Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Studies comparing intact vs restored sensitivity?

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

  • Studies comparing intact vs restored sensitivity?

    Like the title implies, do any legit studies exist that compare the sensitivity of the restored penis to the sensitivity of the intact penis?

  • #2
    Not that I'm aware of. Probably wouldn't help any of us anyway though. Comparison is one of the many roots of unhappiness. Just know that restored will be miles better then unrestored and that should be good enough. It's the best we have.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not aware of any studies that treat non-surgical restoration as legitimate, period.
      Visit my restoration progress journal.

      Comment


      • #4
        Let me tell you all something. I was cut as an adult and the difference is HUGE. If I were to put a number on it, I would rate intact an obvious 10, cut about a 3 at best, and mine was a clean, generous cut with plenty of inner skin, left albeit the top half of my frenulum was taken. Now that I am restoring and only at a CI 4, I would put it at a 5 and I've got a lot of skin to grow yet. It's best not to dwell on what it should have been like, look to the future. It will be the best you've ever known and that is worth every minute of inconvenience.

        Comment


        • #5
          And, it would be artificial vs natural, so it isn't clear that any serious study would ever be done. Apples, oranges, from a scientific view.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't think either the science or medicine communities have much of an interest at all in restoration as sad as that is. So it will most likely never happen. However there is nothing artificial about the skin we grow. It may be added in an unnatural way but it is comprised of natural skin and vessels just like any other form of mitosis. That's like saying the skin people grow to accommodate fat when they gain weight is "artificial"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
              Let me tell you all something. I was cut as an adult and the difference is HUGE. If I were to put a number on it, I would rate intact an obvious 10, cut about a 3 at best, and mine was a clean, generous cut with plenty of inner skin, left albeit the top half of my frenulum was taken. Now that I am restoring and only at a CI 4, I would put it at a 5 and I've got a lot of skin to grow yet. It's best not to dwell on what it should have been like, look to the future. It will be the best you've ever known and that is worth every minute of inconvenience.
              So the part of your frenulum nearest to your ridged band was removed?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Canadajuice View Post

                So the part of your frenulum nearest to your ridged band was removed?
                No the part attached to the V in the glans. I still have some of it starting at my scar line to about 1/2 way to where the rest of it was attached.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Violator View Post
                  I don't think either the science or medicine communities have much of an interest at all in restoration as sad as that is. So it will most likely never happen. However there is nothing artificial about the skin we grow. It may be added in an unnatural way but it is comprised of natural skin and vessels just like any other form of mitosis. That's like saying the skin people grow to accommodate fat when they gain weight is "artificial"
                  You're right, there's nothing artificial about the skin we grow. But that isn't what I was referring to. Let me be clearer:

                  The end "product" from restoring is nothing like Nature's product. Two very different structures, and from a scientific view (and a medical view, since you mention it), there wouldn't be much of a challenge to noting the obvious differences. Anything beyond that is pretty much subjective.

                  And, because it needs to be said again, for some: the 'foreskin" referred on forums isn't the one you started life with, it's a fabricated creation, not the least because you have to roll it back down to "make" it every day (or you should, after you wash). Yes, your skin adds to itself, and that's a natural process, and some lost function returns, but that doesn't make it the original. It would be a "foreskin" only in the broadest definition, not an anatomical definition.

                  So........aside from the "fringe" stigma associated with it (which doesn't help the situation), little professional interest in it, in my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree, it's not a real foreskin in that sense, just an extension of the shaft skin and inner mucosa we have left that mimics some of the functions of the OEM unit.

                    I think the interest in the study would be to find out if the sensation damage more results from loss of specialized nerves and structures or just the mechanical function loss and the glans sensitivity reduction. To find out how much sensation could be regained.

                    But as I said, that may be something that we are better off not knowing. And it won't make a difference to what we could do about it anyway. It's hard to not over think things but I think I am better off to just make a habit of tugging and not let the details cloud my mind.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I did read a research about it where men were tested to detect sensitive points in the penis and found out the when the end of the foreskin is stimulated it generated brain activities the most, also the frenulum. Circed men had less brain activities when tested.

                      After reading that years back when starting to know bout circ I feel so lost and deprived. Well we cant dwell all the time on whats lost and how sex could be 10 fold times better with a "real foreskin". All we can do is make things better by restoring and making sure that boys of the future generation wont have to go through this.

                      I still have my hopes on foregen. I hope they will succeed but on the mean time I'll tug. Also there are many pleasure points in the body other than the penis. I do exploit them and with restoring penis my orgams became more powerful than before. It's like when you dont move your feet for a long time then you get some electrocution, but all over the body instead.

