The Fantastic Foreskin

Circumcised men are employing weights and pulleys to cover themselves back up

"I'm wearing it right now," John Long says. "But I didn't wear it most of the day yesterday."

Circumcised men are employing weights and pulleys to cover themselves back up
Circumcised men are employing weights and pulleys to cover themselves back up
The TLC Tugger hopes to improve the world, one penis at a time.
The TLC Tugger hopes to improve the world, one penis at a time.

The 27-year-old bookstore employee is talking about the device attached to his circumcised penis, beneath his clothes. Picture a miniature silicone lampshade with a handle on the wide end. It's cupping the head of his johnson, and the skin of the shaft is pulled forward over it. An elastic band runs from the handle to a knee brace, applying constant tension to the skin on the penis, stretching it forward, coaxing it to grow.

The device can pinch or get bunched up at times, but overall, it's an effective vehicle for Long's mission, which is to create a faux-foreskin out of existing shaft skin. The device is called the TLC Tugger, and Long bought it online from its inventor, an engineer in suburban Chicago. The Tugger's motto is: Improving the world, one penis at a time.

Long's wife, Melissa, discovered the site after the subject of circumcision came up on an online parenting forum. When one guy introduced himself by saying he was restoring his foreskin, Melissa was intrigued. She did some research on her own, finding that there were many different contraptions out there. The TLC Tugger Web site jumped out at her for one simple reason: It features an instructional video, with the inventor stuffing his junk into the lamp shades. (Melissa's initial reaction describes it best: "I cannot believe this guy is putting this thing on his thing.")

But what started out as an amusement for the couple soon turned serious. They felt their eyes opening to the allegations on the anti-circumcision Web sites: Decreased sensitivity among cut men; "mutilation" in general; sexual partners of uncircumcised men raving about the superiority of "intact" guys.

"I got kind of pissed off," John says. "The more I learned, the more angry I got."

His anger is shared by quite a few. Since there is virtually no effective procedure to surgically restore foreskin (see "The Fantastic Foreskin: Under the Knife"), Long and others have had to find alternatives — which ultimately don't restore foreskin at all, but give some "restorers" the feeling they are making themselves whole.

Since the dawn of the modern restoring movement in the early '80s, thousands of men have attached what look like Inquisition-era torture devices to their privates in order to reclaim what they feel was butchered at birth. Progress is slow and the equipment is embarrassingly cumbersome, but proponents say it is worth it.


The anti-circ community got the sad news February 13: Clifford Spooner, a pioneer in the restoration movement, died of cancer in Washington state. According to the obit on the International Coalition for Genital Integrity's Web site, Spooner cofounded Brothers United for Future Foreskin (BUFF) in 1982.

Spooner's disdain for circumcision sparked when his mother had him circumcised at age ten, according to the obit — which does not state the reason for the delayed procedure.

Spooner would grow up to advocate, along with his compatriots at BUFF, a restoration method whereby the skin of the shaft is stretched over the head and taped in place. (In cases where the tape wouldn't stick, BUFF suggested, you could "paint the skin with tincture of benzoin, which is also known as friar's balsam").

Ten years later, BUFF was eclipsed by the San Francisco-based National Organization for the Restoration of Men and other anti-circ sites, perhaps due in part to BUFF's debunking the importance of penile hygiene: "Contrary to the old wives' tale, it is not necessary to wash the penis every day."

But the term "foreskin restoration" is misleading, since all these men are doing is stretching existing shaft skin.

A quick aside for Foreskin 101 (in a nutshell): The foreskin is an elastic sheath consisting of an outer layer of "regular" skin and an inner layer of mucous membrane, like the underside of the eyelid. The foreskin keeps the glans covered and lubricated, and retracts when the penis is erect. "Intactivists" believe the foreskin is rich in nerve endings that are severed upon circumcision. The debate over the merits of circumcision doesn't exist only among the general public — many doctors are divided on the subject, battling each other with studies that take opposing views on circumcision's protection against HIV, cancer, urinary tract infections and other problems.

