Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What style of circ do I have please?

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

  • What style of circ do I have please?

    Hi. I have been lurking around the forum for a while and have tried to get started with manual tugging but really struggle with time and privacy to make any real difference.

    Firstly, I am trying to work out what style of circ I have. Can anyone advise?

    Secondly, best devices which I can put on and discretely restore?

    Thanks
    UKC
    Last edited by ukcut; 07-31-2018, 04:55 PM.

  • #2
    Not sure what you mean by "style". But here are the forum basics:

    1. Your photos shows what seems to be one of several basic results we've seen. In your case you were left with not a lot of frenular tissue. And you have what I would characterize as an average(?) amount of old inner foreskin left; again, not a lot but some. It's important to realize that there is no "style" to circumcision per se. Some of us would characterize results as "amount of damage", rather than style. In your case, you've been left with enough tissues to start.

    2.Understanding what happened to you, is actually (and I realize this isn't your focus currently) your first brush with intactivist issues. Circumcision isn't standardized. It can be haphazard. The tools used to cut or crush away tissues aren't standardized. So again, there isn't a style per se.

    3. But that aside, you are beginning with a typical circumcision result. Don't be concerned about this, it's a done deal and you are beginning in a workable place. You can expand both shaft skin and old inner mucosa (if you choose). There is nothing to stop you. It takes effort, and time. This process takes years; year after year. So there will be more than enough time to experiment and change strategy.

    4. As far as devices go, if you can roll enough shaft skin onto a device so that it can be gripped, then most devices will work. If you don't have enough to do that, and you may not currently (based on the photo), then manual tugging can be used. Manual can be used throughout the entire process, and I would suggest doing this. I understand your concern about "discreet", but the truth is all devices can have a profile, such that it will appear to be a lump, or a "something", when worn under pants or shorts. Many penises do this, also, so the word "discrete" is a bit fluid. Most of us who have finished, put the discretion concern down the list of issues, but if you work in an area where office politics are a concern, then my suggestion would be to use a cut-down canister(and tape) method, at least for now. This method looks more or less like a penis rather than something unnatural.

    5. And the last thing to say is, keep in mind that while somebody might see some unidentifiable lump (where you might expect to see a lump, ie a penis), they won't know you are tugging. Only you will, so don't feel like your business is out there in public. It isn't. Good luck.
    Last edited by Reality; 07-31-2018, 03:19 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey
      thanks for your message. When I say style, I see lots of references to low and tight, or high and tight etc. I have even seen a pic with different versions but can’t really distinguish which one best describes what I have

      Comment


      • #4
        As I understand it, you would be a low and tight; "low" meaning your scar line is close you your glans, and "tight" meaning no loose skin (or mucosa). I started more or less close to where you are now, and I reached my goal of full flaccid coverage (with a bit more).

        I did it, you can do it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Reality View Post
          As I understand it, you would be a low and tight; "low" meaning your scar line is close you your glans, and "tight" meaning no loose skin (or mucosa). I started more or less close to where you are now, and I reached my goal of full flaccid coverage (with a bit more).

          I did it, you can do it.
          Pretty sure you've got that backwards. An american style high and tight circumcision has mostly inner skin, with outer skin right up to the glans.

          My cut, if anything, is "low" since I have 50/50 inner and outer skin.
          Started CI-0 with no movable skin and 0% FEC

          Currently at CI-4 with 64% FEC

          See my progress gallery

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gdom View Post

            Pretty sure you've got that backwards. An american style high and tight circumcision has mostly inner skin, with outer skin right up to the glans.

            My cut, if anything, is "low" since I have 50/50 inner and outer skin.
            No, yours is a "high" cut. The description of high or low is backwards from what you would logically think. Just another stupid thing about circumcision.

            Comment


            • #7
              ukcut - Looks like I started with similar "style" as you. Maybe about 1cm of inner type mucosal tissue and overall tight enough when flaccid. Really tight, zero skin movement possible when erect. That seems to be the UK style - I'm also in UK.

              I used the T-tape method to successfully restore. It is low profile and can easily be concealed under dark loose fitting pants.
              It's a make-it-yourself item. It's cheap and you can experiment with the geometry and tug conditions.
              Downsides: You would need time to yourself to put it on and then later to take it off. Spontaneous sex would not really be possible. Changing for sports could be done.
              Tormod

              Some of you may have had occasion to run into mathematicians and to wonder therefore how they got that way - Tom Lehrer

              Comment


              • #8
                Lol. I knew this was coming. My understanding comes from years on forums (mostly lurking). I think parsec is right, from what I've read over the years. The bottom line, though, is it's not a "style" in the classic sense, with the possible exception of an adult circ. RIC on a very small, fused penis results in a certain amount of random damage. Random damage doesn't fall within a style; "style" implies a planned result which was compared to an ideal. Random describes an unplanned amount of damage.

                This thread is a good one in my opinion; helps to eventually clarify terms.

                Comment


                • #9
                  "Amount of damage" is definitely more apt than "style", lol.

                  Usually when very little to no inner foreskin tissue is left, the cut was "freehand", meaning no specially designed penile mutilation device was used.

                  When I frame the entire concept intellectually in the manner Reality has, it makes me laugh because of how absurdly creepy it all is.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X