Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the tlc-device still working even withouth ANY foreskin left?

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

  • Is the tlc-device still working even withouth ANY foreskin left?

    Hi guys,
    well the title says it all: i've seen the video and the person uses the tlc but he has lots of foreskin left- i've been circumcised really thight and haven't got any left - can i still use it?

    Thanks loris

  • #2
    Most likely not, you need at least a little skin to be able for the tugger to grip onto.
    If it helps reference to this chart http://www.restoringforeskin.org/cov...x/CI-chart.htm
    You need to be at approximately CI-3 to be able to wear the tlc-x

    Comment


    • #3
      Most men with little skin start with tape or manual. I used t-tape strips and an insert:

      http://www.restoringforeskin.org/ima...llustrated.pdf

      But many have found manual works well for them.

      How much skin do you have? the words "little" and "any" are not very precise. I started out with very little inner skin, maybe 1/4 inch. I had no coverage when flaccid, no skin movement when erect. Does that sound like you?

      You can, of course, buy it and try it. If you don't have enough skin, then put it on the shelf until you do.

      Regards

      Comment


      • #4
        The guy in the TLC video, Ron, is fully restored in that video. If you were cut really tight you'll have to start with manual methods, T-tape, or the canister method. Go to www.restoringforeskin.org . There's a wealth of information there about skin coverage index and manual methods and a bunch of other great info.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by loris View Post
          Hi guys,
          well the title says it all: i've seen the video and the person uses the tlc but he has lots of foreskin left- i've been circumcised really thight and haven't got any left - can i still use it?

          Thanks loris
          And I'll add, because Jesus, it needs to be said:

          Those of us who restored successfully DID NOT START WITH ANY FORESKIN LEFT. Any "experts" here get that? We all start with NO foreskin. What we tug on, is SHAFT SKIN, and any old inner skin we have left. When we finish we do not have a foreskin THEN, either. Circumcision takes most, or all, of your foreskin away. Gone, gone for ever. What you will eventually grow is NOT foreskin. What you will eventually grow is expanded shaft skin, and some expanded old inner skin which you can form a tube from.

          You DO have enough skin to begin. EVERYBODY has enough skin to begin. EVERYBODY who wants to. Tugging will give you much more than you realize now. You have EVERYTHING YOU NEED to begin now. It will be very much worth it, even though it takes a long time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
            The guy in the TLC video, Ron, is fully restored in that video. If you were cut really tight you'll have to start with manual methods, T-tape, or the canister method. Go to www.restoringforeskin.org . There's a wealth of information there about skin coverage index and manual methods and a bunch of other great info.
            Ok great! I will do that, thanks!

            Comment


            • #7
              The foreskin is usually defined as the skin starting at the corona. So unless you had a really loose circumcision, we all start with no foreskin. But that's okay. You're supposed to push the body of the cone against your glans, followed by pulling the skin tube up over the cone, to allow enough skin to be caught between the inner and outer cones. I can tell you I had no part of my skin tube that would ever hang below the corona before. I was probably an RCI-2 to start with. Now I'm an RCI-4, which is the rollover point. And I can tell you I had very little problem getting it on at a medium circumcised level. Now if you are RCI-1 you may find it challenging, and if you are an RCI-0 it may actually be impossible. It all depends how much loose skin you have. Basically, if you can pull the skin a little bit past the corona and still be comfortable, than you can use a device. If not, it's best to manually tug until you reach that point.

              http://www.restoringforeskin.org/pub...rage-index-rci

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by loris View Post
                i've seen the video and the person uses the tlc but he has lots of foreskin left
                Sorry my video is misleading. Indeed, I didn't have the resources to make any video until I had been tugging for 4 years.

                To use a tapeless device you'll want to roll skin up to cover as much of the Tugger body as you comfortably can with skin, to spread out the gripping force.
                -Ron Low
                Service@TLCTugger.com
                847 414-1692 Chicago

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Reality View Post

                  And I'll add, because Jesus, it needs to be said:

                  Those of us who restored successfully DID NOT START WITH ANY FORESKIN LEFT. Any "experts" here get that? We all start with NO foreskin. What we tug on, is SHAFT SKIN, and any old inner skin we have left. When we finish we do not have a foreskin THEN, either. Circumcision takes most, or all, of your foreskin away. Gone, gone for ever. What you will eventually grow is NOT foreskin. What you will eventually grow is expanded shaft skin, and some expanded old inner skin which you can form a tube from.

                  You DO have enough skin to begin. EVERYBODY has enough skin to begin. EVERYBODY who wants to. Tugging will give you much more than you realize now. You have EVERYTHING YOU NEED to begin now. It will be very much worth it, even though it takes a long time.
                  That's not entirely accurate. Anyone with some INNER mucosa technically still has SOME of their INNER foreskin. Luckily I was left with about 1.5" of it. Some, not so lucky. But, GOD DAM I miss my ridged band!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by parsecskin View Post

                    That's not entirely accurate. Anyone with some INNER mucosa technically still has SOME of their INNER foreskin. Luckily I was left with about 1.5" of it. Some, not so lucky. But, GOD DAM I miss my ridged band!
                    So? Probably most of us have some old inner skin left. But that doesn't make what we have a "foreskin". Far from it.

