Partial circumcisions?

I am such a case, and quite frankly pretty happy with the result. I would have never undergone a surgery of circumcision by choice but I happened to have problems at uncovering my glans due to phimosis.

After the surgery with a limited cut, my penis looks covered when at rest but uncovers very easily when needed. Personally, but also here it might be different for others, I like not only the feel of it but also the look of it.

I suppose you requested a partial circumcision when you talked to your doctor. I am curious how the doctor reacted or if they tried to talk you into getting a 'normal'/full circumcision?

Also sort of wondering if any provisions were made to be certain that the operating surgeons restrained themselves from going all the way? How was any measuring done? Were you able to follow the cutting itself while it was being done?

When I required my circumcision I was only presented with the option of a full circumcision so I don't know if partial is an option now or was in the past but this was about 15 or so years ago.

I know of people who have been partially cut but honestly whats the point? If you are already going to experience the pain and the recovery surely it makes very little difference.

I know of people who have been partially cut but honestly whats the point? If you are already going to experience the pain and the recovery surely it makes very little difference.

There are more aspects to being circumcised than purely physical.

There is a very important cultural/religious aspect as well. In the country where I live and other European countries, being circumcised is a prime indicator of being either Jewish or Muslim. Not everyone, or rather let's say that few people wish to be mistaken for adherents to those religions than those who already are.

And there is also the aesthetic: circumcised penises do not look elegant to anyone who was raised with Classical notions of beauty. A circumcised penis is seen as an unnecessary mutilation (if not done for medical reasons ... and then the person is seen to be somewhat pitied for having bad medical luck).

If a person has an overly long foreskin or if when older the penis starts to shrink in size, a partial circumcision can be a solution without having to go full cut. It allows a person to retain a measure of self-worth and doesn't really alter their perception of their how their body looks.

@Mrssnipgirl As @agracier points out some people are reluctant to undergo or to have their child undergo a surgery that has strong religious connotations. Apparently my mother was told my surgery would be less severe than a religious circumcision, that less would be cut (in reality the result is quite tight but since my mother had no means to compare she still believed that canard after I was operated on).

In a medical sense, there is no such thing as a partial circumcision, just as there is no such thing as a partial appendectomy. In lay terms, “partial circumcision” simply refers to incomplete removal of the prepuce. Human (surgical) error is the primary cause - such as an inexperienced surgeon, difficulty in accurately measuring the amount of tissue to be excised, or the use of an unfamiliar circumcision device.

Because incomplete removal of the prepuce does not result in complete and permanent exposure of the glans, the preventive and hygienic benefits of the procedure cannot be reliably achieved. In fact, most urologists will refuse a patient’s request to preserve a portion of the foreskin. If the coronal sulcus is not clearly visible postoperatively, it may become necessary to repeat the procedure.

@madebare : When I was a child, at the age of 6, I underwent a partial circumcision due to phimosis. And I can tell you that it was absolutely not due to human surgical error !

The surgeon only removed a small part of my foreskin, which allows me to pull it back completely without difficulty and therefore to wash myself thoroughly without any hygiene problems.

The benefit of this partial circumcision is that my glans has retained all its sensitivity and, furthermore, I don't need lubricant to masturbate.

In a medical sense, there is no such thing as a partial circumcision, just as there is no such thing as a partial appendectomy. In lay terms, “partial circumcision” simply refers to incomplete removal of the prepuce.

In fact, most urologists will refuse a patient’s request to preserve a portion of the foreskin.

This is an apples and oranges things: an appendicitis is life-threatening.

A circumcision is a social/fashion/traditional/religious inspired procedure that in the vast vast majority of cases has no bearing on a person's health. One doesn't die if not circumcised except (possibly?) in very rare situations.

Since a circumcision is not really a question of medical necessity regarding a person's health, perhaps better to liken it to a haircut. You can ask for 'a bit off the top' or 'a shorter summer cut' or whatever length strikes your fancy. Therefore I see no reason why the length of a circumcision cannot be any length a patient requests. I suppose circumcision-obsessed doctors may balk at the idea of a 'wasted opportunity' of ridding the world of yet another foreskin. But why would a circumcision always need to be total?

It's certainly not the same as amputating a gangrened limb where surgeons usually amputate a bit more to be on the safe side and guard against undetected infected tissue. Circumcisions are not carried on diseased tissue, but on healthy skin.

Growing up one of my friends seemed to have a partial but the rest of us either had a full or a foreskin. Nothing in between.

At the time the aim was to "full expose the glans" and give the circumcised look. If you did have primoses a partial would give the "best of both worlds"

When I was a child, at the age of 6, I underwent a partial circumcision due to phimosis. And I can tell you that it was absolutely not due to human surgical error !

@Judyn What I was trying to say is that partial circumcision is uncommon, and only a handful of doctors would attempt to remove just the ridged band, which, of course, does not expose the glans in the flaccid state as it should. Most physicians refuse to perform an incomplete circumcision because of the risk of developing secondary phimosis due to narrowing of the preputial orifice during recovery. In contrast, when a male undergoes a complete circumcision, this is not an issue because the incision is positioned around the shaft behind the glans. An additional problem in infants and young children following incomplete circumcision is the development of preputial adhesions.

I am glad that you haven’t experienced any of these issues during recovery.

only a handful of doctors would attempt to remove just the ridged band, which, of course, does not expose the glans in the flaccid state as it should.

Why should the glans be exposed?

This seems to be a statement that stems from axioms. And axioms are never proven or challenged. They are simply accepted without explanation.

I've read that surgeons are reluctant to cut only the part of the foreskin necessary to resolve phimosis, because phimosis could come back later, so they uncover the glans completely.

