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

When penis is soft, my foreskin...


  • Total voters
    158

Flotiz

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Posts
3,370
Media
259
Likes
30,330
Points
433
Verification
View
Gender
Male
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...

1111.png
 
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).
 
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
 
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%.
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flotiz and hzs3fg
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenco65
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenco65
In fact, it is a very controversial subject and according to the different anatomical studies, according to the regions of the world and the ethnic groups, the results differ greatly. On this subject, it is necessary to exclude for the statistics those who mainly practice ritual or medical circumcision without obligation. Asians, as mentioned in this thread, very often have a shorter foreskin than Europeans in general. But the aspects can be misleading outside of a study of strict medical measures, because the cultural aspect can play a role. Thus, in Japan, young boys, from the age of 7/8, are taught to keep the glans uncovered permanently; it is both cultural (politeness) and hygienic. In fact, during puberty, the foreskin tends to grow less, having been held since childhood in position behind the glans corona. Thus, many Japanese adults have a short or even very short foreskin, with an exposed glans. In Europe, where this custom does not exist, it is more common to have variations in the length of the foreskin. As also mentioned in this thread, generally all little boys before puberty have a long foreskin that extends in front of the glans, which is called the "foreskin overhang". During puberty, depending on generally genetic factors, the glans develops more or less, accompanied by a greater or lesser lengthening of the foreskin. All these combinations are found with extremely variable final results in adulthood. About 10% of adult men retain a long foreskin with an overhang. Another 10% have a long foreskin but without an overhang, with the preputial ring more or less open through which the glans and the urinary meatus can be seen. Then the vast majority, 75% of uncircumcised men, have an "average" foreskin covering the glans from 10 to 80% of its surface. So we can say that as a general rule, the foreskin does not cover the glans entirely, but with a great variety, the glans can appear slightly, on 1/4, 1/3, half of its length up to 80%. And there are still 5% of men in whom the foreskin is too short to cover the glans. Men with a short foreskin covering less than 20% of the glans tend to remain permanently uncovered and to appear in a similar aspect to a circumcised man.

Finally, there remains another variation to take into account is that of temperature. The colder it is, the more the penis retracts. And in fact, the more the foreskin covers the glans. The same penis can appear with a glans covered at 80% at room temperature (15°/20°) and be completely covered when leaving a bath in cold water. Similarly, the same penis can appear half-uncovered or even completely uncovered in very hot weather (35° and +).

Finally, one last element that can play not on the actual length of the foreskin but on its position, on the glans or behind the glans (uncovered) is the fact of having the frenulum intact or not. It is common for the frenulum to be broken during sexual life, or cut voluntarily for various reasons, medical or not. When the frenulum is no longer there to have its function of "return spring" of the foreskin, the latter has a greater tendency to remain in its position. So much so that after sexual intercourse, it will not necessarily return to the glans when the penis becomes flaccid again. This explains why men who are fans of "Bare Glans" (a movement of men who voluntarily keep the glans uncovered) have very often removed their frenulum. And this also explains certain preconceived ideas, which have given rise to popular beliefs, particularly in Western Europe; the frenulum being often subject to its tear or its complete rupture sometimes during the first or one of the first sexual intercourses, this has been assimilated to "male deflowering". Subsequently, the glans remaining more easily and more frequently uncovered, certain beliefs in less educated circles gave rise to a myth in the countryside: that according to which once deflowered (meaning once the frenulum is broken) the man having lost his virginity keeps the glans uncovered permanently. This is of course false as a general rule, but myths die hard! These popular images have sometimes influenced even certain general practitioners ... this is also supported by pornographic imagery where it is very rare to see men with the glans covered by the foreskin.