                      KOT!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Violator View Post
                        I agree, it's not a real foreskin in that sense, just an extension of the shaft skin and inner mucosa we have left that mimics some of the functions of the OEM unit.

                        I think the interest in the study would be to find out if the sensation damage more results from loss of specialized nerves and structures or just the mechanical function loss and the glans sensitivity reduction. To find out how much sensation could be regained....
                        The much longer version:

                        It wouldn't be an accepted fact that there is any sensation loss. So that would have to be addressed as a hypothesis, not anything proven. Right away, there's work needed (a lot of it) to even begin to walk in the door, towards a study on what the OP is asking about. You gotta walk in the door, and before that you gotta recognize that there is a door in front of you.

                        (WE know there is a(n eventual) loss, both from anecdotal complaints from savy older guys, and from (we) finished restorers, and from guys who are down the path of restoration and who've covered long enough to experience this truth. But we are a minority, not formal scientific research. I can testify that I gained a "large" sensation gain, but that would be anecdotal, un-quantified and unproven. Big, un-adressed gap between us and formal science thus far).

                        2. That there is a loss in the number of specialized neurons would also have to begin with this as a hypothesis. You'd think this would be obvious, no study needed, that the stripping away most of those neurons would of course (significantly) affect sensation. In other words, if nothing's there to send a signal except what's left in the way of special neurons, then......less signal; used to be bunch of them, circ took a lot of them. But this, as a scenario, is unstudied, primarily because there is a lack of any true scientific study on most aspects of penile sensation. Sad, but true. It wasn't until the mid to late '90s that anything has even begun in this regard. (aslo, point #4 has a direct effect on this.....)

                        3. Research hypotheses begin with established facts, and then move into only a bit of the unknown. Add to that the fact that science recognizes that the "parts" approach to human physiology is short sighted; kind of the 1800s approach to causation. So here's the thing: in the case of peripheral sensation, there's a stimulus (light touch, poke from a pointy thing, sexy aspects of the Mrs or Mr); then there's the receiver of the stimulus, ie the neuron (a specialized neuron, dedicated to receive a signal (or several types of signals) which translates that stimulus into an chemical/electric signal. And then there is the interpreter of that signal when it's relayed to the CNS. This usually refers to the brain.

                        So......not so simple, buncha parts, and "interpretation" is all loose and hard-to-grasp-y. "Where do we begin in all this", says science. They've begun, but with with just a few of "bits" that I referred to, and those bits are miles away from where the OP want's to begin his questioning. Research is ongoing, but by scientific method it's very slow, because research doesn't want to get ahead of itself. They get laughed at (and worse) from peers.

                        4. And lastly, but certainly not the least, that interpreter, the brain, can apparently tune out an overload of signal. Signal tune-out (from a constant signal) happens in certain other (local) areas of the body, causing various lengths of lag time before some return of function happens. Does this also happen with penile sensation? Nobody knows formally (that I'm aware of). Personally, I think this is exactly what happens when we recover mucosa long enough to allow it to stop sending the constant "ouch, I'm dry and abraded"' signal, which the brain tuned out as a signal overload. But who am I. Nobody, in the larger view of known formal science.

                        Maybe when mucosa is covered and moist, the brain says "Ok, it's quieter now, so who down there wants to say something". This gives those (far fewer) remaining Meissner's corpuscles a chance to be heard. They were always there, and always firing off, doing their best, but they weren't being recognized by the brain in their original intensity. The problem here for scientific research is the first question: "what are we looking at here?" It's all a bunch of unknowns; with some of them already being debated over. (which is good, maybe that will engender a study of some sort) So presently science would have to approach the OP's study from 'way back there' at that door that was just recently recognized.

                        From science's view, the OP's study might sound interesting (at this point, probably not), but there isn't much of any established (or recognized) fact to begin from. So again, big gap between us and them ... a really big gap in the time to needed to eventually get to the OP's study, a big gap in just the basic recognition of "parts", and of course a big gap in understanding.

                        We feel the loss of sensation, probably most often by sensation returning after covering. But they would need to stand apart from "feeling", and try to identify and quantify loss, and the return of sensation. And they have to do a whole lot of study first.
                        Last edited by Info; 08-13-2016, 10:13 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Info View Post

                          The much longer version:

                          It wouldn't be an accepted fact that there is any sensation loss. So that would have to be addressed as a hypothesis, not anything proven. Right away, there's work needed (a lot of it) to even begin to walk in the door, towards a study on what the OP is asking about. You gotta walk in the door, and before that you gotta recognize that there is a door in front of you.

