Hi, just wanted to drop a quick message here to say that stretching really works to cure phimosis. Before I started stretching, I considered circumcision or preputioplasty, as my foreskin opened only about 1.5 cm over the gland. The tight foreskin caused me some pain during my first intercourse and I had to stop altogether (and was a little embarrassed).

Then I've read here and in other places that stretching might also work, so I gave it a try. What I did was I would stretch the foreskin over the gland until there is a slight discomfort, and held it there for about 30 seconds, repeated about 2 dozen times a day. In 2.5 weeks I could retract my foreskin over the head while erect without any pain or discomfort. I did it without using any cream whatsoever. The first time having sex with a fully retractable foreskin was really great.

I noticed that the method of stretching that's advocated here is different from the method that I used. I'm not suggesting that my method is better, I just wanted to say DON'T GIVE UP to those who are having the same problem as I did, because stretching works, no doubt about it.

Thanks to everyone who contributes to discussions here. I'm glad there is a place where this somewhat private problem could be openly discussed.

Thanks for the testimonial, Alex, we do welcome them just to give people reassurance on the process and to balance all the people who come here in earnest discussion when they have the problem but do not necessarily return to explain that they were successful. That is of course, "the nature of things".

And of course, I have to say that "testimonials" do not as such, guarantee the veracity of what is being promoted; there are no shortage of them on the "penis enlargement" and similar sites, though one can (should) generally be able to see through them.

Once you get the right "mind-set", it should be pretty obvious that stretching "works" - clearly it is simply an expression of what the body - skin - does as part of life. On the other hand, there are various factors involved and it is going to be more or less effective (which is to say, easy) in different situations.

In your case, the ability to see 1.5 cm of the glans suggests you were relatively close to achieving retraction, as does the fact that you experienced pain during first intercourse because if it were tighter, thrusting would simply not be able to pull it back to the point where it "almost" retracts. A tighter, completely non-retractable foreskin tends to approximate the circumcised condition where there is nothing to pull back and the glans bears the brunt of thrusting.

{Just reminding you, it is the glans, derived from the Latin for "acorn" which is indeed, rather descriptive, not a "gland" which is a structure which secretes some material or other. }

As you say, we advocate a different approach as being the most effective. Clearly pulling back over the erect glans is stretching and will work, but however "hard" you feel the penis is, it is not totally rigid and more to the point, the glans itself is softer and rather sensitive so you are limited by discomfort caused to the glans more than discomfort in the foreskin being stretched. Your fingers are rather tougher (they have to be) and using them to apply the stretch will generally permit more stretching.

There is also a matter of "over-stretch" - retracting over the glans stretches only to that size, so the retracted foreskin will remain "snug" and tend to "snap" back when retracted - which may suit you, but the usual expectation would be that the foreskin is loose enough to "glide" back and forth easily, minimising friction during intercourse.

Your post suggests that you had no problem with a short frænulum. Any thoughts on that?

Hi Paul,

Yes I didn't seem to have a problem with a short frenulum. Maybe some people are born with naturally longer ones. But, on the other hand, I think it could be due to the way I dry my penis after I pee. I would pull the foreskin forward and do a sort of millking motion (and then, of course, a few shakes) until those few drops of urine is gone. This, come to think of it, is very much like the frenulum stretch that I read about here. I think it could this that I didn't have to do any special frenulum stretches.

Speaking of which, it reminds me of a slight problem now that I have a fully retractable foreskin. Sometimes the foreskin would just automatically roll back slightly, exposing the tip of the glans (thanks for the correction ). I'd have to visit a bathroom to pull the foreskin back down to completely cover the glans, being sensitive as it is. Could this be due to the length of the frenulum? Is this something that also happens to other guys?

Anyway, I'm not complaining about it. I'm just glad that now I could have pain-free, normal sex.

The foreskin may be a little short, allowing it to retract as you've described. You can lengthen it by employing the techniques circumcised men use to retore their lost foreskins. Check this out:

http://pages.suddenlink.net/manual_methods/home.html

Yes, I would go with both counts here - clearly there is a substantial variation in the natural growth of the frænulum but doing the foreskin stretch (rather popular amongst two-year-olds) as a routine every time you pee - so many times each day, 365 days a year - should over the years, serve to stretch it.

Which leads to the next point - one might presume the "milking" you describe was presumably something you taught yourself at an early age - or perhaps not so early. You might just care to tell us a little more of your story - your age of course (at least approximate), when and how you noticed that you had a tight foreskin, presuming that you never could retract it, and any other interesting things that have happened to you on this account.

I tend to advise that little boys be taught to retract to pee - not because this might necessarily be "cleaner" - even if you do a good job of "milking" the residual urine out (which is certainly easier and more "automatic" in youth where you tend to get an erection when you go to pee, which then tends to facilitate emptying of the urethra), there is still going to be a little to dribble out later under the foreskin. Rather, development of this habit ensures adequate retraction of the foreskin and frænulum both during initial growth in childhood and adolescence, and tends to inhibit later tightening if there is some development of chronic irritation as we often discuss here.

