Circumcision

[Chris530]

I am circumcised but I have a looser circumcision and they left much of the frenulum intact. Anyone else circumcised like that? I know being uncircumcised is supposed to be much better as far as feeling goes but since they left the most sensitive part intact it seems ok.

[Kirby]

I am circumcised but I have a looser circumcision and they left much of the frenulum intact. Anyone else circumcised like that? I know being uncircumcised is supposed to be much better as far as feeling goes but since they left the most sensitive part intact it seems ok.

Hey. Did you have a specific question that you wanted answered? Usually doctors remove the frenulum but some keep it. No big deal.

[Jericho14]

Mine is also like that

[TWDjacob]

Yup I am

[Kirby]

Yeah. Like I said, it’s not uncommon with circs. that are loosely done. Usually leaving it intact also stretches it and may sometimes be uncomfortable.

[Spooky_Eli]

it's kind of still there but not really

[NotSky]

I'm uncircumcised and the foreskin helps remove irritation when masturbating. I can't imagine being circumcised and masturbating with and exposed glans directly touched roughly and quickly.

[ItalianRCM]

You mean the line? I must have had that removed at birth.

[NewLeafsFan]

I am. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong with being circumcised. I got circumcised a year ago and I prefer it. No foreskin can get in the way of direct contact of the head. What good is sensitivity if you can't reach it?

[thatrandomguy01]

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong with being circumcised.

I was circumcised at birth and I never hear that there was anything wrong with being circumcised. It is common in the US and other places and with certain religions and cultures for a very long time.

[aaron165]

I was circumcised at birth, but still have my frenulum.

[sidric8]

There are two things people refer to when they say frenulum: the triangular valley area on the underside of the head where it meets the shaft (that a lot of guys, but not all, find to be a sensitive spot), or the slightly tighter raised line (or if it’s really thick at the top, sometimes a triangle) of skin going down from there. Every penis has the area and its potential for sensitivity, but for this discussion, we’re talking about the line, not the area.

Even in uncut guys, frenulum differs a lot. Some don’t have any perceptible fren line at all, just a smooth transition. Some have a thin line that doesn’t really do much, and some have a thick tight connection that pulls the foreskin toward the base of the head so that it can’t easily (or possibly can’t at all) be pulled fully back down the shaft away from the head.

Most infant circumcisions don’t touch the frenulum. If you grow up circumcised, the skin is always pulled “back” along the shaft as it grows from tiny to full size, and the frenulum grows in stretched position with it and never has a chance to get really thick or tight. Lots of cut guys have just a thin line, or no visible fren at all, without having had it removed.

The main time a fren might have to be removed is if a guy gets cut older, and if he has the kind of thicker fren that keeps the skin from easily pulling all the way back. That would be a problem once he’s circumcised since the skin will *always* be back after that. In an infant circumcision, it’s possible to mess with the fren, but there isn’t much reason to and it isn’t usually necessary and would cause extra bleeding, so doctors usually don’t.

In short, if you were circumcised very young and don’t see any frenulum line, then it’s possible it was removed, but much more likely you just never would have had one anyways, or it never really developed since the skin was always stretched back.

Myself, I have a very slight fren line down to where I was circumcised, and it ends there of course. It means my fren was never removed, it just wasn’t a big one anyways. At least from what I’ve seen, that seems like the most common result, and it’s a good one, since the line itself doesn’t have enhanced feeling or anything and is basically useless if you’re cut.

[ShiveringScientist]

There are two things people refer to when they say frenulum: the triangular valley area on the underside of the head where it meets the shaft (that a lot of guys, but not all, find to be a sensitive spot), or the slightly tighter raised line (or if it’s really thick at the top, sometimes a triangle) of skin going down from there. Every penis has the area and its potential for sensitivity, but for this discussion, we’re talking about the line, not the area.

Even in uncut guys, frenulum differs a lot. Some don’t have any perceptible fren line at all, just a smooth transition. Some have a thin line that doesn’t really do much, and some have a thick tight connection that pulls the foreskin toward the base of the head so that it can’t easily (or possibly can’t at all) be pulled fully back down the shaft away from the head.

Most infant circumcisions don’t touch the frenulum. If you grow up circumcised, the skin is always pulled “back” along the shaft as it grows from tiny to full size, and the frenulum grows in stretched position with it and never has a chance to get really thick or tight. Lots of cut guys have just a thin line, or no visible fren at all, without having had it removed.

The main time a fren might have to be removed is if a guy gets cut older, and if he has the kind of thicker fren that keeps the skin from easily pulling all the way back. That would be a problem once he’s circumcised since the skin will *always* be back after that. In an infant circumcision, it’s possible to mess with the fren, but there isn’t much reason to and it isn’t usually necessary and would cause extra bleeding, so doctors usually don’t.

