Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Personally, I don't see the danger in exposure to pictures of genitalia, but I know other people do so I won't post the pictures here, but .. The wikipedia article on circumcision has some pictures showing non-erect and erect penises, cut and uncut.
Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The picture there describes pretty much my own penile situation as far as foreskins go. It covers the head of the penis unless I'm erect, then the foreskin pulls back. While I do remember the glans was much more sensitive when I was a kid, it's still more sensitive than the other parts of the penis, in contrast with what Freebase Dali wrote. To me, it seems reasonable to assume that constant exposure of the head will desensitize it somewhat.
It's also consistent with me and FD's experiences.  |
Yea, see... mine looks as though it has been circumcised, even though it has not, whether soft or hard.
So, those pictures in the wiki, the top ones are more representative of my foreskin situation, although when flacid, there's a little more of a bulge of extra skin that stays behind the head, but there's nowhere near enough to cover it even half way... so it just remains behind the head.
I'm kind of glad too...
Because uncircumcised penises look more gross than circumcised ones.