Actually, since it is more likely that boys will retract to pee than to wash (which is actually undesirable in a potentially soapy bath), this is a hygienic practice not because urine is an undesirable substance, but since it offers a frequent opportunity for any debris simply to fall out or be brushed off.

And it actually occurs to me in the context that I always propose that if you have (congenital) phimosis, you will in most cases have a short frænulum because not retracting at all, you have presumably not been putting the frænulum to the stretch; it is actually just as likely that phimosis is a consequence of the short frænulum preventing the normal process of retraction on erection which would facilitate natural stretching of the foreskin opening.

In fact, I presume that your foreskin "just automatically rolling back slightly", would be due to an erection. The glans is supposed to be very sensitive - just as it is for women - that is the normal situation and not at all something you do not want, but it is not at all surprising that loosening your foreskin now allows the foreskin to spontaneously retract on erection. If you choose, there is no reason why you could not also endeavour to give it more "leeway" by stretching the foreskin lengthways.

Unfortunately - I hope it is a temporary "glitch" - Doug's pages seem to be partially missing - at least as present.

I'm 24 years old now. I remember when I was in kindergarten, a doctor recommended to my mother that I should be circumcisize, which she declined. But I was asked to retract my foreskin every time I shower or bathe. I hated the retraction feeling very much, as it was quite uncomfortable. And so my mother would try to retract it or would stand there and watch, to make sure that I would do it by myself. So when I was finally old enough to shower myself, I didn't carry on retracting the foreskin.

Then the teenage years came and I noticed my foreskin loosening up a bit, and I could roll it back and have the foreskin open enough to expose the tip of the glans. I had sexual encounters with a condom on and it seemed ok. I'd always pull the foreskin forward before putting it on, to 'secure' the placement of the foreskin so it wouldn't roll back and induce pain. Sometimes though, the condom would shift forward (the tip of the condom moving away from the body) and my foreskin would start moving around and I'd start feeling pain. I put off fixing the foreskin for a few years, as I didn't have any significant sexual problems with it. But finally, about half a month ago, I decided to begin stretching the foreskin to remedy the problem because I thought I've been bothered by it for long enough.

I suspect that during my teenage years I was scared to try retracting my foreskin due to those unpleasant memories of being forced to retract despite the discomfort. As such, I do think retraction should be taught as a hygenic practice, but this should never be done too early. This, I think, could prevent scarring the foreskin or making one feel that retracting is something altogether unpleasant.

You are correct in saying that retraction shouldn't be induced too early.

In what country did this take place?

It is profoundly sad, because it contains elements of a faulty relationship with your mother (albeit only on this particular aspect) and the sexual perversion of a doctor. Why did the doctor want you to be circumcised? (The answer always is presumably: because he was himself. "If I can't have it, then I'm damned if I am going to let you keep it!") Did you actually have any problem with your foreskin anyway? At that age, a foreskin that does not retract is quite normal, so it can't be a "problem" (and as you note, even though you did not persist with retraction, it started to loosen at puberty). Irritations which may occur are virtually always the result of ignorance of what hygiene really involves.

The proper task of a parent, is to instil the concept of retracting the foreskin as fun and exciting (which is exactly what it should be - the deeply entrenched social perversion is to wish to assert otherwise)! Your mother was wise enough to refuse the doctor's indecent advances, and retraction is clearly a desirable thing, but she kind of failed on child psychology and got her priorities wrong. To teach a lifelong habit, you must teach, often (or indeed, always) by example. (This is often thwarted if your father had himself been circumcised.) And it arguably should have occurred earlier.

The more correct form of encouragement is "can you show me the tip inside your penis like daddy's?" with much cooing and excitement when the child does his best. (Isn't that how mothers inveigle children to do everything else?) Even if nothing actually happens. If however the hidden part appears, yet more excitement, "Wow! Now can you put it back?" ... "Great ... can you show me again?" If this is successful, you would expect the child to quickly graduate to unsolicited demonstrations of his prowess, at which point you may have a minor problem in explaining that whilst you find this entertaining, maybe grandma does not (unless she is by great fortune, sufficiently intellectual to assist in his education) and the expectations of vulgar modesty.

The point is that even something that is initially uncomfortable, even for a child, will readily succumb to positive social reinforcement.

---

Now the interesting detail in regard to the frænulum is that you at least were retracting at that age, so you were stretching it when it needed to be stretched. And if you actually were retracting your foreskin, I suspect that it would have actually become more comfortable to do so and your dislike for retraction was focused more on your determination to be "independent" of your mother.

This happened in Canada but the doctor that I saw is Chinese. My foreskin was 'long', according to him. And because of this, he suggested circumcision.

Anyway, I still retract the foreskin daily, although not as frequently as before. This seems to be a good habit to ensure that the foreskin doesn't tighten up again. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Just a quick question out of curiosity about foreskin and condoms. The instruction says to retract the foreskin, then put on the condom. Is this preferable to leaving the foreskin covering the glans while putting it on? I don't seem to have a problem with either options.

