I propose again an old thread, hoping that it will be more successful. I have read the results of some research carried out over the years on the length of the foreskin. Obviously, everything is related to the degree of coverage of the glans (always with the flaccid penis). I found the data from these medical investigations quite surprising. Especially with regard to one aspect in particular. In fact, entering specifically, as you can see below, it would seem quite normal for uncircumcised men to have a foreskin that usually does not completely cover the glans. According to these researches, a large percentage, ranging from 32% to 42% of the examined subjects, presents a short foreskin with the glans in part always exposed. Furthermore, a foreskin that does not leave the entire glans hidden is defined as "normal", also quoting what is written in some anatomy books, as if otherwise we are faced with a (too) long foreskin.
Consequently I would like to ask a question: is it really so common, when the penis is flaccid, to have a short foreskin or that does not completely cover the glans? I personally would have expected the opposite, namely that it was more common to have a foreskin covering the entire glans (assuming an 80% vs 20% ratio in favor of long and medium foreskins). In short, I hypothesized that only a minority had the anatomical variation that instead would seem not to be that uncommon...
Consequently I would like to ask a question: is it really so common, when the penis is flaccid, to have a short foreskin or that does not completely cover the glans? I personally would have expected the opposite, namely that it was more common to have a foreskin covering the entire glans (assuming an 80% vs 20% ratio in favor of long and medium foreskins). In short, I hypothesized that only a minority had the anatomical variation that instead would seem not to be that uncommon...