Before being circumcised, I had a foreskin that wasn't very long but completely covered my glans. When I was circumcised, the surgeon and I considered a total removal of the foreskin and the frenulum. For him, and for me, there was no question of performing a partial circumcision. My glans is now fully and permanently exposed. In the naturist community, I don't see any half measures. It seems to me that people are intact (a majority in France) and those who are circumcised (a minority) are fully circumcised. Would partial circumcision be exceptional?

In the naturist community, I don't see any half measures. It seems to me that people are intact (a majority in France) and those who are circumcised (a minority) are fully circumcised. Would partial circumcision be exceptional?

You probably wouldn't even see a partial circumcision. Because only a part of the foreskin would have been removed and the glans would still be covered, but not with a long tapering foreskin anymore.

The whole idea of a partial circumcision would be to leave the glans covered as with a natural normal healthy penis, but to remove that part which hinders retracting the foreskin for sexual activity.

My glans is now fully and permanently exposed. In the naturist community, I don't see any half measures.

@gabrob When were you circumcised and why did you have the operation? I can think of a few reasons why circumcision would be highly encouraged in naturist communities. Is this indeed the case?

I was circumcised a year and a half ago. I had always wanted to. It was always obvious to me. A minor health issue was the opportunity to do it in order to prevent any urinary infections. I have never been influenced by the naturist environment. No attitude, no person pushed me to be circumcised. It is a personal choice reinforced by a preventive medical need.

I can think of a few reasons why circumcision would be highly encouraged in naturist communities. Is this indeed the case?

I can think of none really. A glans on a normal healthy uncut penis is usually only retracted for sexual activity. You know very well that this is most definitely not encouraged in nudist venues, at least not in plain view ... ha ha.

Could you give the reasons you're thinking of?

And from my experience, granted only on Spanish nudist beaches, the overwhelming majority of men are not circumcised. Yes, I confess to looking, even if just to make conclusions on my own about circumcision and out of curiosity. Many visitors are also clean shaven with no pubic hair. Another thing I like to check out.

When i was young, one of my friends had a partial circumcision except back then it was (inaccurately) called a ‘semi-circumcision’.

What I gleaned back then was that he had a slit cut in his foreskin to relieve the tight opening. I’ve since read online that this is often referred to as a ‘dorsal slit’. This lesser procedure has the advantage of retaining the foreskin for those adamant they don’t want a full circumcision. However, I’ve also read that there’s a risk of patent dissatisfaction with the flappy appearance once healed and a proportion eventually opt for a full circumcision .

I think @madebare made a good point above in that such surgery carries a risk of potentially wirsening the phimosis although that’s probably down to aftercare. I’d also imagine the wound would likely sting more than a circumcision due to its location, i.e. a circumcision wound would be less ‘mobile’ and not as prone to urine spills or the need for retraction for cleaning etc.

So I think ‘partial circumcision’ merely refers to any surgery on the foreskin that doesn’t involve its full circular removal and resulting in complete or partial exposure of the glans as a permanent state.

@Dwayne There are surgeries (preputioplasty) that can be proposed to patients, or parents thereof, who do not want circumcision for phimosis. My impression is however that unless parents ask for alternatives or seem strongly hostile to circumcision, they are not proposed. My mother said that no alternative surgery was ever mentioned. The only thing they did was to claim that they'd remove less than what done for ritual purposes, and that I think was also incorrect.

Talking about partial circumcisions. I've often read that in Antiquity, actual Jewish circumcision was often/mostly not much more than removing a part of the tip of the foreskin and not much more. Something that we are now calling a partial circumcision on this thread. Apparently it resulted in a foreskin that did not truly uncover the foreskin except perhaps for a small bit, resulting in a look that could pass as that of someone with a naturally short, but still intact foreskin. This was done especially in the eras when the influence of Hellenic culture was particularly strong and wide spread.

So, nothing nothing really new and also something that would seem to contradict all the doomsaying about partial circumcisions.

@agracier I recall reading something like: circumcision originally was a limited cut, but then there were some Jews who hid they were Jewish in the Hellenic world, so then the custom was adopted to make it impossible to confuse a Jew with a Gentile by removing the foreskin completely.

I was circumcised but only very loosely. I still have a lot of loose skin when I am hard and sometimes little skin covers the edge of my glans when I am soft.

there were some Jews who hid they were Jewish in the Hellenic world, so then the custom was adopted to make it impossible to confuse a Jew with a Gentile by removing the foreskin completely.

Right. I have no idea when the change took place though. Maybe after the First Jewish Revolt that was put down by Vespasian and Titus? Maybe later? Maybe during the Middle Ages?

The original circumcision procedure, called “milah,” involved the removal of the preputial tissue that extended just beyond the tip of the glans (what is called the ridged band). After the procedure was complete, most of the prepuce would be retained, but its orifice would be widened. The glans would still be either fully covered, or its exposure in the flaccid state would be minimal. In fact, it was often difficult to tell whether a male had previously been circumcised or simply had a short prepuce.

The second “step,” called “periah,” was introduced much later in response to Jewish men attempting to restore their prepuce and appear uncircumcised. The goal of periah was to remove the entire prepuce for the purpose of complete externalization of the glans in the flaccid state. The procedure involved removal of the maximum amount of the mucosal layer, which effectively made restoration impossible. The result resembled how circumcisions are typically performed today.

Interestingly, the Mohel clamp, the instrument commonly used to perform religious circumcisions in Judaism, is equally suitable for milah and periah. When periah is performed, a greater amount of tissue is pulled into the clamp, followed by an attempt to draw additional mucosal tissue through the slit of the instrument.