The Fantastic Foreskin

"I [felt] like something was taken away...I actually had a sense of anger," he says. "And it wasn't anger towards anyone, it was just, I was angry about the situation, that there was absolutely nothing I could do. I couldn't reverse it." He adds later: "I can control so much in my life, and that was one thing I could not control, I could not change."

But now that his glans is covered most of the time, "It's like the difference between touching the hands of a baby and touching the hands of a 30-year-old man."

And while taping your penis every day might seem like a chore, Woodgate says it's just like any other part of a person's normal routine.

"You don't even think about it — you brush your teeth, you comb your hair," he says, "Well, I cut a two-inch long piece of tape and put it on my penis and go. And it takes me all of ten seconds."

Woodgate says his boyfriend, who is circumcised, has been supportive of the restoration. It may have taken him a little time to get used to it, Woodgate says, but the couple is now at the point where Woodgate's boyfriend pre-cuts pieces of tape Woodgate can carry in his shaving kit when he travels.

While Woodgate says he's committed to using tape for the next 20 years, he wishes he could find a doctor willing to investigate the possibilities of true foreskin restorations. He'd like organ donation to include foreskin, for skin grafts that could do a whole lot more than tape or batteries.

He's going to be waiting a while.

The study of foreskin sensitivity has not been a priority among most physicians.

Because conventional American medical wisdom has historically decided circumcision reduced the chance of infection and was more hygienic overall, whether foreskin made sex more pleasurable just did not seem important.

But some physicians are convinced of the foreskin's extreme sensitivity — none more so than the members of the Seattle-based Doctors Opposing Circumcision. This advocacy group claimed a victory when its members coauthored a recent study that concluded — big surprise here — that uncircumcised men have more sensitive penises.

Published in the April 2007 issue of the British Journal of Urology, the study measured the sensitivity of 159 cut and uncut men with "Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test sensory evaluators," which is a fancy way of saying the doctors tickled the dudes' junk with fishing line. (Under the journal's "conflict of interest" section, it reads "none declared." This is followed by the fact that the study was funded by the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, which seems fine, as long as no one looks at the group's acronym.)

The doctors claimed to have mapped the "fine-touch pressure thresholds" of cut and uncut penises — after controlling for things like type of underwear worn and education level, of course. In all, 19 pressure points were identified, and these were the portions removed or otherwise affected by circumcision.

Besides a critique of the study in the June 2007 issue of the BJU, the study seems to have been largely ignored. It appears that doctors just aren't that interested in foreskin. Most of the physicians interviewed for this story — well, at least the ones who returned phone calls — thought the idea of foreskin restoration was, A: stupid; B: delusional; C: both of the above.

Houston plastic surgeon Berkeley Powell, past president of the Texas Society of Plastic Surgeons, said with a bit of a chuckle, "I'm sitting here just kind of amazed. I didn't know this was going on. But I read your paper — this is what I read it for, to stay abreast of current events."

Powell reiterated the fact that restorers weren't actually restoring anything, but added: "More power to 'em for trying."

Michael Coburn, chief of urology at Ben Taub and a professor at Baylor, was surprised to hear about nonsurgical restoration: "Why are these people wanting to do that?"

As far as uncircumcised men having greater sensitivity, Coburn says, "There's not really any medical evidence to support that."