# No frenulum?



## natalie18 (Nov 14, 2015)

This one guy I know who is circumcised doesn't have any frenulum at all as far as I can tell. The underside of his penis is completely smooth, if that makes sense. How is that possible, did they mess up the circumcision? Or was he born like that? I've never seen an uncircumcised penis, but all the circumcised ones I've seen so far do have some ridges around the area.


----------



## Incubator (May 11, 2006)

It is not uncommon for a frenulum to be completely removed in a circumcision. Some guys have more remnants left over than others.


----------



## natalie18 (Nov 14, 2015)

:frown:That's awful. Shouldn't they be a little more careful cutting around that area? You'd think they would.


----------



## Incubator (May 11, 2006)

It's not about care, it's about money. Besides that it's typically done on tiny babies when things down there are hard to see and be careful with in the first place.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

The statistics on "botched " circumcisions are horrendous. I recently read a letter written by a paediatric urologist on the number of children that he has to "fix up". If I find it again, I will post it. The problem is that by the time the damage becomes apparent, the victim is too embarrassed to tell or show anyone, so the original perpetrator goes through life oblivious of the trail of destruction that he has left behind him.

If you want to see examples of some of the carnage that circumcisers leave behind them, go to www.circumstitions.com . It is a comprehensive website that is most enlightening. Be warned that some images are quite distressing.


----------



## Mitchell756 (Oct 14, 2012)

The frenulum is the most erogenous part of the penis and it is almost always cut off. Even if there are remnants left they do not have much function or feeling because they were not able to develop properly.


----------



## natalie18 (Nov 14, 2015)

But they could leave as much as possible of the frenulum, if they wanted to I imagine? Sorry I don't know much about how the procedure works and I'm too afraid to look at pics or videos.


----------



## Incubator (May 11, 2006)

natalie18 said:


> But they could leave as much as possible of the frenulum, if they wanted to I imagine? Sorry I don't know much about how the procedure works and I'm too afraid to look at pics or videos.


Sure, if they wanted to. They probably would if the circumcision was at all about doing anything beneficial for the penis, but it's not. Circumcisions are about money, ritual, ignorance and peer pressure. It may hide behind the idea of "disease prevention" some of the time, but the pure carelessness with which it is done pretty well proves that it's not.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

The one cut penis I have ever been around the frenulum is totally gone and the area is actually less sensitive than other area's


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

MCatLvrMom2A&X said:


> The one cut penis I have ever been around the frenulum is totally gone and the area is actually less sensitive than other area's


That is a real shame. In my case the "doctor" left about half the frenulum, and it has always been the most sensitive part, followed by the sulcus and inner foreskin remnant.


----------



## JHardy (Jun 22, 2015)

It depends on how much skin was removed at the time of circumcision. I've seen circumcised men with and without a frenulum. It's all based on how much skin was removed during circumcision.


----------



## supermom8 (Nov 29, 2015)

My hubby has his even after his circumcision. I always tell him its my favorite part of his member


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

Cuttitng a baby penis is not easy - you are dealing with a very delicate part of an already small thing. The results are very much hit and miss. 

In my case I specifically asked my Dr to cut the least possible on my operation. I was reassured that best efforts would be made. I was also reassured that there would be no difference to my life after.

Dealing with my fully grown adult penis, the Dr had plenty to play with compared to a baby.

And yet I lost my frenulum, I lost alot of skin. And yet I am told my cut is a relatively good one. 

And as for being told there is no differnce after, all I can say is that the drop in daily comfort and intimacy pleasure is a tragic loss compared my previously very happy life. I had no choice, in my case, but I reach out everyday to use my rare insight into the difference of being natural to then being cut to try to open the minds of those who have been programmed to think this is a good thing to impose on their boys. Sadly, in my discussions I am disappointed to realise that many women are either ignorant, flatly dismissive, or just go blank on the subject of the male penis. Or they are simply just set on the ways of those around them, end of story. The compassionate side of many ladies and mothers just seems to vanish when you talk about mens bits. 


