Is it true the foreskin should retract on its own because of the erection?

Hi there! Not sure if this is the right section, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

I have a question regarding the uncircumcised penis. All my childhood and pretty much of my teen years the doctors who took care of me, insisted that I should have been circumcised. The main reason was that according to them I had a long foreskin. And everyone insisted that my glans should expose by itself when I got an erection. I mean that the foreskin should retract on it's own because of the erection. Well this never happened to me. I must retract it manually in order to expose the glans.

I was wondering if this theory is actually true. If the foreskin doesn't retract on it's own during an erection, than it should be removed. To be honest I don't believe it is, but don't know where to ask. Thanks in advance.

As long as nothing hurts and it can be retracted manually without pain, it‘s fine. It‘s insane how many bs even medical professionals spread about the topic of foreskins. It seems like a cultural obsession, the completely absurd thought that a major part of men weren‘t „born right“ and need to be „fixed“.

Absolutely! I'm glad my parents were firmly against circumcision. Despite that , I'm still certain that there's something wrong with me, thanks to those "medical professionals"...

I definitely agree with @fjikvtqdb, as long as it is able to be retracted without pain or difficulty, then it should be left alone.

I can pull mine back when I am not erect.... feels good in my underwear. With an erecction it pulls fully back, if not then it pulls back when it goes inside the vagina. I definitely pulls back with anal entry.

Always caused a lot of concerns with doctors before I was 17 because they had to really manipulate and work on it to retract more than a millimeter or two.

This link was shared on another thread. It has good reference images of foreskin when erect and not. It appears to me that’s there is no right or wrong condition, and that the range is fairly wide.

https://www.restoringforeskin.org/coverage-index/CI-chart.htm

Here is the other thread where circumcision is being discussed: A survey on foreskins and consequences on sexuality

https://en.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;topic=121541

Agree with all the other replies here. As long as there is no pain on retracting the foreskin during an erection; there is no problem. I have a fairly long foreskin and it doesn't retract over my glans when i'm erect, but I have no problem retracting it either flaccid or erect. Only difficulty I have is that it rapidly returns over the glans when released, which does sometimes cause fun when donning a condom 😉

My foreskin covers most of the glans apart from an area right at the front the size of a small coin. It always retracts very easily on its own when I get an erection or even a semi-erection. It stays retracted behind the ridge at all times during vaginal sex The only way for it to return over the glans when my penis is flaccid is by pulling it forward manually myself. For a change I would sometimes pull the foreskin forward over the glans before penetrating my wife so her vagina would roll it back, that would give a nice sensation...

I have several genital examination concerning my prepuce and the needing of a surgery getting several different advices for the circumcision operation:

- it cannot spontaneously retract with phisiological erections (as in your case)

- it spontaneosly reduce after retraction

- it has a redundant prepuce

- it has a short frenulum

In every case the doctor wanted a circumcision for me. Fortunately I avoided the operation.

If you can easily retract and reduce the prepuce on your glans, you have no pain or recurrent balanithis I do not see any reason for the surgery.

No, of course not! I'm not in the case but I've seen several guys with an erection and the foreskin was still covering the glans, they were manually retracting it.

Like the picture above:

https://fr.zity.biz/index.php?mx=imgbnkzz;ox=imagedownload;img=155182;s=gallery;image

Long foreskin model :

https://fr.zity.biz/index.php?mx=imgbnkzz;ox=imagedownload;img=163661;s=gallery;image

Hi there! Not sure if this is the right section, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

I have a question regarding the uncircumcised penis. All my childhood and pretty much of my teen years the doctors who took care of me, insisted that I should have been circumcised. The main reason was that according to them I had a long foreskin. And everyone insisted that my glans should expose by itself when I got an erection. I mean that the foreskin should retract on it's own because of the erection. Well this never happened to me. I must retract it manually in order to expose the glans.

I was wondering if this theory is actually true. If the foreskin doesn't retract on it's own during an erection, than it should be removed. To be honest I don't believe it is, but don't know where to ask. Thanks in advance.

There's a male circumcision section around this board somewhere, but I'm not sure this really fits there. Anyway...

