Most Popular
-
Barack Obama and Me
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
-
Mescaline on the Mexican Border
Texas is the only state in the country where peyote is sold legally. Really.
-
A Prison Cover-up During Hurricane Rita
For days after the storm, inmates in Beaumont lived without A/C, electricity or hot meals. Press releases kept saying everything inside was fine. Guards and prisoners agree — that was nothing but B.S.
-
Little Bitty Burger Barn
"It's okay to be little bitty in the big city" is an apt slogan for this new burger joint, where sliders rule
-
Ghost Town CFS: Carriage House Cafe
Step back in time to a spooky old carriage barn with a monster chicken-fried steak
-
Barack Obama and Me (251)
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
-
Save Lobo: A Siberian Husky Mix is Sentenced to Die (28)
Why? Because he's big and intimidating and because one family complained about him over and over again
-
A Prison Cover-up During Hurricane Rita (15)
For days after the storm, inmates in Beaumont lived without A/C, electricity or hot meals. Press releases kept saying everything inside was fine. Guards and prisoners agree — that was nothing but B.S.
-
Are You Hot Enough for Citizen Lounge? (7)
All This Useless Beauty
-
HoustonHipHop.com Relaunch Party (5)
-
Barack Obama and Me
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
-
Mescaline on the Mexican Border
Texas is the only state in the country where peyote is sold legally. Really.
-
A Prison Cover-up During Hurricane Rita
For days after the storm, inmates in Beaumont lived without A/C, electricity or hot meals. Press releases kept saying everything inside was fine. Guards and prisoners agree — that was nothing but B.S.
-
Live-Action Role-Players Get Boffed in Amtgard
Amid flailing swords and flying shields, these modern-day knights fight on
-
Tax Break for the Rich; Roger Clemens at the Capitol; Green Sex
Mayor White gets help from the appraisal district
-
Over the Weekend: Fotos, Dogs and Sausage. And Hannah Montana Too.
08:50AM 03/10/08 -
Friday Night: Wilco at Verizon Wireless Theater
05:04PM 03/10/08 -
Spring Training Doesn’t Count, Except for When It Does
04:29PM 03/10/08 -
Sausage Fest: Bangers and Mash at Red Lion Pub
11:40AM 03/08/08
What we are writing about
- American Gangster
- Amy Sillman: Suitors...
- birth defects
- Bob Dylan
- Christmas Tree-O
- Continental Club
- Houston art
- Houston local music
- Houston music stores
- Houston Rockets
- Houston theater
- I'm Not There
- illegal immigrants
- Main Street Theater
- McGonigel's Mucky Duck
- Meridian
- Perspectives 158:...
- players' scoring averages
- Proletariat
- Rudyard's
- Rumors
- Sig's Lagoon
- Somerville
- Sound Exchange
- toxic industrial...
- Toyota Center
- Turkeys of the Year
- Verizon Wireless Theater
- Warehouse Live
- Wii
Recent Articles By Craig Malisow
-
The Fantastic Foreskin: Under the Knife
Surgeons not rushing to put back what they took away
-
Oh, Baby Baby
There's a lot of money to be made in adoptions. Jennalee Ryan moved to Texas to continue doing that.
-
In the Sub-Prime of Life
Homeowners complain that Litton Loan is quicker to foreclose than it needs to be
-
The Choking Game
Levi Draher came back from the dead. Other players were not so lucky.
-
UH student investigates ORIX
Goes after loan servicer
National Features
-
SF Weekly
The Candidate
Our columnist knows Ralph Nader's running mate all too well.
By Matt Smith -
The Pitch
How Not To Be a Rap Star
First of all, lay off the Ecstasy.
By Nadia Pflaum -
Village Voice
Project Runaway
What becomes a gossip columnist most?
By Michael Musto
The Fantastic Foreskin
Circumcised men are employing weights and pulleys to cover themselves back up
By Craig Malisow
Published: July 12, 2007"I'm wearing it right now," John Long says. "But I didn't wear it most of the day yesterday."