In short, if you were circumcised very young and don’t see any frenulum line, then it’s possible it was removed, but much more likely you just never would have had one anyways, or it never really developed since the skin was always stretched back.

Myself, I have a very slight fren line down to where I was circumcised, and it ends there of course. It means my fren was never removed, it just wasn’t a big one anyways. At least from what I’ve seen, that seems like the most common result, and it’s a good one, since the line itself doesn’t have enhanced feeling or anything and is basically useless if you’re cut.

You're right about most of this, but when you said most circumcisions dont remove the frenulum thats not true. Perhaps you come from somewhere else other than the US or the middle east, but i can tell you in those places a vast majority of circs remove most of the frenulum. american doctors are trained to do that, theres absoluetly no way for a doctor to know how much skin you'll need later on to grow into because they dont know how big youll be. its a random guess at best, sometimes they leave the frenulum that would be called a loose cut, but the textbooks say high and tight is the way to go. even if the frenulum is intact they couldve severed the nerves to render them useless. I can tell you with my cut they went all the way around to make sure i had no frenulum left. I can see the lines running vertical like you would with a frenulum, but its not my frenulum.

[Ttssman]

Does it give more feeling??

[ShiveringScientist]

circumcision doesnt, if anything it reduces it. if you have more skin, you have more surface area for there to be contact, that alone means being uncut would be more "sensitive", but the real question is how many nerve endings are in the skin thats amputated. its probably quite a few. people have claimed 20k, but theres no scientific data to back that up yet. in other words it does reduce feeling, but we dont know how much. foreskin regeneration is something to consider.

[sidric8]

a vast majority of circs remove most of the frenulum. american doctors are trained to do thatYou can certainly find places on the internet where people say that. I’ve seen it said in multiple places. But I think none of the ones saying actually know. The ones who want to feel bad about circumcision repeat it because it fits their narrative, and other people read it and just don’t know otherwise. I really don’t think it’s true though. Most circumcision instructional videos online specifically say to avoid damaging the frenulum because it bleeds if you do that, and the whole idea of most clamp circumcisions is to be pretty close to bloodless. I’ve seen exactly 1 video where the doc electrocauterizes the fren instead—it certainly does happen, but it’s less common. Anecdotally, all the ones that I’ve seen myself, and almost all the ones in pics online, haven’t been messed with in the fren area. And I know two doctors in the US who I’ve personally asked about it—they both said they have never touched the frenulum when doing a circumcision. It’s possible yours was, but I’m pretty positive that isn’t the common case in the US.

theres absoluetly no way for a doctor to know how much skin you'll need later on to grow intoTrue, but they don’t need to. If the skin is always pulled back because you’re circumcised, the fren grows *with* it. I do know one guy who’s cut and has a fren that is kind of tight and squished sideways—it probably would have been a really tight thick one if he were uncut. He might be better off if they’d snipped it, so in extreme cases, your argument is true I guess.

[ShiveringScientist]

If they take away too much skin, erections will pull and tear the skin. a quick google search should confirm that. once the skins gone, its gone. the remaining skin will grow like it would normally, but it wont grow to take up the space the amputated skin would've. They cut away too much skin and it happens very often. foreskin restoration helps, but it takes a very long time and most of these guys have been having painful erections for their whole lives. Most that suffer from botched circs dont speak out, its not something you talk about to really anyone. even if you did most wouldnt care or worse would laugh about it. theres not much you can do about a botched circ, its a lot easier to cut away skin than to add skin. I'm glad younger doctors arent amputating the frenulum, theres no reason too. You have to wonder if theres no reason to amputate the frenulum is there a reason to amputate the foreskin? its a start at least.

[sidric8]

Tearing happens when skin that isn’t normally stretched gets stretched hard. Most commonly, that happens to the frenulum on uncut guys because it isn’t normally stretched, only during sex acts. But skin that is always stretched grows more until it isn’t. That’s how the “foreskin restoration” you mention works; it’s also what happens to a frenulum that would have been tight on a circumcised guy. And it’s what happens when a skinny person gets fat, and all kinds of other times. Skin that is continually stretched grows. Skin that is rarely and suddenly stretched tears.

[igalg]

I was circumcised at 16 and i still have my frenulum.

[ShiveringScientist]

Tearing happens when skin that isn’t normally stretched gets stretched hard. Most commonly, that happens to the frenulum on uncut guys because it isn’t normally stretched, only during sex acts. But skin that is always stretched grows more until it isn’t. That’s how the “foreskin restoration” you mention works; it’s also what happens to a frenulum that would have been tight on a circumcised guy. And it’s what happens when a skinny person gets fat, and all kinds of other times. Skin that is continually stretched grows. Skin that is rarely and suddenly stretched tears.

you're right, erections are pretty rare and sudden. to grow more skin you have to stretch it for several hours a day every day for years, erections dont last long enough to grow new skin, only tear what there.

[Turbofan explosion]

Mine's also like that. I still have a frenulum.