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement on circumcision that was also adopted by the American Medical Association: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." (Because of doctors' general lack of interest in foreskin restoration, there do not appear to be any studies on the efficacy of restored foreskin warding off disease).

Today, restoring men have opportunities for support that Spooner and the old guard probably couldn't imagine — forums such as www.foreskin-restoration.net, where guys can debate the efficacy of different products, ask tough questions ("Does anyone have experience tugging while going through airport security?") and post pictures of their progress. Most restorers measure progress via the coverage index ("CI"), a standard whereby cut men can measure the amount of any existing foreskin they may have at the beginning of the restoration process and the amount of the foreskin during and after the process. Determining one's CI number requires one to spend a considerable amount of time studying photographs of flaccid and erect penises. In fact, any serious restorer not only examines dick-shots as if they were painted on the Sistine Chapel, he discusses every nanometer of his knob in incredible detail. Nothing is out of bounds. It's a place where one man can tell another man, "Looking at my circumcision scar when erect, you can see that there is almost twice as much skin on the bottom as the top" and nothing bad happens.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Page >>
 
  • Michael Jordan Shoes 08/02/2010 12:10:00 PM

    I really liked reading your post!. Quallity content. With such a valuable blog i believe you deserve to be ranking even higher in the search engines :). Check out the link in my name. That links to a tool that really helped me rank high in google. This way even more people can enjoy your posts and nothing beats a big audiance ;)

  • Restoring Tally 07/04/2010 2:25:00 AM

    I am restoring my foreskin and I am amazed at the difference. The doctors quoted in the article should be ashamed of themselves. The difference is dramatic and doctors should be better informed of the function of the foreskin. My wife used to get sore from sex and we needed lots of lubricant. Now, she does not get sore and we don't need lube like we used to. We both enjoy sex a whole lot more.

  • David 12/10/2008 8:38:00 PM

    I was circumcised when I was 32 because my defacto wife had mentioned when she was drunk a few times that she prefered circumcised penises, particularly because she like to spontaneously engage in oral sex and hated even a hint of smegma. Initially I didn't like it because I didn't get the same pleasure from masturbating the way I used to... but once I changed my technique I found I would take longer but build up to better orgasms. The big difference was in sex - when I had the foreskin I would find that when my partner squeezed when she was close I would experience a tugging that was uncomfortable and sometimes even painful (should mention I'm very thick - 6cm across the head and 5.5cm across the shaft). This would result in me resorting to fast short strokes so I could glide within my foreskin without pain, much to my partner's frustration. I didn't have this problem with all women, but it happened with enough partners for it to be an issue. After the circumcision I was able to vary my stokes much more effectively over a session, and use long stroke when she was close and squeezing without any discomfort for me. I honestly wish I'd been circumcised at birth, I wouldn't miss the old way I masturbated (still do sometimes), and I would have been a better lover when I was younger.

  • anon 07/26/2008 11:43:00 PM

    Recently I noticed that the sensitivity of my penis seemed low, so I stopped masturbating for awhile. Even after a few days without masturbating I noticed that I still wasn't that sensitive. I'm only 26 years old, so I went online looking for some kind of cream to remove the rough skin on my glans. During my search I ran into norm.org and I read the site, and a light went off in my head. I never knew that the foreskin had so many functions. For years I had difficulty having sex with my partners. I always thought it was because I masturbated too much, but it was actually because I wasn't sensitive enough. Many people do not know this, but one of the reasons circumcision exists is because it makes it harder to masturbate, so religion embraces it as a way to control male orgasms (only wet when inside a vagina). I feel violated. I'm angry, and I'm also shocked at the lack of national discussion on this topic. I'm annoyed that female circumcision is seen as bad, but male circumcision is ok. I will never let anyone do this to any of my future sons, and I wish that there was a way to restore my penis. I'm going to try out the Tug Ahoy or TLC Tugger just so my glans can be covered up and remain moist. It may not restore all the nerves and other functionality, but staying moist is a BIG deal. Circumcision without consent is a crime against individual rights. PERIOD

