Is it really that common to have a short foreskin and a partially exposed glans ?

[Flotiz]

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...

 

[hzs3fg]

I think the long, overhanging, foreskins that you often see in photos are the rarity.

I'm uncircumcised and the only time my glans is totally, completely, covered and when I am at my most shrunken.

 

[accidenttourist]

Very interesting data you found there!
2 observations here:

1. white bias in commercial porns. The British medical study covers a representative population (i.e. with minorities) which may have shorter natural foreskins. My personal sexual experience is that some populations have shorter natural foreskin compared to the whites.
In the National Service study, the non-white population may even be over represented.
That may explain the foreskin length in our perception vs. the population average. (Similar to penis size). BTW, you can double check that the images posted on LPSG has a very heavy white bias.

2. I'm actually surprised by the 8% cases where the foreskin cannot be retracted. Either I have a very biased collection of sex partners, or many of these tight men are straight...
(Personal count of men with very tight foreskin is around 2% I'd say)
(It's something that I definitely remember, a sex partner with a ultra tight foreskin).

 

[mattpsy]

1. theres definitely alot of biases going here, and this is an issue for at least 90% of people

2. youre extrapolating 1 very biased study of a specific population to real life. doing this is bad science. at most you could loosely apply this to british men but you need at least another study to compare results for accuracy

3. lots of men think they are or arent circumcised when they may or may not be. this interferes with the data. there are surprisingly alot of partially cut men. do they count as circumcised? if yes, should their coverage count at all? again, this will affect the results. we dont know how this study deals with these cases, so its even less reliable now

4.

I'm actually surprised by the 8% cases where the foreskin cannot be retracted. Either I have a very biased collection of sex partners, or many of these tight men are straight...
(Personal count of men with very tight foreskin is around 2% I'd say)
(It's something that I definitely remember, a sex partner with a ultra tight foreskin).

already an example here of misenterpreting the data leading to any readers spreading misinformation

its says 8% is essentially a combination of the D. and E. results, E. being the 2.8% unretractable phimosis, which is closer to your 2% estimate of 'very tight' [this is also vague: zero retraction? not enough to show selcus?]. my personal count is maybe 1% for zero retraction, and maybe 1% for some retraction but no selcus. and even with my 1k+ sample size, our sex based samples are skewed because alot of guys with phinosis or minimal retraction dont like to have sex outside of dating/relationships out of embarrassment. so they effectively remove themselves from the pool of subjects.

its like how all kinds of abuse is way more common than we think because people dont report it out of fear/embarrassment

this is why learning to design studies and read results properly is important

 

[nick4zz]

I lived in Iceland and went to the pool everyday, which with open showers means I saw literally thousands of intact guys.
From that experience it's very unusual for the foreskin to not cover the head, no more than a couple of percent. My ex had a foreskin which didn't cover the head.
In terms of Phimosis, about 1 or 2%.

 

[kato_boi]

My theory based on pure observation is that whites, and especially those from Northern and Western Europe in particular the British/Dutch/Irish, have the longest foreskins on average and are most likely to have some form of phimosis.

 

[lowhangers]

I had a skinn that still coverd the glans when erected. Cut for phymosis and to long skinn.

 

[Acratopotes]

I my case it varies a bit, because flaccid is a bit of a variable state but, most often, it covers the glans completely but does not extent beyond it. The coverage is enough that if I try to piss with the skin forward it can deflect the stream at a weird angle. I only have to pull it back very slightly, though to get it clear of the urinary meatus and have a much better aim.

Before puberty, mine had an overhang which would act as a spout so it was possible to piss and aim successfully with no pulling back at all.

I think my conclusion from looking at the data is that phimosis affects a minority and can be rightly considered a pathological (diseased) state, the whole glans and rim exposed when not circumcised would probably also count as abnormal - anything in between is fine and just natural variation.

 

[0Pippo]

from my experience, is not the average situation, but is common when soft, and a bit more common when hard. in adult men, for less then adult is a rare condition.

 

[liittlefiish]

I'm uncircumcised, and my foreskin completely covers the glans. From what I know and have observed, it's more common for the foreskin to cover the entire glans rather than being partially exposed. While there is variation in foreskin length among individuals, a fully covered glans seems to be the norm among uncircumcised men. I've also noticed this in locker rooms; I've seen other guys whose foreskins completely cover their glans when taking a bath.