Is it really so hard to realise that mens bits are highly sensitive and delicate, just like the female bits are? and just like the female bits, they need covering up and careful treatment, not cutting up and permanent exposure.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

hakunangovi said:


> That is a real shame. In my case the "doctor" left about half the frenulum, and it has always been the most sensitive part, followed by the sulcus and inner foreskin remnant.


Unfortunately dh's is a "high & tight" there is no foreskin remnant at all just a scar line about 1/4 way up the shaft, a skin bridge and absolutely no frenulum


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

JLUK said:


> And as for being told there is no differnce after, all I can say is that the drop in daily comfort and intimacy pleasure is a tragic loss compared my previously very happy life. I had no choice, in my case, but I reach out everyday to use my rare insight into the difference of being natural to then being cut to try to open the minds of those who have been programmed to think this is a good thing to impose on their boys. Sadly, in my discussions I am disappointed to realise that many women are either ignorant, flatly dismissive, or just go blank on the subject of the male penis. Or they are simply just set on the ways of those around them, end of story. The compassionate side of many ladies and mothers just seems to vanish when you talk about mens bits.


I don't really know where this insistence that there is no difference comes from, although I do have a couple of theories. Back, in the 19th century when this barbaric practice started, those who promoted it were very well aware that amputating a male's foreskin was going to have a detrimental effect on his sex life. That was the whole point - to curb masturbation and reduce his sexual enjoyment.

I suspect that as time went on and the medical community realized just how profitable this little sideline was, that they came up with all kinds of lies about how beneficial circumcision was for males in order to preserve the cash flow.

Any so called "studies" to determine the difference in sexual experience between intact and circumcised men fell woefully short of being objective and never considered the foreskin. It is well known, now, that the famous Masters and Johnson study was a complete farce, yet that was the gold standard for the medical community for decades.

Sadly, before the advent of the internet, parents had no access to information other than whatever their doctor told them. Case in point: My two older BILs are intact (largely, i think because FIL was angry as hell that he had been circumcised). MIL married a second time and the next three boys were all cut. (I suspect her second husband was intact because he was born out on the farm). I once asked her how come the first 2 were intact and the next three circumcised. Her answer was "Well, it depended on your doctor".


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

MCatLvrMom2A&X said:


> Unfortunately dh's is a "high & tight" there is no foreskin remnant at all just a scar line about 1/4 way up the shaft, a skin bridge and absolutely no frenulum


When I said the inner foreskin remnant, I was referring to that skin left between the sulcus and the scar line. In my case, the frenulum that remains is normal at the attachment point under the glans and down as far as the scar line, when, of course, it just ends.

I think that when the doctor removes the frenulum, it is a conscious act in addition to removing the rest of the foreskin. No doubt the method and tools employed could have an impact on how much, if any frenulum remains.

I feel very sorry for your DH and men like him who have been deprived of their frenulum, because that is just added insult to the original injury.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

hakunangovi said:


> I don't really know where this insistence that there is no difference comes from".


Religious lobbying must be a bigger than the influence of cash, certainly in Europe. To point out that there is danger when cutting that the future man may be deprived of sexual pleasure puts into question the religious ceremony - and makes the clerics and Drs look like bigots - and so any such suggestion is vigourously denied and crushed. By pointing out my own clear experience, I am indirectly challenging the entire muslim and jewish ceremonial practice. If the frenulum gets taken away too, so the loss of pleasure in worsened.

I regularly get treated as anti islamist or anti semetic when I talk about my own pernis's experience - and yet my penis knows nothing of religion, it just knows that life was soooo much nicer before being cut.

'Religion/culture' has strong backing as an argument for cutting. Both female and male. When in late 1990 the British Council of Surgeons raised the issue to discuss banning under age circumcision, the vote was clearly split between non religious or christian Drs (voting against) and other religous Drs (voting for). Indeed, I have found it very difficult to find Drs who are experts in the penis area and who are not jewish or muslim, so the penis profession is clearly biased, and well placed, to defending its religious culture.

