Frenulum2002]

That makes about as much sense as surgically removing a baby's toenails to prevent ingrowns.

I consider it insanity to amputate body parts to prevent them getting health problems. Wait and see if they develop a problem at all (99% of the time they won't), then treat the problem if it occurs. In the rare unfortunate event that it cannot be treated, then amputation becomes a sensible option.

But in the case of phimosis, why cut off the whole lovely ridged band? Why not just cut a small notch in it to widen the opening without losing any of your precious anatomy? I swear, people are just hell-bent on finding any excuse they can come up with to push circumcision just because it's "normal". It's ridiculous.

I feel this way about tonsils and wisdom teeth as well. People are far too quick to remove "disposable" piece of their body. I refused to have either removed and I have zero problems with them. They're not as important as foreskin, but they're still nice to have for that feeling of having all your anatomy intact.

Imagine a man having phimosis who ends up getting a low and tight circumcision verses getting a CI-4 or CI-5 circumcision as a baby, which would keep all the sensitive tissue without any risk of phimosis or para-phimosis. please choose which scenario you would prefer? The ridge band would not be cut off because the mucosa is preserved. The inner epithelium of the foreskin is still fused to the epithelium of the glans at the neonatal age, so this structure is preserved. If you look at the picture from the website I posted, you will see that the mucosa is protected in the biblical circumcision. The part that is cut off is the redundant end. The circumciser would tug at the north-east-west part of the foreskin followed by putting shield on, which is followed by using a scalpel to cut off the problem part, which is not the sensitive area. The sensitive area is the inside part of the foreskin. The ridged and smooth mucosa would not be disturbed in addition to the frenulum. By preserving the frenulum, meatal stenosis is prevented. In additition by pulling at the north-east-west location of the foreskin, this causes more tissue to remain on the ventral side, which would do 2 things: preserve the sensitive structure of the frenular delta area and in addition it would prevent the development of circumcision induced penal scrotal webbing.

[parsecskin]

Imagine a man having phimosis who ends up getting a low and tight circumcision verses getting a CI-4 or CI-5 circumcision as a baby, which would keep all the sensitive tissue without any risk of phimosis or para-phimosis. please choose which scenario you would prefer? The ridge band would not be cut off because the mucosa is preserved. The inner epithelium of the foreskin is still fused to the epithelium of the glans at the neonatal age, so this structure is preserved. If you look at the picture from the website I posted, you will see that the mucosa is protected in the biblical circumcision. The part that is cut off is the redundant end. The circumciser would tug at the north-east-west part of the foreskin followed by putting shield on, which is followed by using a scalpel to cut off the problem part, which is not the sensitive area. The sensitive area is the inside part of the foreskin. The ridged and smooth mucosa would not be disturbed in addition to the frenulum. By preserving the frenulum, meatal stenosis is prevented. In additition by pulling at the north-east-west location of the foreskin, this causes more tissue to remain on the ventral side, which would do 2 things: preserve the sensitive structure of the frenular delta area and in addition it would prevent the development of circumcision induced penal scrotal webbing.

I hate to burst your bubble, BUT even with a CI 4 or 5 cut the ridged band is GONE! The ridged band is on the transition area from inner to outer along with any acroposthion and these are the first to go in EVERY circumcision. SOME of it (very little at best) MAY be left, but usually not.

[KragDragon]

Imagine a man having phimosis who ends up getting a low and tight circumcision verses getting a CI-4 or CI-5 circumcision as a baby, which would keep all the sensitive tissue without any risk of phimosis or para-phimosis. please choose which scenario you would prefer? The ridge band would not be cut off because the mucosa is preserved. The inner epithelium of the foreskin is still fused to the epithelium of the glans at the neonatal age, so this structure is preserved. If you look at the picture from the website I posted, you will see that the mucosa is protected in the biblical circumcision. The part that is cut off is the redundant end. The circumciser would tug at the north-east-west part of the foreskin followed by putting shield on, which is followed by using a scalpel to cut off the problem part, which is not the sensitive area. The sensitive area is the inside part of the foreskin. The ridged and smooth mucosa would not be disturbed in addition to the frenulum. By preserving the frenulum, meatal stenosis is prevented. In additition by pulling at the north-east-west location of the foreskin, this causes more tissue to remain on the ventral side, which would do 2 things: preserve the sensitive structure of the frenular delta area and in addition it would prevent the development of circumcision induced penal scrotal webbing.

1. So you're going to cut off 1000 boys's perfectly good ridged bands to prevent one unfortunate boy from maybe having to get circumcised later on? That makes no sense in my little corner of the universe.

2. A man getting a circumcision is FAR less likely to have it done badly than a baby. As an adult, the man has the power to do his research, discuss his options, request a minimal procedure, change doctors if they won't agree to his terms, and sue if they fuck it up. The baby? His fate is entirely in someone else's hands and if they choose a tight cut and/or botch the operation, he's up shit creek.

3. A preputioplasty is a far better solution to phimosis than circumcision. Simple, minimal, leaves all your anatomy and nerves intact, very low risk, heals faster than a full circ. There's simply no place for circumcision in the world aside from obsessive traditionalism.

[Frenulum2002]

I hate to burst your bubble, BUT even with a CI 4 or 5 cut the ridged band is GONE! The ridged band is on the transition area from inner to outer along with any acroposthion and these are the first to go in EVERY circumcision. SOME of it (very little at best) MAY be left, but usually not.

But the inner mucosa, which consists of both the smooth mucosa and the ridged mucosa would still be fused to the glans as an infant, so as long as the adhesions are not ripped from the glans, then the important sensory tissue would not be removed. The biblical circumcision doesn’t break the adhesions, so the ridged mucosa and smooth mucosa are protected from amputation. here is a great visual model showing what was cut off in biblical times:

https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

The way doctors do it is mutilation and the way the religious circumcisions are performed in modern times is also mutilation, but the biblical circumcision, Would only have benefits. Look at the model for what is cut off.