Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can the result of restoration be called foreskin?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can the result of restoration be called foreskin?

    Foreskin: The fold of skin that covers the glans of the penis.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreskin

    The thing we create through restoration is a fold of skin that covers the glans, so by dictionary definition, it is indeed a foreskin. It's missing some important pieces, but it's a foreskin.

    I'd say it even qualifies medically, because it is derived from the remnants of the original. You're not bringing new skin in from somewhere else... just taking what little inner foreskin remnant and outer skin you have left and expanding it through years of tension until it's big enough to cover the glans. Your restored foreskin is actually made from the scraps of your original one and thus is your original one, sans the ridged band, frenulum, and most of it's nerves.

    Makes me mad when people insist on calling it something else. For those that do believe in calling it something else, here's some questions for you:

    1. A guy with a naturally overhanging foreskin gets a very minimal circ that only removes the overhang (along with the ridged band) but leaves him with full flaccid coverage. Does he still have a foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    2. A guy with phimosis gets circ'd as minimally as possible, taking him down to partial flaccid coverage. After a few years of tugging, he restores himself back to full coverage. Does he still have a foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    3. A boy circ'd at birth is lucky enough to grow up with partial flaccid coverage, which he restores to full coverage... does he have a foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    4. A circumcision victim is cut down all the way to no flaccid coverage at all, but still has a substantial inner foreskin remnant and most of his frenulum. After many years restoring he achieves full coverage... does he have a foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    5. I was cut all the way down to CI-1, and they took 99% of my frenulum... the only upside being that I was left with a lot of inner skin remnant... when I achieve full flaccid coverage, inner skin expanded enough to fit the glans, will I have a foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    6. A baby is cut down to CI-0... only the tiniest remnant of inner skin left, no frenulum, debilitating skin loss. As an adult, through decades of work, he restores to full coverage, even expanding that tiny remnant of inner skin to fit the glans. Does he have a foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    7. Guys who got it the worst, losing the frenulum and all of their inner skin... literally having no remnant of foreskin anatomy left at all... if they restore to the point where their purely outer skin rolls over itself and covers the glans, can the result be called foreskin, or just a skin tube?

    I'd like to know, on a scale of 1 (super minimal circ that leaves full coverage) to 10 (cruel circ removing every last bit of foreskin anatomy), at what point does a man lose his "foreskin" and can only ever have a "skin tube" from that point on?

  • #2
    That is a heavy philosophical question and one I suspect that is going to be hard to answer with complete certainty.

    This is my opinion only and not meant to offend any one in any way and because of this I can't put a number on it.

    If one goes strictly by the book definition, than after restoration one has a complete foreskin.

    If one goes by the actual anatomical 'build' of the foreskin which includes all the different parts, than no. What one has done is create as close to anatomically correct in external appearance as is possible through the wonderful capability of the human body regardless of how one was cut.

    For me if it looks correct, moves correct and I regain some sensitivity I've lost to callousing it's all good and could care less what anyone else thinks because the only ones that will know it's not a 'born as' foreskin would be my parents, my wife and possibly my doctor if they had seen me before and after restoration.

    Comment


    • #3
      Depends on your point of view and how anal you are.

      Comment


      • #4
        The fight against the ignorance surrounding restoration is a constant battle, as is the fight against neonatal circumcision, and for both, especially online.

        Comment


        • #5
          Over many years I have expanded the remnants of my foreskin. I have formed a tube that I can roll over my glans enclosing it much as as my original foreskin might have done if it had not been cut off. In addition to the tube, I also like the term “fauxskin” that crops up from time to time on this forum. My use of both these descriptions acknowledges the fact that what I have grown is not – and never will be – my foreskin renewed. Skin tube or fauxskin – using these descriptions of my reshaped penile anatomy keeps me anchored in . . . reality :-)

          Comment


          • #6
            King~

            I understand your frustration with the various terms that are thrown about here regarding a "finished product" if you will.

            My feelings are if I have mobile skin that is already naturally part of my penis then basically I have not done anything different than some one who has gained weight and then lost it but the remaining skin is still there, albeit a bit loose.

