I remember my ex telling me he had been only partially circumcised at birth. I didn't know this was done - I thought circumcision was an all-or-nothing kind of deal. I hope this is not too graphic, but I recall he did not have a typical foreskin, but when he was not erect his penis would disappear almost entirely into his body. Is there any reason why only a partial circumcision would be performed?
Sounds more like he had a buried penis which is often a condition caused, or made worse, by circumcision.
Here in Australia during the 70s and 80s, when the medical profession first began to advise against circumcision, there was a trend to leave more skin on boys whose parents still insisted on circumcision. I don't think that happened in the US though. What country was he born in?
He was born in the United States. He never told me why he was only partially circumcised, and I also have no idea if he actually knows if he had a partial circumcision or he just assumes it because he looks different from completely circumcised males.
I think he has just assumed this is the case. I remember when I was small I thought my brother was intact because he seemed to have more skin than me. In fact it was just a difference in the way we grew and perhaps a little more skin left for him to play with than me.
I still think it is most likely that your ex is suffering from buried penis caused or made worse by circumcision. If I'm wrong and he is partially circumcised I envy him almost as much as I envy intact guys. He would find masturbation much easier with more loose skin that tightly cut guys.