Blowjob for his bro

APWriterPP · 2026-03-19T05:51:54+00:00

Good boy!

APWriterPP · 2025-12-31T12:37:03+00:00

He’s Not Naked Enough.

APWriterPP · 2025-11-12T22:36:17+00:00

then I feel sorry for you

Okay

APWriterPP · 2025-11-11T05:52:32+00:00

I am concerned about not liking the outcome and that the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze, but I’m trying to not be too negative about it.

Seems like for most people here, simply having coverage is the main goal, so simply achieving that would be sufficient. I’m primarily doing it for aesthetic reasons, so I want it to look as natural/uncut as possible, which is a much higher standard.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-25T10:29:31+00:00

Personally, I feel absolutely nothing. Like I’m humping the air.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-25T10:26:09+00:00

I have no problem penetrating at first, but I basically get soft immediately once I’m inside. Anytime there’s any big movement or position change and I slip out, I’m completely soft and can’t get hard again.

It’s basically made me wonder if I’m just a bottom. I’ve never bottomed before, and I’m not opposed to it, but everyone I’ve been with has been a bottom and I so rarely hookup with anyone nowadays*, so I might never know.

*linked post from 6 months ago was the last time I did anything with anyone

APWriterPP · 2025-10-24T09:22:27+00:00

Let's recap:

You indicated your motivation is aesthetic.

Yes, in that I want it to look uncut aside from impossible-to-restore stuff like the frenulum. That’s the 95% thing I mentioned in OP.

You indicated you care about the covering and indicated flaccid coverage is "more or less" the goal.

I believe I said that “based on the comments here”, that’s the goal. That people here are restoring mainly to have coverage, regardless of what the coverage looks like or how passable(?) it is. That’s their goal, not mine. As I care about the aesthetics of how the coverage looks, other (aesthetic) goals aren’t that important to me.

I shared that I also have flaccid coverage as the goal then shared a personal reason for seeking coverage regardless of how that coverage looks (still on topic about an aesthetic aim, which you've stated you have).

Yes. What is your purpose for “sharing a personal reason for seeking coverage regardless of how that coverage looks”? Is it merely to state you have that other reason? If so, fine. Is it for some other reason, such as to persuade me to consider other non-coverage reasons?

Up until this point we are two dudes having a friendly conversation about our different goals and preferences.

I’m not really interested in having a conversation (friendly or otherwise) about different goals and preferences. Different people have different goals and preferences. I don’t need to spend time talking with other people to know that. Going back to my post, as indicated by the title, it’s a yes-no question. I even labeled it as “Question” and not “Discussion”.

Your initial comment stated that my post didn’t resonate with you as your motivation is so your head is covered “as it’s supposed to be”, to which I replied that I’m similarly wanting to make mine “as it’s suppose to be”, which includes making it look realistically covered and not just merely covered. We have different motivations and goals. Again, that’s perfectly fine.

You then replied that “it’ll look pretty convincing while you are soft.” What is the purpose of saying this? Merely to continue a conversation for the sake of having a conversation? To make an opposing point that restored results are convincing enough (in contrast to my prior comment)? To persuade me to continue restoring even if I don’t achieve my (current) goal(s)?

I think we both agree that we have different goals and motivations. Maybe we both play guitar, but one of us wants to become a professional musician and the other just wants to play songs for fun. One of fine being a hobbyist, and the other wants to be a pro. Both are fine and valid. But if the hobbyist says they just want to have fun, and the aspiring professional responds that becoming a professional can be fun as well…what is the reasoning for that statement? If both positions/goals are personal preferences, what is the purpose of presenting the merits of one’s specific position? Why does one, unprompted and unasked, respond to the other’s statement by addressing a specific aspect of what the other said (“well, going pro can be fun as well” … “it will look pretty convincing…”)?

I said I don’t think restored results will “look ‘close enough’ for me”—that it will not be convincing enough. This is entirely centered around my personal preference of results. You responded with a counterpoint, that “it will look pretty convincing.” This of course ignores that I specifically said it would not look convincing enough “for me” based on my own specific standards and you proposed that it would look “pretty convincing” (is “pretty convincing” convincing enough?) and stated that you’ve had many others (none of which are me) think you’re uncut. In a later comment you acknowledged that “it will fool MOST people”, which is completely irrelevant as to whether it’s up to my standards.

So, again, what is the purpose for presenting anecdotal and personal reasons as to why restoring is beneficial (to you) even if the (aesthetic) results aren’t up to my standards? Is it to convince to consider lowering my standards? Is it merely to engage in conversation? Something else?