            If I am able to have coverage to the point where my glans is protected from rubbing against underwear or other abrasions it could be considered a foreskin. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

            However, we must be aware that we have been circumcised. That is a fact. No matter how loosely or tightly. And we are missing some vital nerves, and anatomy, not a pleasant thought, but it did happen.

            I think that the idea of restoring foreskin and it being a successful endeavor is more proof of just how remarkable the human body truly is.

            Honestly, It doesn't really matter what we call the expansion of skin that we are focused on. As long as we don't lose motivation due to definitions, that is the key.

            There are some that will split hairs on definitions, techniques, or process of skin expansion no matter what. Perhaps that is where these different "explanations" have come from so as not to sidetrack a topic and to keep it pure to what the poster was trying to convey.

            Hope my ramblings made sense.

            Gentle
            My Progress Gallery @ https://foreskinrestoration.vbulleti...tle-s-progress

            Comment


            • #7
              We are awaiting with faded breath, a duel of epic proportions. The scenery is just right, a light jab has already been thrown...

              Click image for larger version  Name:	download.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	10.5 KB ID:	42284

              *scurries off into the distance*
              PROGRESS GALLERY

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by salamander6773 View Post
                We are awaiting with faded breath, a duel of epic proportions. The scenery is just right, a light jab has already been thrown...

                Click image for larger version Name:	download.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	10.5 KB ID:	42284

                *scurries off into the distance*
                The term is called "bated breath". If you have "faded breath", call 911 lol.

                1. Is choosing my own term, ie "skin tube", "splitting hairs"? No, if nothing else its my term. Every one of my posts are directed to the silent readers and passers-by, not the mouth-breathers. I do this in the interests of information. Ignorance will always stand in opposition to that because its the internet, populated by the ignorant.

                2. Here's the thing: when the wrong terms and misinformation are used, knowledgeable readers shiver a little and walk away in disgust. Nobody likes dealing with idiots.

                3. There are some of us who want the restoration and anti-circumcision messages to be heard, not outright ignored due to ignorance. Promoting ignornace steps on those messages. I would invite every member to re-familiarize themselves with the website title. It doesn't identify this place as The Society of Mouth Breathers, it identifies itself with "Foreskin Restoration (and) Intactivist Network. THAT'S the group you are a member of, both of which have a worthwhile message.

                4. The Intactivist and restoration messages are the ultimate definition of altruism. Any other attitude towards helping others through knowledge is the opposite stance, and deserves to be called out for what they are: the enemy of the people. My posts try to live up to that; the problem is my posts aren't seen as "social", which flushes the anti-altruistics out of the bush. In this thread you have seen at least one member who has remained silent for months, until I hit his hot-button, after which he revealed himself. "anal" he calls my information, when in fact my info is based in a background of university-level human anatomy and physiology. The other guy calls it "splitting hairs".

                5. I call it helpful information, protective of the messages this site tries to see itself as promoting. Please let this site be what Ron intended it to be, NOT what YOU want it to be. Be helpful, be informative.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I consider how to refer to my restored foreskin by thinking about who I am talking to and what my objective is in using whichever term I use. If the thing I am communicating is better served by "foreskin" I use that. If "Restored foreskin" or "skin tube" or some other terms seems to fit better, I use that. I can always explain how I am using the word, if asked, or if the response I get indicates that was not the best term to use. "

                  Regards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This should be added to the post just above: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coron...b63c3b648682c5 with the recognition that "group chat" is, and has been, dangerous.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think the reason this subject bothers me so much is because I'm restoring more for psychological reasons than physical ones. If all you care about is better sex then it doesn't matter what it's called. It is what it is.

                      If you're in it for a sense of regaining control of your body from ideologues who want to own it, then people diminishing your result by insisting that it's only a fake foreskin is like a kick right in the psychological nuts. It's in the same ballpark as calling a guy who lost his legs a half-man.

                      The way I see it, a man who lost some anatomy in the fight for his existence is still a man, and a foreskin that lost some anatomy in the fight for it's existence is still a foreskin. Both are badly damaged, but that doesn't mean they're no longer what they are.

                      I feel like the whole "skin tube" thing originated from circ proponents who want to cast stigma on restorers, and from restorers who were too humble to stick up for themselves.