                          (WE know there is a(n eventual) loss, both from anecdotal complaints from savy older guys, and from (we) finished restorers, and from guys who are down the path of restoration and who've covered long enough to experience this truth. But we are a minority, not formal scientific research. I can testify that I gained a "large" sensation gain, but that would be anecdotal, un-quantified and unproven. Big, un-adressed gap between us and formal science thus far).

                          2. That there is a loss in the number of specialized neurons would also have to begin with this as a hypothesis. You'd think this would be obvious, no study needed, that the stripping away most of those neurons would of course (significantly) affect sensation. In other words, if nothing's there to send a signal except what's left in the way of special neurons, then......less signal; used to be bunch of them, circ took a lot of them. But this, as a scenario, is unstudied, primarily because there is a lack of any true scientific study on most aspects of penile sensation. Sad, but true. It wasn't until the mid to late '90s that anything has even begun in this regard. (aslo, point #4 has a direct effect on this.....)

                          3. Research hypotheses begin with established facts, and then move into only a bit of the unknown. Add to that the fact that science recognizes that the "parts" approach to human physiology is short sighted; kind of the 1800s approach to causation. So here's the thing: in the case of peripheral sensation, there's a stimulus (light touch, poke from a pointy thing, sexy aspects of the Mrs or Mr); then there's the receiver of the stimulus, ie the neuron (a specialized neuron, dedicated to receive a signal (or several types of signals) which translates that stimulus into an chemical/electric signal. And then there is the interpreter of that signal when it's relayed to the CNS. This usually refers to the brain.

                          So......not so simple, buncha parts, and "interpretation" is all loose and hard-to-grasp-y. "Where do we begin in all this", says science. They've begun, but with with just a few of "bits" that I referred to, and those bits are miles away from where the OP want's to begin his questioning. Research is ongoing, but by scientific method it's very slow, because research doesn't want to get ahead of itself. They get laughed at (and worse) from peers.

                          4. And lastly, but certainly not the least, that interpreter, the brain, can apparently tune out an overload of signal. Signal tune-out (from a constant signal) happens in certain other (local) areas of the body, causing various lengths of lag time before some return of function happens. Does this also happen with penile sensation? Nobody knows formally (that I'm aware of). Personally, I think this is exactly what happens when we recover mucosa long enough to allow it to stop sending the constant "ouch, I'm dry and abraded"' signal, which the brain tuned out as a signal overload. But who am I. Nobody, in the larger view of known formal science.

                          Maybe when mucosa is covered and moist, the brain says "Ok, it's quieter now, so who down there wants to say something". This gives those (far fewer) remaining Meissner's corpuscles a chance to be heard. They were always there, and always firing off, doing their best, but they weren't being recognized by the brain in their original intensity. The problem here for scientific research is the first question: "what are we looking at here?" It's all a bunch of unknowns; with some of them already being debated over. (which is good, maybe that will engender a study of some sort) So presently science would have to approach the OP's study from 'way back there' at that door that was just recently recognized.

                          From science's view, the OP's study might sound interesting (at this point, probably not), but there isn't much of any established (or recognized) fact to begin from. So again, big gap between us and them ... a really big gap in the time to needed to eventually get to the OP's study, a big gap in just the basic recognition of "parts", and of course a big gap in understanding.

                          We feel the loss of sensation, probably most often by sensation returning after covering. But they would need to stand apart from "feeling", and try to identify and quantify loss, and the return of sensation. And they have to do a whole lot of study first.
                          Info, what exactly is it that you do in the real world? Are you a researcher of some sort? I'm just curious. I don't want to stroke your ego too much but your posts are very interesting to read.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Canadajuice View Post

                            Info, what exactly is it that you do in the real world? Are you a researcher of some sort? I'm just curious. I don't want to stroke your ego too much but your posts are very interesting to read.
                            Dont worry, I'm sure he does plenty of stroking on his own time 😂

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Canadajuice View Post

                              Info, what exactly is it that you do in the real world? Are you a researcher of some sort? I'm just curious. I don't want to stroke your ego too much but your posts are very interesting to read.
                              Your "real world" is not my world.

                              I was sent to your dimension as an emissary from an advanced race of beings. We are tall and angelically beautiful, and wear Savile Row-quality suits. I bring you knowledge. About your weenies.

                              My race has been in an eons-long dimensional war with the ScreenNamers race. You can recognize their race by their psychological drift. They proclaim it proudly, through an inability to call themselves anything other than offensively aggressive names. They do this to hide their small (and probably not so angelically beautiful) selves. Names such as Raper, Crusher, Torturer, or.......uh.......Violation...Making... Person.

                              They always will, so one of us always will.


                              Boring, really. But we do have our good suits.
                              Last edited by Info; 08-16-2016, 12:36 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X