  • steve 06/14/2008 12:20:00 AM

    Ah, wouldn't that be awesome if foreskins were available thru organ donors... you know they are available because cancer research was using them to make interferon a while back... I am using Ron Low's device to restore... I am a typical restorer: angry at the mutilation of my penis and happy that I'm doing something to restore some part of it. Ron is a good man. After two months of 'tugging', I have about 1/4" of skin growth but the loosening of the skin tube and the increased sensitvity of my glans are completely worth it. To the guy that thinks the foreskin restorers are loonies... would you take the same point of view if our society routinely cut off one ear lobe of human babies? I mean, that lobe isn't necessary, doesn't affect the ear performance... Try to understand sir... your body doesn't need modification upon birth unless there's a medical defect. A foreskin is certainly not such.

  • ozprof 01/08/2008 1:15:00 AM

    The issues is not the operation but the issue of performing surgery on a patient without his knowledge let alone consent;that should be a felony. No doctor should ever remove healthy tissue, especially of the poatnent cannot consent to it. If there is nothing wrong, leave it alone. If the boy wants it done as an adult, fine. And how tolerant we are the a woman who loses her breast to cancer feels the need to have that breast restored yet the man who was mutilated without his knowledge at birth is made fun of for wanting also to be restored.

  • betterforall 10/13/2007 10:35:00 AM

    with new medical technology like the recent hand transplants etc.this is probably a thing of the past now that foreskin transplants could reverse unwanted circumcisions/genital mutilations of men or women.

  • troy 08/12/2007 10:39:00 PM

    i just wanted to add that while reconstructive surgery such as breast reconstruction after masectomy or foreskin reconstruction after injury or circumcision are usually not medically needed they are done more for the person to feel whole or look and function more normally.also foreskin reconstruction is one of the oldest plastic surgeries and has been done for thousands of years.it is done by grafting a piece of scrotal skin onto the penis.

  • Think Critically 08/01/2007 2:39:00 PM

    For your average male infant, circumcision is not medically necessary. This point is no longer debated. (**) Ergo, routine circumcision is a medically unnecessary procedure performed without consent. Clearly, this is unethical. As such, routine application of the procedure in absence of a demonstrated medical need is completely indefensible, and this debate should be *over*. What's left to discuss, and why are American physicians the only ones drinking the Kool-Aid? As an aside, circumcision advocates rely on a number of logical fallacies, and I'd like to see these appear less frequently in the media: (***) - appeal to tradition: "we've always done it this way; therefore, we should continue to do so." - appeal to authority: "Dr. Credentials MD DO PhD said so, and he's a doctor." (There are many doctors, and few can claim absolute authority on a subject. A single doctor's possibly cherry-picked opinion is worthless.) - anecdotal evidence: "That one guy over there just got circumcised and seems to like it." (Pro-foreskin advocates definitely employ this one too.) - paralipsis/association: "I don't know why we're dicussing circumcision and foreskins, especially since those whose oppose the practice are antisemites and mentally unstable loonies with weird family issues and axes to grind. Clearly, this is a rediculous subject to broach." - argumentum ad populum: "Lots of people perform circumcision, and lots of people are circumcised. Clearly, it's the right thing to be doing." - bias: "Women clearly prefer the more sightly circumcised penis." (Of course they might: it's an aesthetic determined primarily by how society has informed them that a penis should look.) Ignoring the relative severity of male vs female circumcision, proponents of female genital mutilation employ most of these same fallacies. So it's maddening to see us (Americans) so skillfully point out these fallacies in arguments for FGM while ignoring our own use of them for male circumcision. But then, there's always denial: "If circumcision negatively impacts the body, then it means my body subpar and (worse) I've done an injustice to my children. Therefore, circumcision must be OK, maybe even a good thing." ** - Some studies conclude (pessimistically) that if males aren't likely to practice safe sex, then routine circumcision will lower STD rates of transmission. This argument has no merit in countries like the USA where contraceptives and education are available, and some absurd conclusions could be drawn by making analogous arguments for prevention of diseases like breast cancer or tonsillitis. *** - These aren't unique to circumcision advocates -- anti-circ folks do the same. However, by my earlier point, I think the burden of proof lies with the pro-circ camp, so these fallacies are important to list.

