Cutting loose

So, this is a bit of a random post, but it's something that was of interest for discussion at a party this last weekend.

I always assumed most gay guys realized that circumcision isn't always done the same way; I figured that anyone who had seen and especially played with more than a few dicks would realize that there are differences.  Apparently that's not necessarily true.  Since I'm a bit of an odd duck in this case, it's something I've always been aware of from my very first time.

I assume (or hope) that most guys know what an uncut dick looks like: glans ("head") totally covered while flaccid ("soft") and even at least partially covered when erect, with a thin constrictive band at the tip.  I also assume that most guys know what a "typical" circumcision is like: glans totally uncovered, regardless of state, generally with very little motion or "loose skin" along the shaft.  How that shaft skin is "created" for a circumcised guy (whether it was originally from the underside of the foreskin or from the outer skin) determines some of the sensitivity of the penis, but that's pretty minor in most cases.  Circumcision can also be "loose" or "tight" - one friend described his cock as "about the same tightness as the skin on your finger", whereas other guys have a bit of movement (usually not enough to even bunch up under the base of the glans).  Additionally, the frenulum - the band of skin that holds the foreskin to the base of the glans and usually attaches up by the urethra (it's similar to the flap that holds your lips to your gums in the middle) - is often removed during circumcision, usually being trimmed or shaped in the process.

I have what's known as a "partial circumcision".  This isn't necessarily common - maybe 10% of guys, maybe less, though I'm given to understand it's a little more popular nowadays.  Part of the reason is medical: when born, the foreskin and glans are essentially fused together; they don't actually separate naturally until later in life, generally by puberty.  That means that, to circumcise a baby, the doctor is not only cutting off skin but manually separating the foreskin from the glans.  They usually remove enough skin so that the glans is left completely uncovered; if they don't, the remaining skin can try and heal back to the glans again in what are called "adhesions".

In a partial circumcision, the "band" at the tip of the foreskin is removed as well as some of the foreskin, but the glans isn't necessarily left entirely uncovered.  As stated, this can lead to adhesions, and in fact I had to be "circumcised" twice because of that (the second time was just removing the adhesions; no additional skin was removed).  But the main thrust (ahem) is that, when soft, my glans is usually entirely covered; it pulls back when erect, but I still have enough skin that I can easily and comfortably nearly cover the glans even while erect.  I also still have my frenulum intact.  Visually, I've had guys question whether or not I was cut if they only see me flaccid; I definitely don't look entirely uncircumcised, but I don't look circumcised either.

There are a few results from this.  One is that my glans seems to be more sensitive than most circumcised guys; that's likely because it is usually covered and so hasn't been as abraded.  The base and underside of the glans, especially, around the frenulum, is *really* sensitive; I've actually orgasmed just by using a lubed finger and carefully rubbing just my frenulum for a few minutes.  Speaking of lube, I also almost never use lube to masturbate: the skin is plenty loose enough that it isn't needed.  I will once in a while, because it's an entirely different sensation, but I usually don't bother due to the extra clean-up needed.  And, yes, I have to be more thorough when I shower, but that's not really a big deal.

Part of what I like about oral sex and playing with a guy's dick is figuring out their personal anatomy and sensitivity.  I love to learn what will set a guy off, because it varies from guy to guy.  I just never realized that other guys weren't necessarily aware of the differences.

None of this has anything to do with length or girth - I'm definitely not above (the real) average, but I'm not below, either.  It may have something to do with "grower not a shower", since (at least in my experience) uncut guys seem to be smaller when flaccid: I think it has to do with the additional constriction the extra skin exerts, so it's compacted more when not explicitly engorged, whereas circumcised guys just essentially have a deflated bag sitting there with nothing to retract or compress it.

... Anyway, not at all my usual kind of topic, but what the hell.