 

[uncutnine]

1. theres definitely alot of biases going here, and this is an issue for at least 90% of people

2. youre extrapolating 1 very biased study of a specific population to real life. doing this is bad science. at most you could loosely apply this to british men but you need at least another study to compare results for accuracy

3. lots of men think they are or arent circumcised when they may or may not be. this interferes with the data. there are surprisingly alot of partially cut men. do they count as circumcised? if yes, should their coverage count at all? again, this will affect the results. we dont know how this study deals with these cases, so its even less reliable now

4.

already an example here of misenterpreting the data leading to any readers spreading misinformation

its says 8% is essentially a combination of the D. and E. results, E. being the 2.8% unretractable phimosis, which is closer to your 2% estimate of 'very tight' [this is also vague: zero retraction? not enough to show selcus?]. my personal count is maybe 1% for zero retraction, and maybe 1% for some retraction but no selcus. and even with my 1k+ sample size, our sex based samples are skewed because alot of guys with phinosis or minimal retraction dont like to have sex outside of dating/relationships out of embarrassment. so they effectively remove themselves from the pool of subjects.

its like how all kinds of abuse is way more common than we think because people dont report it out of fear/embarrassment

this is why learning to design studies and read results properly is important

I AGREE W/YOU %10, THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID ABOUT POSSESSING THE SKILL OF COMPREHENSION especially that of reading comprehension

IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE FACTS AS PRESENTED ARENT THE FACTS .

 

[svda85]

My foreskin leaves a part of my head uncovered.
View media item 13287931

 

[skinny_indo]

For cut the chase, I'm hoping there would be some pictures posted, so it's more visibly clear

 

[anderes8387]

I think a half-covered glans is hot, like the head has got out before you're even hard

 

[anderes8387]

See also this thread:

Short Foreskin

 

[0Pippo]

I saw some in my life, but very few

 

[JiaFei_Dai]

is it really so common, when the penis is flaccid, to have a short foreskin or that does not completely cover the glans?

I often see short foreskins that expose the glans and long foreskins that almost fully cover it here in Asia, but it is very rare to see one that is completely covered and also has a long length.

 

[Flotiz]

I often see short foreskins that expose the glans and long foreskins that almost fully cover it here in Asia, but it is very rare to see one that is completely covered and also has a long length.

Thanks for your comment. In that regard, it is well established, from various studies, that the Asians often have a short foreskin. Short basically means that, when the penis is flaccid, the glans is not fully covered (i.e. all possible variables are included). This usually occurs during puberty. However, there are also many who have a "normal" or long foreskin. In short, these researches show that Asians have a foreskin that is on average shorter than other ethnic groups or that it is easier to find a boy with a foreskin that leaves the glans partially uncovered. Among other things, we often hear it said that Asians keep their glans uncovered: the truth is instead that many of them have a short foreskin (which maybe every now and then tends to retract completely and stay in that position).

Last consideration hoping not to go too far off topic. This debate should make us reflect and possibly discuss about the importance of having the glans always covered once we have grown up, that is from adolescence onwards. Attention I am not talking about removal or uselessness of the foreskin, but I am referring only to the degree of glans coverage with flaccid and uncut penis. If naturally, with the development of the body, many men have a foreskin that leaves part of the glans exposed, is it therefore so fundamental that during adulthood it is always completely covered ? It would almost seem that, while this is essential until childhood, from puberty it is less important.

 

[JiaFei_Dai]

Actually, I just saw other posts mentioning the frenulum, saying it's the most sensitive part.
I just realized that because my foreskin rolled back on its own as I grew up, exposing the glans, I lost the coverage of the foreskin, which led to my glans and frenulum no longer being sensitive.
I remember that when my foreskin could still cover the glans, it was quite sensitive. Someone also mentioned that without the foreskin covering the glans, the skin of the glans can become dry and keratinized.
I just checked, and it does feel less smooth and shiny than before. I'm now considering whether to try to stretch the foreskin a bit to see if it can be restored.