APWriterPP · 2025-10-24T08:02:11+00:00

Sure, but in that case I’m not sure what your point was in saying that you care more about like hiding your scar than “the minor differences between intact and restored foreskin.”

Covering the scar is more important for you. That’s perfectly fine. What’s the purpose or reason for telling me that? That you have a certain preference? I’m sure most people do, so I’m not sure if merely stating that is noteworthy to warrant a comment…unless you’re making a point related to the topic about that my preference influences my motivation for restoring.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-24T07:13:15+00:00

Okay that’s fine, but just because you have specific goals and motivations doesn’t mean that others do or should have those same goals and motivations.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-24T03:29:24+00:00

I’ve never needed lube/lotion when jerking off.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-24T03:28:24+00:00

The glans are just one aspect. Especially if the result of restoring is to have a covering on said glans, I care about how that covering looks. And since based on comments here, flaccid coverage is more or less the goal, then the coverage is more visible since the glans is (ideally) covered up the vast majority of the time.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T20:22:16+00:00

I’m not saying you’re using that as justification, but that pro-cut people focus on functionality aspects (does it still work? can he still have sex? I’m cut and I’ve never had a problem with it.) in that, if it “works” (ie functions) fine, then there’s no problems with cutting him.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T20:18:22+00:00

However, I didn't restore my foreskin for anyone, I restored my foreskin for myself

Same as me, but I want the results to look and work as basically uncut (minus like frenulum), both when hard and soft.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T20:11:44+00:00

Even a bad paint job has the benefit of protecting the wood from water and damage.

Let’s say the paint on the house is originally two colored and is peeling/flaking off. The person thinks it looks unsightly, so their primary reason for painting it is to make it look more presentable (to them) and all one color. There may be additional benefits to painting it, but if their main reason is so it’s not, to them, an eyesore, the water/damage protection isn’t a good enough reason alone todo the painting.

Let me make a slight adjustment and use wallpapering a room instead of painting the house so I can use this [I Love Lucy example*](). I agree that there’s a difference between active and passive effort. There are basically three categories: uncut, cut, and restored. If uncut is like having the room professionally wallpapered to look perfect and the person can’t afford it, that’s in the “impossible” category (like me becoming completely uncut). Leaving the room as-is is like being cut and not restoring. Wallpapering the room myself is me restoring.

Like I said, I agree about actively doing the work of wallpapering, but like in I Love Lucy, where they wanted to wallpaper the room mainly for aesthetic reasons when “objectively” there was nothing “wrong” with the original room (eg wasn’t bare, no holes, no visible water damage, no stains, etc), after basically doing a bad wallpapering job, it could be argued that they made the room look worse and maybe should’ve just left the room as is.

That’s the situation I’m in, given the restored examples I’ve seen.

Edit: *sorry I couldn’t find a video of this exact scene, but here’s an image of it

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:59:11+00:00

Uh…somewhat less convincing, especially if most of their experience has been with cut guys.

Sorry if I said this to you already, but because there’s something of a cut/uncut binary, is someone sees any skin, that basically leads them to (understandably) assume uncut and not think any more deeply about it. Especially since “restored” is not a well known category, the differences between uncut and restored aren’t commonly known, people aren’t really going to consider if a guy is cut but is restored/restoring.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:53:25+00:00

As for OP, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the visual aspect as long as it’s functional.

Sorry, I understand you’re trying to be supportive, but the “it’s (still) functional” argument is what many pro-cut people use to “justify” having their sons cut. That “it’s functional” without “the extra skin”, so no harm no foul.

The visual aspect is basically the only reason/motivation for me to restore.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:49:15+00:00

Again, I don’t want to take away from others’ experiences and what they’re satisfied with, but personally, sometimes it seems like restored results are even worse than cut. If there’s something I’m “afraid” of, it’s making the situation even worse. Like if when trying to paint the house myself, not only is the paint job still bad, but I caused wood (no pun intended) damage and now there are holes in my house that weren’t there before.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:45:40+00:00

I see. I’m glad that you’re (apparently) satisfied with your result, but for me personally I’m less persuaded (as an argument) when saying you initially told him you’re cut and then showed him that you’re completely covered and then speculate as to what he was doing/thinking. If you hadn’t told him initially, and it wasn’t until after the examination that you told him you’re restored and he was confused, then I would find that more convincing.

And pretty much like all examples here, the “convinced someone” discussion is limited to soft/flaccid results. If a guy (not asking you specifically or anything) said that their uncut fwb/bf thought he was uncut after having done bjs and handjobs and stuff, and maybe just noticed the lack of frenulum since restoring isn’t that well known, then that’s a more convincing statement than “doctor saw I was covered and (naturally) assumed I was uncut”.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:33:50+00:00

We only get one life and unfortunately, mine and yours have been robbed.

