Iomfats.org

View from underneath. The pale strip is the scar, about 2.5 inches long, where the urethra was replaced. Obvious is the total lack of inner foreskin, the shaft outer skin showing dark, whereas inner foreskin would be light and a different skin grade. There is a total absence of frenulum, which was removed during a meataplasty operation.

The second picture shows the results of the surgery more clearly. Not a pretty sight, I'm afraid. The apparent lack of corona is an optical illusion, caused by odd colouration of the corona itself, and the fact that it seems to match the shaft skin colour in this photograph.

You can probably see why I want no more surgical attention to this area!

The total lack of inner foreskin is plain to see. The shaft skin is "healed" to the corona. In addition the poor condition of the glans can be seen. In part this was caused between ages 15-23 while it was imprisoned behind a totally phimosis bound foreskin. In part by keratinisation and contact with clothing.

The second picture shows clearly how tight the circumcision is.

View of the glans. Why do I keep stating the obvious? The rather unusual reddening around the meatus is not an inflammation, but is the colour of the mucous membrane from the inside of my mouth which was used for the graft. Discolouration of the glans is obvious. And no, that isn't a droplet of anything. It's dry skin which perpetually sloughs off the graft

Ever seen a penis with lips? These are the inner lining of my left cheek, made into the new urethra. The glans may be glossy, but it's also weirdly coloured. There are almost patches of tan pigment there.

This really completes the picture of the starting point. Poor condition of the corona is easy to see, and the fusing of the shaft outer skin to the corona. This was a fine surgeon doing a very good job. My prior circumcision was so bad that he had very difficult tissue to work with.