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.
This open-mindedness comes in handy for those looking to build, rather than buy, restoration devices. More than a few restorers appear to be natural MacGyvers, to wit: "Currently, I'm using a one-inch-diameter pipe coupling with all [of] the inside covered with aquarium sealantÉ"
Obviously, if someone's going to slather a pipe in aquarium sealant and tie it to his penis, he should have a good reason. And most of the restoring men contacted for this story say they have one of the best reasons of all: They believe they were mutilated for a myth, denied full sexual pleasure, and completely violated.
For some, it's a late awakening. Guerin Woodgate Jr., 29, says he never thought much about his circumcision until he stumbled upon some anti-circ Web sites about ten years ago.
"As soon as I started reading the information, I suddenly felt like I was missing something that was important to me," he says, "and immediately felt compelled to start finding a way to get it back."
Woodgate, an IT consultant, says he sought advice from urologists, who brushed him aside, so he dived into nonsurgical restoration methods. The first technique he tried was a relatively common one among novice restorers, partly because it involves ordinary materials: one empty film canister (35-mm), batteries (size C, in Woodgate's case), a suspender-type strap, tape and a binder clip.
Woodgate cut out the bottom of the film canister, making a tube, and punched a hole in one side, so he could have one hook end of the binder clip sticking out. He then inserted the head of his penis into the canister, rolled the skin from his shaft over the tube, taped it in place, and attached a strap weighted with two batteries (taped together) to the binder clip.
Sure, it may sound like fun, but Woodgate soon ran into problems.
"Actually, inserting your penis is quite difficult inside of a film canister," he says. "You look at a film canister and you think, 'that's pretty big around.' And you don't realize, actually, the natural diameter of a penis and how large in diameter it really is until, even flaccid, you try to insert your penis inside this thing. Rolling the skin over was very difficult, especially because of the lack of skin that I had."
Next up was the PUD (Penile Uncircumcising Device) Tugger, sold by a company called American Bodycrafters and advertised as "the most sophisticated foreskin restoration product to date." The PUD is essentially a stainless-steel cylinder worn over the glans, with shaft skin taped around it. Like the canister method, the PUD includes a hook to hold additional weights. Another benefit, according to one PUD sales site: "All of our products come with a urinary passage so removal during urination is not necessary." (For those who want to lengthen the penis while restoring the foreskin, American Bodycrafters sells something called the VacuTrac, which looks like it violates the Geneva Convention.)
But, also like the canister method, the PUD didn't work for Woodgate. He says it was effective, but awkward.
"By the time you put this thing on it's 16 ounces and you start to walk around, it moves around in your pants leg," he says, "and people think, 'Man, that man has a long penis'...And that's not really my deal. I'm not trying to advertise this."
After flushing an estimated $1,000 down the drain, Woodgate ultimately decided he liked the simplest method of all: a two-inch strip of medical-grade tape. All he does is pull his shaft skin forward and tape it in place. While it's certainly a lot less cumbersome than tubes and batteries, the tape method also takes a lot longer to yield significant results. Woodgate believes he'll have to wear tape for 20 years before he reaches his ideal CI number. But the simple act helps instill something he believes his circumcision stripped him of control over his own body.
"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."
Like other restorers, Woodgate says that keeping the glans covered a function of natural foreskin has made it more sensitive. Here's something he suggests circumcised guys do: "If you go into the bathroom, take your pants down and take a good look at your penis. If you've been circumcised and you're 20 years or older, the head of your penis...will appear to be somewhat dry and calcified. And the older that you get, the more calcified...the head of your penis is, rubbing inside of your briefs or boxers. And so what happens is, the skin's own mechanism is to naturally harden the skin...."
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."