                      I'm not humble. All you skin tubers can accept the stigma and concede ownership of your dicks to circumcision forever if you want... but I have a foreskin. It's just been cut down to such a pitiful nub that it's minuscule remnant is stretched inside-out down the shaft. With years of work, I can expand that remnant until it rolls all the way back up over the glans. As I said before... permanently damaged, missing a lot of important anatomy, nowhere near it's original glory, but alive and victorious in the fight to exist.

                      I see circumcision the same way I see any injury. Whether it was done to you willfully, or by accident, you took bodily damage.
                      I see restoration the same way I see stitches, skin grafts, or surgery. It's just a medical procedure to repair an injury.
                      I'm a man who's foreskin was disastrously injured, and I'm undergoing a long-term medical procedure to repair it as best as possible.

                      I lost my ridged band, I lost my frenulum, I lost the majority of my sensory nerves, and what little is left of my foreskin no longer fits the definition because it's missing the "fore" part... it's stretched backwards down the shaft instead of forewards up over the glans. But once I get it expanded up over the glans, it's back to foreskin status, sans the parts that are gone forever.

                      You can call an intact foreskin a "skin tube" if you want. That's literally what it is... a tube of specialized skin. Legalized mutilation chops that tube down so harshly that it flattens back and isn't a tube anymore. Restoration expands whatever is left until it is once again a tube, with specialized skin just on the inside. The mucous membrane of the inner skin remnant still works. That's a legit foreskin in my mind. Incomplete, but legit.

                      If you lost all your fingers, I wouldn't call your hand a "paddle". It's a hand. A hand that's unfortunately missing some really important parts.

                      I hope somewhere in all of that I managed to shed some light on my perspective, and why it matters to me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mr Dragon, many thanks for this enlightening, well presented and highly personal post. It is very true that there are almost as many reasons for restoring as there are restorers. In the years I have been a member of this forum I have seen hundreds sign up and then disappear within a few weeks after a couple of posts. We are the hard core who have, or are going to see this thing through to the end. It is the result that matters to me, not so much what label I put on it. On one memorable occasion I was examined by my doctor – a young lady very thorough at he job. She had seen in my medical record from way back that I had been circumcised which is unusual in the UK. I was standing with my pants down and looking completely uncut. She raised the topic, so I told her what I had done. Presumably she sees a few dicks in her trade and I was well pleased when she said "I never would have known". I have had many benefits from restoring , both physical and psychological and I have enjoyed the cyber companionship of this online community. Do I have a foreskin? It seems to the few people who have viewed the results of my endeavors that I do – and that is good enough for me. Best wishes, Woody

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Reality View Post

                          The term is called "bated breath". If you have "faded breath", call 911 lol.

                          1. Is choosing my own term, ie "skin tube", "splitting hairs"? No, if nothing else its my term. Every one of my posts are directed to the silent readers and passers-by, not the mouth-breathers. I do this in the interests of information. Ignorance will always stand in opposition to that because its the internet, populated by the ignorant.

                          2. Here's the thing: when the wrong terms and misinformation are used, knowledgeable readers shiver a little and walk away in disgust. Nobody likes dealing with idiots.

                          3. There are some of us who want the restoration and anti-circumcision messages to be heard, not outright ignored due to ignorance. Promoting ignornace steps on those messages. I would invite every member to re-familiarize themselves with the website title. It doesn't identify this place as The Society of Mouth Breathers, it identifies itself with "Foreskin Restoration (and) Intactivist Network. THAT'S the group you are a member of, both of which have a worthwhile message.

                          4. The Intactivist and restoration messages are the ultimate definition of altruism. Any other attitude towards helping others through knowledge is the opposite stance, and deserves to be called out for what they are: the enemy of the people. My posts try to live up to that; the problem is my posts aren't seen as "social", which flushes the anti-altruistics out of the bush. In this thread you have seen at least one member who has remained silent for months, until I hit his hot-button, after which he revealed himself. "anal" he calls my information, when in fact my info is based in a background of university-level human anatomy and physiology. The other guy calls it "splitting hairs".

                          5. I call it helpful information, protective of the messages this site tries to see itself as promoting. Please let this site be what Ron intended it to be, NOT what YOU want it to be. Be helpful, be informative.
                          Great post. I feel like this community stands for itself as a group of rather scientific perhaps nerdy individuals who questioned something seemingly normal, and went ahead with experimentation standing on the shoulders of giants who have developed very helpful systems to accomplish something many don't know can be accomplished.

                          There are many helpful insights and tips here... and more importantly voices to help encourage, or at least help normalize an isolating activity. It is nice to know there are others going forth into the unknown.
                          PROGRESS GALLERY

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Reality View Post

                            My posts try to live up to that; the problem is my posts aren't seen as "social"...
                            On the contrary, my biggest criticism of you is that you are too social. Or more accurately, too emotional, same as me.

                            Your posts are very condescending, dramatic, hot tempered, aimed at certain people who piss you off. That's very social behavior... in fact that kind of behavior is what makes social media sites filthy rich. Drama sells, because drama sparks human interaction (a.k.a. socializing) and that's what social media makes it's money off of.

                            You're a long way from antisocial... I think the best word for you is insensitive. I'm admittedly a sensitive person, so your hardass attitude grabs my attention.

                            I'm on the same mission of informing people as you... I just have a different perspective on certain things. The way I see it, calling someone's restored foreskin a "skin tube" is very similar to a circ proponent calling the natural foreskin "just an unnecessary piece of skin". Both are factually true... whether intact or restored, a foreskin is literally a tube of skin, and like the circ proponents say, it is unnecessary. You can still live to be 100, have sex, and make babies without it. But both are harmful things to say because of their psychological impact.

                            To circ believers, or people who just don't care, calling it "just some skin" gives them all the more reason to cut their babies. "It's just skin... so what?"

                            To those interested in taking up restoration, calling it a "skin tube" gives them one more reason to give up before they start. "All that work just for a wanna-be skin tube? Forget it."

                            I believe in using more sensitive and encouraging language because, like it or not, we humans are more psychology than science. The science of foreskin really doesn't matter to humans. To get them to stop cutting babies and/or start restoring themselves, you have to appeal to their psychology.

                            Whether they realize it or not, what all humans really want is control. Circumcision is a control issue, not a scientific one. The whole issue is that one side's idea of control is making the choice to cut their son's foreskin off, and the other side's idea of control is having the human right to decide for themselves whether to cut their own foreskin off or not. Unfortunately we are the underdogs in this battle... circ proponents are adults who have babies and scissors and control over both. Intactivists are adults trying to take that control away from them and give it to the baby. That is the most sensitive nerve in all parents, control over their children. They don't want that baby growing up making it's own choices and adopting someone else's beliefs. They want it to adhere to their beliefs and make the decisions they taught it to make.

                            By circumcising, they gain control over the baby right off the bat. He's already well on his way to being a traditional, circumcised christian who will pass the torch on to the next generation. By denying them circumcision, they lose control right off the bat. He's already well on his way to flying off the christian path and becoming who knows what. The unknown is what humans fear most of all.

                            So yeah, getting back on the theme here, names of things matter because they have psychological impact and this is a highly psychological issue. I feel the word "circumcision" is the most important of all. Forget skin tube VS foreskin... the word I should make a post about is circumcision. By giving it a nice, comfortable, procedural sounding name, that hugely tones down the seriousness of what's really happening.

                            There's a big psychological difference between "the right to circumcise" and "right to cut my baby's foreskin off". Factually, both are the same thing. But one is comfortable and one is alarming.

                            Factually a foreskin, intact or missing 90% of goodness due to a past injury, is a tube of skin. But calling it that has a negative impact on how people perceive it, especially if they're new to the scene and haven't really given it any thought before. I know it discouraged me in the beginning when I was first learning up on restoration. But when I looked into it further, I concluded that the restored foreskin is a lot more than a "fauxskin". Part of your inner skin mucous membrane is still there, to be expanded up to adequate size. That's not fake... it's the real deal. Just a very small piece of the real deal. It's not just a "skin tube"... it's got the mucous membrane and the gliding action and everything. A tube of plain old skin isn't worth 10 years of work, but that is.

                            I think it's better to call it a restored foreskin. "Restored" lets the world know you're not in denial or whatever, and "foreskin" lets the world know that the result is satisfactory. You could call it RF for short.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes.

                              I'm gonna go with a functional definition. If it covers your glans, it's a foreskin.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X