News

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.

Comment by SunkenShip — July 12, 2007 @ 05:56AM

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.

Comment by Cary Edwards — July 12, 2007 @ 05:52PM

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.

Comment by Christi L. — July 12, 2007 @ 07:44PM

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.

Comment by Dan P. — July 13, 2007 @ 07:01AM

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.

Comment by Punim — July 13, 2007 @ 07:16AM

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!!

Comment by Ms. Pants — July 13, 2007 @ 10:44AM

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!!

Comment by Ms. Pants — July 13, 2007 @ 11:08AM

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.

Comment by David — July 14, 2007 @ 10:47AM

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.

Comment by James — July 15, 2007 @ 02:09PM

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***

Comment by cosmoloca — July 16, 2007 @ 04:43PM

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.

Comment by Don Kettle — July 19, 2007 @ 05:30AM

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")?

Comment by Charles II — July 19, 2007 @ 09:28AM

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.

Comment by calice — July 21, 2007 @ 12:03PM

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.

Comment by David — July 25, 2007 @ 09:18PM

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.

Comment by Think Critically — August 1, 2007 @ 07:39AM

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.

Comment by troy — August 12, 2007 @ 03:39PM

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.

Comment by betterforall — October 13, 2007 @ 03:35AM

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.

Comment by ozprof — January 7, 2008 @ 06:15PM