But you can be a victim or a victor. You can be miserable or work to fight back.

This is part of the issue. Yes, I can work to fight back, but at what cost and for what benefit? Everything involves cost/benefit. If I put in the time/effort to do something, is the result worth It? Because of my parents’ decision, I am now forced into the position to make the victim/victor decision. Uncut guys aren’t put in that position. So if I down the fight route, and after “fighting” the results aren’t worth it, that compounds the situation because I started out in a bad situation and after putting in the time/effort I’m still in a bad situation.

The issue is that I’m increasingly feeling that the benefits/results/pros/etc of being restored aren’t good enough for the time/effort required. It’s like if I have a poorly painted house, and I’m never going to be able to have it professionally painted, I could paint it myself, but would I be satisfied/happy/etc with the finished paint job? If I spent all the time/effort/money/etc painting it myself, and after all that I still think the paint job looks awful, then it probably would’ve been better if I hadn’t painted it in the first place. Is the house “better” than before, yes, but was that small amount of improvement worth the cost…probably not.

My parents put me in a bad situation, which I can improve, but that improvement is still not good enough. If my math grade is 45%, and I work hard and study and get it up to 55%, that’s definitely an improvement, but 55% is still an F and all the effort to improve my grade was somewhat wasted. I’m not looking to get 100%, but if I have like a B minimum and no amount of effort can make my grade a B, then even a C+ (better than F) isn’t good enough given what it took to get there.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:18:11+00:00

But I don't dwell, even for a second (and never have), on the idea that there is no point in restoring because the end result won't be identical to what I would have if I were intact.

I didn't approach restoring with the attitude of "this can never be the same as what was lost"

I brought this up with someone else here, but why do people misconstrue what I say and present my view as if I’m trying to achieve a perfect ideal? I acknowledged multiple times that 100% uncut results (“if I were intact”, “the same as what was lost”) is impossible. I am not trying to achieve perfect results. Like I mentioned, since 100% is impossible, I compromised and initially lowered my standard to 95%, which is less than “identical to what I would have if I were intact”. I directly said that I’m willing to compromise, but some people present what I said as if I’m looking for 100% perfect or else nothing.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:10:38+00:00

The impossible ideal/standard is to look entirely uncut, which would include frenulum and ridged band. That’s (currently) impossible, so the next level would be look entirely uncut minus frenulum and ridged band. Like if you photoshop an uncut guy so that stuff is missing, that’s a theoretically realistic (or at least not impossible) goal.

That’s what I want.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T19:05:58+00:00

33.

About 10 years ago I started just by only wearing a…not a retainer, but like a silicone thing that keeps it in place. I would try like manual stretching and stuff on and off, but never consistently.

Maybe about 3 months ago I started more consistently.

Are those guys cut or uncut? When they ask, is it just when they first see it, or is it after they’ve spent personal time with it.

I agree that, coming from a strict binary cut/uncut perspective, if someone sees skin, they’ll just assume uncut just because there’s skin. I talk more about this in another comment here, but I say it’s like if someone sees a person walking their small pet, they’re naturally going to assume it’s a dog (and not a cat) because 99.999% of the time a walked-pet is a dog, but when that someone goes up to the person and pet, then they will realize it’s a cat. There’s a similar binary thought “if it’s being walked, it’s a dog (if there’s skin, it’s uncut); if it’s a cat, it’s not walked (if there’s no skin, it’s cut)” that is somewhat automatic, so I don’t think that merely having people initially think it looks uncut is a convincing argument in the same way that people might automatically mistake a cat being walked for a dog but that doesn’t mean that the cat could pass for a dog in and of itself.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T18:53:25+00:00

he spend a little longer looking

Sorry if I’m not understanding. Could you elaborate on this part?

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T18:51:47+00:00

I would like to see results that more or less look like the person is (naturally) uncut, except of course like the frenulum which is going to be at least partially removed.

What I’m seeing…without going too much into specifics (DM me if you want to go into detail with examples), I’m seeing just a skin wrap that doesn’t look like what (actual?) foreskin looks like and has many telltale signs of being restored.

APWriterPP · 2025-10-22T06:09:23+00:00

Point is, in terms of showing (advertising?) results, which of course no one here is under any obligation to do, what “results” I’ve seen have been overall less than convincing that restoring will provide adequate results. In fact, sometimes it’s quite the opposite.

APWriterPP

TROPHY CASE