I'm uncut too, and also have a long foreskin, and have been able to easily pull it back all the way when flaccid since I was a kid. When erect, there was less freedom of movement, and over the years, "use" and other "action" have given me a sufficient range of motion to the point where I no longer consider it any problem. That said, when getting erect, my foreskin does not retract, and will in fact leave 90% of the tip covered. Retraction to show the entire glans is trivial, and therefore constitutes no medical problem.

I have an honest question here that I’m suprised has never crossed my mind before. I am circumcised, and in all my years I have never handled another’s cock. For those of you who are not circumcised, do you put on a condom over your fully extended foreskin, or do you retract it first and start the condom directly on the glans? I truely don’t know what the process is like for a person with a generous foreskin. And as this thread is hinting at, differing amounts of retractability probably affect one’s technique. Has anyone tried it both ways and achieved different results?

My foreskin doesn’t retract when I am erect, it does move back a little bit but not all the way exposing my glans

Reading this thread, I can't help wondering if the physicians who insist on circumcision do so that they can make quick extra cash?

Reading this thread, I can't help wondering if the physicians who insist on circumcision do so that they can make quick extra cash?

There is something about circumcision that seems to make those who are cut, want to have others be the same. There often seems to be some sort of conversion impulse involved: if I have lost my foreskin, then so should every other male on the planet.

So I would bet that those doctors insisting so readily on circumcising someone at the slightest hint of a problem, are certainly circumcised themselves.

And depending on the health care systems involved, it may or may not generate easy cash. If a national health service does not reimburse non-medically indicated circumcisions, then there will be less incentive for physicians to do so, because in such systems, patients will not be that willing to pay the outrageous medical bills often charged in countries with other more free market health care systems. Especially for procedures like circumcision that are not medically necessary, but mainly a social or religious custom.

@agracier

It is unbelievable what people are telling other people and/or their children about foreskins, just because they do like to cut it away for one or another reason, most probably the extra income coming out of it ...

The fact that your glans does not uncover while having an erection is no problem at all. People who are saying that are putting a big lie in your head.

Such people mentioning that the foresking of a 6 or 7-year old is too tight, also pass the fact that the foreskin is still tied to the glans and that the foreskin will loosen by itself from the glans. From the moment that happens, it will be possible to retract the foreskin in most of the cases.

Let's just be honest that it is easy money for the persons doing the circumcisions based upon those 'exams'.

Again, the only reason cutting the foreskin started is for 99% religion ... and we all know which 'good things' religions have brought into this world. That also would mean that, 1000's of years before, humans with long foreskin would have an issue in procreation!? Most of the things nature doesn't need or create issues are disappearing because of evolution. The fact that this was not the case with the foreskin states that it isn't an issue at all having a foreskin and even that it might have a purpose, no matter what's put in our heads by others or by our own believes ...

My foreskin is also long enough to cover my glans while I'm erect and I can say that it isn't an issue at all. During sex, the foreskin will retract completely or will be retracted during the 'game' ... So, no issue at all having a long or longer foreskin!

My foreskin has always covered the head of my penis, even when my penis is erect.

The 'overhang' has got slightly longer as I have got older.

No Doctor has suggested that I need a circumcision.

From my days when young, I recollect that most boys were uncircumcised.

Mine never did but it retracts easily all the way back.

My view is that so long as the foreskin is loose enough to be retracted to clean underneath there is absolutely no problem.

@agracier In the US, there is no national health system, but HMOs pay for neonatal circumcision…

In France, social security does not pay for circumcision unless there is a medical reason. One consequence, it seems, is that there are fake diagnoses of phimosis so that some families can have their boy circumcised without paying the price. I suspect this is not investigated as fraud because allowing this avoids boys getting shipped to poorer countries to be snipped without proper hygiene and anesthesia.

In France, social security does not pay for circumcision unless there is a medical reason. One consequence, it seems, is that there are fake diagnoses of phimosis so that some families can have their boy circumcised without paying the price.

The same in Belgium more or less. Oddly so many Muslim boys seem to suffer from phimosis already diagnosed at birth. But it's really just looking the other way to avoid trouble about religious mandated circumcisions.