  • David 07/26/2007 4:18:00 AM

    Charles, I don't understand your first sentence, why would the kid say "you sick bastard!" Half or more of the boys in his school gym locker will have their foreskins intact also.

  • calice 07/21/2007 7:03:00 PM

    I'm glad Mr. Maislow introduced the subject of foreskin restoration to the readers of the Houston Press. All ready we know the circumcision rate for Tejanitos is under 50%. May many read, be educated, and change the circumcising culture in America.

  • Charles II 07/19/2007 4:28:00 PM

    What John Long's son is more likely to say, when he gets to be in school, or about puberty, is "You sick bastard!" This very vocal but still tiny bunch of anti-circ nuts are doing nothing but recruiting perfectly ordinary, normal and happy guys into a cult of victimhood leading down a path to sure disappointment, if not all the very problems they never had because of circumcision. And what does this invitation to STD's have in store for the rest of us in the vicinity of these sickos? Shouldn't they have to wear a warning sign ("Foreskin Alert -- Maintain safe distance")?

  • Don Kettle 07/19/2007 12:30:00 PM

    Generally, I found this article to be one of the fairest I've read on the subject of foreskin restoration. I wasn't even offended by Mr. Malisow's occasional editorial 'barbs'. Perhaps, I've grown 'acclimated' to such disguised commentary over the years. I was, however, most offended by the comment left by reader Cary Edwards, who said, "The reason that the medical community has not addressed this issue is because it is a non-issue. In order for the medical community to consider such a surgery there has to be a medical need." To that I reply with the question, "And just what MEDICAL NEED did the medical community find in removing my 5-day-old foreskin?" Their tired, antiquated (even in 1955) excuses of PREVENTION are NOT medical need. And a diagnosis of Phimosis in an infant is impossible since the prepuce and the glans are bonded naturally, usually until the puberty when the penis begins to develop for it's sexual/reproductive function. As another reader suggested, READ the RESEARCH. Particularly the collaberative works of Drs. J.R. Taylor and Christopher Cold. It will do much to change one's beliefs that the foreskin is just a flap of skin and prove to the Doubting Thomases that the prepuce is specialized, highly innervated tissue that has a definite purpose throughout the life of the individual.

  • cosmoloca 07/16/2007 11:43:00 PM

    The foreskin AND frenulum hold ALL of the nerves of FINE sensation. Intactivists do NOT merely "believe" - as your otherwise well written article states - that the foreskin is more sensitive. The Jack Tayler study done in the mid-eighties was the first histological study done in North America to show this. Please read the studies and correct the error(s). Otherwise thank you for broaching a matter about which most of anglo North America is in denial. Skincerely Yours, ********Cosmoloca***

  • James 07/15/2007 9:09:00 PM

    I have a TLC Tugger and a TugaHoy. They are similar devices, but I have found the TugaHoy much easier to get on (10 sec) and off (2-3 sec). I am persuaded that I would not have had the commitment if I'd been limited to taping. I am a naturist, so I simply loop the elastic around my neck and stretch upward; it can also be done stretching the elastic around the waist. I sometimes wear it under clothing, and if it becomes uncomfortable it can be easily and inconspicuously removed. I know that true foreskin can not be recovered, but I do think sensitivity is increasing as the glans remains increasingly covered. I agree that circumcision is genital mutilation as routinely practiced, and am seriously offended that it was done to me, and that I allowed it, in my ignorance, to be done to four sons. The practice may have limited application, but should not be done routinely.

