skinned back in old porn mags

[pelagian]

Just going through some old mags from the 1980s, I was interested to see that there were quite a few UK guys with pulled back foreskins. It was easy to tell from the photos sequences that this was something they always did, and not just for the camera.  Some scanned and attached.

[ddnaturist]

Some great examples - Thank you for sharing @pelagian!

Love the flared out corona on the last one!

I started pulling back in '81.

[Nexolaris]

Just going through some old mags from the 1980s, I was interested to see that there were quite a few UK guys with pulled back foreskins. It was easy to tell from the photos sequences that this was something they always did, and not just for the camera.  Some scanned and attached.

Thank for sharing! 

[GarethUK]

Just going through some old mags from the 1980s, I was interested to see that there were quite a few UK guys with pulled back foreskins. It was easy to tell from the photos sequences that this was something they always did, and not just for the camera.  Some scanned and attached.

I've often wondered about this, and I still have my collection of 1980's UK mags too! At the time, I always used to find it frustrating that there were never any pictures of guys with covered glanses - both to fuel my interest in foreskins and to learn more about their amazing variety. If you were very lucky, there might be one picture from a set that showed someone covered over, otherwise it seemed to be a default setting that he was retracted, and I always wondered why. Perhaps it was because British gay mags were relatively new at the time, and it was an attempt to match the US stuff, with perhaps an assumption that most people prefered to see exposed glanses. I for one wanted (and still do!) to see a bloke in both states, and I now find it equally frustrating when you see a whole set of pics of a natural man without seeing what he looks like retracted!

[BenTwilley]

Every one a bush. We live in changing times!

[pelagian]

I've often wondered about this, and I still have my collection of 1980's UK mags too! At the time, I always used to find it frustrating that there were never any pictures of guys with covered glanses - both to fuel my interest in foreskins and to learn more about their amazing variety. If you were very lucky, there might be one picture from a set that showed someone covered over, otherwise it seemed to be a default setting that he was retracted, and I always wondered why. Perhaps it was because British gay mags were relatively new at the time, and it was an attempt to match the US stuff, with perhaps an assumption that most people prefered to see exposed glanses. I for one wanted (and still do!) to see a bloke in both states, and I now find it equally frustrating when you see a whole set of pics of a natural man without seeing what he looks like retracted!

Judging from the other shots in the photosets, it's pretty certain these all guys are permanent retractors. There are certainly loads of guys with foreskins forward - in some issues, that's all there is! Plenty of circumcised ones, too, though it's not always clear if they are UK or US models.

But yes, I agree that it is very frustrating not to see at least one shot of a guy with his foreskin pulled back!

[pelagian]

Here's a few more from the same mags.

[pelagian]

blast - attached 3, only 1 came though.

[pelagian]

and the one that simply won't attach itself!

[thesevenpointfive]

Thanks for sharing, wonder why they thought they need to skin back, may be the look.

[samuel12345]

Please share the website link of these pictures