The irony of the religious ceremony is : the baby is making his 'foreskin sacrifice' to show allegance to deity - and yet he will never know just how good life is with a foreskin, and so never really appreciate just how significant a sacrifice he is being made to make by cutting it off.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

JLUK said:


> Religious lobbying must be a bigger than the influence of cash, certainly in Europe. I regularly get treated as anti islamist or anti semetic when I talk about my own pernis's experience - and yet my penis knows nothing of religion, it just knows that life was soooo much nicer before being cut.
> 
> The irony of the religious ceremony is : the baby is making his 'foreskin sacrifice' to show allegance to deity - and yet he will never know just how good life is with a foreskin, and so never really appreciate just how significant a sacrifice he is being made to make by cutting it off(quoteJLUK;19176745)
> 
> ...


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

I am a bit computer illiterate, and your quote did not split as I intended - hence the second paragraph above is mine - sorry -


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Mitchell756 said:


> The frenulum is the most erogenous part of the penis and it is almost always cut off. Even if there are remnants left they do not have much function or feeling because they were not able to develop properly.


This is so sad that many American men will NEVER know the joy of sex that they are missing. I'm thrilled that the tide is finally turning against cutting here in the states.

Our son is 19, intact and has no issues whatsoever.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

natalie18 said:


> :frown:That's awful. Shouldn't they be a little more careful cutting around that area? You'd think they would.


They are careful. They know _exactly_ what they're doing. The whole point is to eliminate as much pleasure as possible while still allowing ejaculation to occur.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I will have to disagree, I don't think most doctors are taking some fendish delight while evilly thinking how they can reduce this child's later pleasure. Most of them are cut themselves and believe in it, but overwhelmingly it's for the money. Circumcision is a huge cash cow that goes on and on. From repair jobs, to surgery for metal stenosis, to face creams and viagra. Actually these days they tend to do loose circs which keep the frenulem. This has given risen to the fact that adhesions and doctors painfully ripping back the adhesions is very common now. Use to be they cut high and tight and boys didn't have so many adhesion issues as small children, their issues began at puberty. Their certainly are some circfetishests out there, with our own 'dear' Brian Morris being one of them but most I firmly believe just do it because they always have without a whole lot of thought and why not when people are limning up to pay even without insurance covering it.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

I think that you are correct about the money, but I also believe that there is something else going on. I know an elderly doctor, long retired, and one of the nicest people one could meet. His own son was not circumcised (born in the 70's) yet he told me that "we circumcised all the baby boys, unless the mother had serious objection to it". I do know that at least a couple of his grandsons were circumcised, but maybe he had nothing to do with that.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Not sure I know what you are getting at with that doctor, but that certainly was the mindset in the 60 and 70's. It was simply done, without thought and without pain medication. I am still sure most thought it was for the child's own good and they also believed that newborns felt no pain. They also performed other surgeries on paralyzed infants at that time.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Yes, I know that was the mindset within the medical community, but what gets me is the disconnect between that mindset and what simple logic would suggest. For instance believing that babies don't feel pain totally contradicts what they would observe every day with, say a prick in the heel.

I guess what I was getting at with the doctor mentioned above, is that he had enough compassion (or whatever) not to circumcise his own son, but did not appear to have made any effort to discourage the practice among others, and indeed participated on an everyday basis.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Well I never said they used logic; the fact they thought circumcision could prevent epilepsy also defies belief. Logic says cutting genital tissue is painful, that having an open wound in a nappy/diaper is a bad idea and that surgery to remove body parts on non-consenting minors for no pressing medical reason is wrong. If logic was used we would not have to argue these points for years on end to people whose eyes and ears are closed.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

joandsarah77 said:


> Well I never said they used logic; the fact they thought circumcision could prevent epilepsy also defies belief. Logic says cutting genital tissue is painful, that having an open wound in a nappy/diaper is a bad idea and that surgery to remove body parts on non-consenting minors for no pressing medical reason is wrong. If logic was used we would not have to argue these points for years on end to people whose eyes and ears are closed.


All so true - and very sad !!


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

natalie18 said:


> This one guy I know who is circumcised doesn't have any frenulum at all as far as I can tell. The underside of his penis is completely smooth, if that makes sense. How is that possible, did they mess up the circumcision? Or was he born like that? I've never seen an uncircumcised penis, but all the circumcised ones I've seen so far do have some ridges around the area.


The standard American circ up until recently was high, tight with a full frenulum removal. Now its not as standard, but it certainly its still quite common practice.


----------