  • David 07/14/2007 5:47:00 PM

    I was circ'd at 12 years of age. Always had painful erections, to the point of skin tears and bleeding. Circumcision shortens the penis since some length is held back during erection. A cut penis has to pull up hair-bearing scrotal skin to make up for the loss of skin. Result is a very tight, immobile shaft skin. No gliding action at all. So many benefits to the natural foreskin. Did you know that most intact men's partners do not need to use artificial lube during sex? KY and Astroglide, etc. is a large business in the US, not in UK, or other countries that do not circumcise. If I have a son, he will be left alone.

  • 07/13/2007 6:08:00 PM

    I don't think the pleasure of sex with circumcised versus uncircumcised men can be accurately measured scientifically, as sex is an evolving art/skill. An experienced man will almost always be better than a virgin, foreskin or no. That said, the last 16 years of my own individual research with a relatively equal ratio of cut to uncut men (all in the name of science, of course) have led me to the personal conclusion that uncircumcised men are better in the sack. Aside from being a rather barbaric way to welcome a child into the world, the removal of the foreskin reduces the size of the penis. Fact: size matters!!! (Any woman who says differently is merely being polite; sorry guys.) However small that piece of skin might be, it still diminishes the size of the penis. Team Foreskin!!

  • 07/13/2007 5:44:00 PM

    The comparison of sex with cut men to uncut men is slightly skewed as sex is more of an acquired art/skill; a circumcised virgin wouldn't be able to compare accurately to a well seasoned uncircumcised man in his 30s for example. That said, my little black book is split almost equally between cut and uncut. In my personal experience, the uncircumcised men have been better in bed, though I have no experience with men who have "restored" their foreskin. Circumcision involves the removal of part of the skin on the penis. Fact: size matters!! (Sorry guys. Any woman who told you it didn't was just being polite.) However small the removed foreskin might have been, the removal of it reduces the size of the penis. Not to mention, it's a rather barbaric way to welcome a child into the world. Team Foreskin!!

  • Punim 07/13/2007 2:16:00 PM

    Having had both,I prefer circumsized! The other feels mushy and looks gunky at the tip.Yuck!The guys that are trying put back a foreskin probably think its going to help with their sexual performance.

  • Dan P. 07/13/2007 2:01:00 PM

    The foreskin is a natural body part. Every normal natural male has one. Some men have committed suicide because of their loss. Restoration of the foreskin is a medical necessity, at least as much as breast reconstruction for which many states mandate insurance coverage. It is not "cosmetic", there is a functional purpose. If you study the science of tissue regeneration you will find that new cells are grown in a process called mitosis, and yes the new tissue is very sensitive. There is also a gliding action during intercourse, which helps with dry conditions or irritations some couples suffer from. It is unfortunate that restoration is mixed up with circumcision debates. Keep them separate. It makes no sense to explain road rage to the owner of a vandalized car.

  • Christi L. 07/13/2007 2:44:00 AM

    There is no medical reason to perform circumcision, except in rare cases of frostbite, cancer or gangrene...yet the medical community has taken a great interest in the procedure. Hundreds of thousands of adults choose cosmetic surgery for themselves every year. Doctors take an interest in them because of the financial benefits. I am certain that once doctors realize they can make money on both ends of the circumcision debacle, surgical foreskin restoration will be advertised as something every man should do while infant circumcision will still be promoted as a way to prevent STDs.

  • Cary Edwards 07/13/2007 12:52:00 AM

    The reason that the medical community has not addressed this issue is because it is a non-issue. In order for the medical community to consider such a surgery there has to be a medical need. In addition to this they would have to take skin from a donor site on the person's body, which does carry certain risk of infection as well as bleeding from the surgical site in question. I would also like to see some literature from a medical source that states that a circumcised male's penis calcifies. Conclusively these men that are using these devices should seek their physician's opinions on the safety of using them.

  • SunkenShip 07/12/2007 12:56:00 PM

    Wow, could the writer of this article be anymore obvious that he believes circumcision is wonderful and those who are against it are loonies, making up evidence in their heads? Funny how America is the only industrialized nation that circs its baby boys at the high rate we do. Other countries seem to see the value of the foreskin. But not in America. No, no way.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy