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?
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?
Comment