                    If you are intact you have a foreskin. If you were circumcised, you don't. It's just that simple. What you do have after circumcision is truncated inner skin (of a certain length), and truncated shaft skin (of a certain length). THIS is what we have to work with when we start restoration. This IS entirely accurate.

                    And this is more than enough to begin tugging.

                    When we've done our restoration from beginning to goal, we STILL don't have a foreskin. We have expanded, ie loose, skin which we can roll down into a temporary skin tube. Not bad, it's worth it, but it never will be the original thing. This is why I don't like it when guys call what they have, their "foreskin". Nope. It ain't. That's newbie talk.

                    And if you notice, the OP seems to be under the impression that you need a partial "foreskin" to even begin to tug. Not a person here picked up on that. Amazing. Give him a break; support him, not your own agenda. You guys do read the posts, right?

                    Resto-mod supported the dumb-ass idea that we have "foreskins" and said the OP "probably" doesn't have enough to tug. Nonsense, for a bunch of reasons. Somebody needed to correct that so the OP and anyone in the future understands the situation we all start with.

                    Jesus. The internet in all its social media glory. Whine about "support" when you get called on BS, and ignore real support when it's staring you in the face.
                    Last edited by Reality; 05-01-2018, 04:25 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well since foreskin literally means front skin it wouldn't be inaccurate to call a restored foreskin that name, as long as it wasn't equated to the intact foreskin.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by StemCellRestoration View Post
                        Well since foreskin literally means front skin it wouldn't be inaccurate to call a restored foreskin that name, as long as it wasn't equated to the intact foreskin.
                        Unless you have a concern for:

                        Truth, intactivism and its so very important message, education, basic human anatomy, and the full compliment of penile function which you will never have (some of which parsecskin referred to).

                        You want to ignore all that for the sake of "supportive" forum newbie-speak and self involved ignorance? Go for it. Not surprised. It would be very inaccurate though. It is the definition of inaccurate.

                        Again: we do not "restore" "foreskins". Even if a person spends the decade-plus it takes to tug for a mucosal inner, with a shaft skin outer, it is not a "foreskin" which was "restored". It's a facsimile of its own creation, not something you brought back from the dead.

                        And I would suggest further clarity of thought. Forget "literal". You seem to mean the word "simplified". Big difference between those two words. A "literal" foreskin can only be an intact foreskin, not a facsimile of one. So.....a big difference in meaning, and oh jeeze, being fast and loose with words can allow all kinds of manipulation.

                        Do I have to remind anyone, if it's "literally" "front skin" then hell, what's the big deal about cuttin' it off......it's just the skin stuff in front, right?
                        Last edited by Reality; 05-01-2018, 05:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To the contrary, you can also use this definition to promote intactivism. Since it literally just means front skin it makes it seem ridiculous to stigmitize it. There also isn't any exact point where the midskin/shaftskin turns into the foreskin. There is a point where inner and outer skin meet. But the outer foreskin literally just continues from the shaftskin.

                          This is not to disregard the important functions that can't be restored, like the frenar band and frenulum. But I think it is futile to try to stop restored men from calling what they have a foreskin, providing they make a distinction between intact and restored status, which I'm sure virtually all restorers do. It fits the broadest definition, and to any onlooker that's what it would appear to be. They've worked hard for this. I say let them have the word and don't fret about the semantics.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How about "fauxskin"?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by StemCellRestoration View Post
                              To the contrary, you can also use this definition to promote intactivism. Since it literally just means front skin it makes it seem ridiculous to stigmitize it. There also isn't any exact point where the midskin/shaftskin turns into the foreskin. There is a point where inner and outer skin meet. But the outer foreskin literally just continues from the shaftskin.

                              This is not to disregard the important functions that can't be restored, like the frenar band and frenulum. But I think it is futile to try to stop restored men from calling what they have a foreskin, providing they make a distinction between intact and restored status, which I'm sure virtually all restorers do. It fits the broadest definition, and to any onlooker that's what it would appear to be. They've worked hard for this. I say let them have the word and don't fret about the semantics.
                              As we've seen, right there in front of our eyes, there was a very real confusion over what a "foreskin" is, vs what we begin with, and end with, which was implied. "Front skin" is a kind of stigmatizing phrase, and hardly has anything to do with promoting intactivism, in that it diminishes the real organ, and confuses those who would tug, if they think they can't begin without some vestige of the real organ. Intactivism wants to protect the real organ. Not yours, or mine, or any circumcised guy; too late. The only way to get to the intactivist truth, is to call things by their real name. As it turns out, calling things by their real name is the seat of all wisdom, and a little harder to do than it sounds, so why get in the way of that with half-assed facile "terms"?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X