There really is not problem either way unless the foreskin glides back and forth inside the condom. If that's the case, after retracting and putting on the condom just past the head, replace the foreskin while continuing to roll the condom down the shaft. If you're well endowed, you may have to look for longer condoms.

Ignore the doctor. He had something to gain from your loss.

And we get back to the complete absurdity of "advice" that is sometimes offered by purportedly educated people. Your foreskin (as a child) was "long" according to that doctor. What on earth can that mean? Presuming that the doctor was indeed of Chinese ancestry, what does that mean? Well, if he was practicing in Canada, he must have been trained in either Canada or the US (since there is no school of medicine in China proper, unless perhaps he was actually from Hong Kong) and if he was in fact born in the US or Canada, he would likely have been circumcised himself. Otherwise one can only surmise that by "long", he meant longer than his own, or longer than his child's.

And all that presuming he was indeed, in some remote fashion honest, and not simply grooming you for surgery for his profit. As you have no doubt realised by now, there is no such thing as a "too long" foreskin, particularly on a child (where the penis has not begun its pubertal growth). Therefore, to "recommend" circumcision for a "long" foreskin is necessarily, always mendacious.

As you see from my comments above about teaching retraction to pee as a desirable habit to children, and which must equally apply to adults, I am entirely in favour of daily retraction; simple as that.

As to the instruction about condoms, I shall repeat that - the instructions they carry are in all probability, written by an American who has no concept of a foreskin! And frankly, little concept of sexual function. The fact that you do not seem to have a problem with either option follows.

How you put the condom on is largely irrelevant due to the fact of lubrication, that is, you produce "pre-ejaculatory fluid" or "pre-come" when you are sexually aroused as (I would have to presume) you are almost always going to be when you are using a condom. I note as a matter of interest that this is not necessarily the same sort or degree of arousal as evidenced by erection and that you may on some occasions have one but not the other, and that this lubrication is perhaps slower or less evident in younger fellows and certainly varies quite a bit from person to person.

Once you are leaking this "pre-come" inside the condom, your foreskin becomes entirely free to move inside the condom, to take up its preferred position whether that is covering your glans or retracted, and to move back and forth if it is sufficiently mobile. The condom - and the lubrication - removes the "drag" effect of friction to move the foreskin, but the squeezing or "milking" effect of pressure applied through the condom can still serve to move the foreskin one way or another.

The simplified instruction for applying the condom is then - in whatever state your penis becomes when erect, roll the condom over. It will sort itself out. More important is that there is adequate lubrication on the outside of the condom.

{There are a couple of other aspects of "condomythology" which I have discussed previously on this forum and which you may care to research.}

At last I can help someone...related to this site.

I was on Doug's website and I wondered why some pages did not work whilst other's did (as you mentioned earlier)

As I did a quick patrol, I noticed that some of the webcode is referencing, say Method1.html instead of method1.html.

Now, If I remember correctly, this is an issue due to windows or linux (can't remember which) being case-sensitive)
Of course, this breaks the links completely.....

The working webpages are referenced as lowercase.html for example.
---------------------------------------

Therefore, Doug, or Doug's Admin. needs to change the page references to repair the site links.

Simple. The webcode is nice and simple, so it won't take them long before people can get back to tortur.. er stretching themselves :S

I will keep that in mind. You may have suspected before now, just which operating system I am using here.

Unix is case-sensitive, Windoze is not, but I am not sure exactly how this relates to Web servers, IIS vs. Apache. It is certainly the case that on most (if perhaps not all) URLs, the domain part is case-insensitive, but the file tree part is case-sensitive, and I have just checked those pages on both of my systems (albeit with the same browser ) and found the same problem.

It was working before - presumably Doug either re-arranged his files (but surely he would have then checked the site) or his server changed without notifying him of known problems in this regard.

Nothing actually lost here, but somewhat unfortunate.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/manual_methods/phimosis.html

Scrolling down produces a menu from which the restoration pages can be accessed.

Ah yes, it seems that the pages are much as they always were, and this has been a problem from the start - there are more than one set of index pages and some work, some don't. I don't know whether Doug is contactable to correct them.

In reference to Andy's wisecrack about stretching being torture, you have to give Doug credit here - he has achieved a major stretching achievement here; restoration of a foreskin over a period of years and spending a couple of hours a day. Not time wasted by any means and given privacy, it is perfectly practical and convenient to do other things at the same time, clearly you can read a book or the newspaper in this time (or dare I say it, watch TV as people clearly do and spend this time and far more) and the regular interruptions of turning the page or muting the ads (you do mute the ads, don't you?) nicely define re-gripping intervals.

Particularly critical are Doug's comments explaining why he is doing this in the first place, and the catastrophic mistake of submitting to a circumcision where stretching, even if it was long and tedious, would have been trivial compared to what he had to pursue as a result of the circumcision.