Still, many restoring men claim that the process has enhanced sex for both themselves and their partners. This concept was even the thesis for a book written by the wife of a restoring man, Sex as Nature Intended It. Author Kristen O'Hara cites a survey she conducted claiming that women prefer uncut men nine to one. O'Hara's Web site for the book includes testimonies from herself and other (unidentified) women who liken sex with a circumcised man to being pounded with a jackhammer, while uncut men are more gentle and responsive. As supporting evidence, she includes alleged testimony from a woman who writes that her first sexual experience involved a guy lying down beside her at a beach, spontaneously masturbating and then raping her. Her next sexual experience, a year later, was a pleasant romp with an uncircumcised man who did not rape her. Case closed.
Melissa Long swears that sex is better now that her husband is restoring. Previously, she says, sex had always been painful.
"It was almost like a relief to me to know that there wasn't something wrong with me," she says, later adding, "He's more sensitive, so he doesn't have to, like, thrust as hard there doesn't have to be as much friction for him to get the sensation, so it's gentler." In an e-mail, she likened the before-and-after experiences to "going from watching TV on an old black-and-white set to a digital Technicolor plasma screen with surround sound."
Enhanced sex has been especially rewarding to Keith Akers, who started restoring about five years ago.
"I credit the restoration with the fact that I now have a 17-month-old son who, by the way, was not circumcised," says the 47-year-old Atascocita man.
Akers started restoring with the help of an O-ring and now uses the TLC Tugger, with great results. The proof is in the penis: Akers says he's gone from less than 1 on the CI scale to a 3.5. His goal is to have "full coverage" when he's erect.
While the promise of better sex was his primary motivation to restore, Akers mentions an added benefit.
"Part of it was to make myself different from what my dad is," he says, adding later, "It was something that I did for myself because I have no relationship with my dad to speak of at all...at the time that all of this started, I...finally came to grip with some things and I got some treatment for some chronic depression and with the family issues...this was another thing that kind of helped me feel better about myself and to kind of set a little distance between me and the way I viewed some of the problems."
He also understands what brings others to the restoring community: "A lot of the guys on these Web sites, they really feel violated, that something was torn away from them. I don't feel that as strongly...as they do about it, but I can see their point. And I can agree with them."
Ron Low remembers the moment he decided to restore the way someone might remember a wedding anniversary.
About ten years ago, Low (sounds like "cow") noticed his libido was flat-lining. Sex just wasn't what it used to be.
"For me, intimacy just wasn't getting any better. It was getting worse. And at the same time, it was getting better for my wife. You know, here we are approaching 40, and I felt like...'I can't believe nature is so cruel that intimacy would just get worse and worse and this is all I have to look forward to.'"
He found some information about restoring online, and then came that magic moment: "It was April 1, 2001, at about nine o'clock in the evening," he says, speaking on the phone from the Chicago suburb of Northbrook. He and his wife "were sitting in front of the TV set and I said, 'Hon, I've got to tell you about something. I'm going to start applying tape to my penis every day because I want to stretch my skin and make a new foreskin grow.' And she said, 'Well, that's crazy. That's ridiculous.' And I had to look her straight in the eye and tell her I was deadly serious. 'It's not crazy, and I'm going to need your support, dear.'" And she's been supportive ever since.
Low started with the film canister method, but used his training as an engineer to design a new device what turned out to be the TLC Tugger. He says he secretly tested it on himself, not wanting to announce his invention until he knew it worked. Even his mother, who lives next door, did not know her son was walking around constantly stretching the skin of his penis.
"For a long time she would see me wearing shorts and notice a knee brace on one leg, which was there to conceal the tugging straps, and she would express concern about my poor knee," he says. "I usually just said I strained it."
But after 21 months' tugging time, his libido rejuvenated, he offered his device on eBay. There was immediate interest, but he hadn't actually made any more because he wasn't sure if anyone would actually want to buy any.
He started making the molds for the Tugger's two cones in the family kitchen, but, with the greater demand, he now has a "dedicated lab oven" in his basement, with the capability of making about 12 Tuggers a day.
Low moderates an online Tugger user group, which he launched last fall and which now has 1,000 members. He says he ships the product all around the world. (Per his Web site, he offers "free shipping to Israel, Muslim states and third-world nations where ritual mutilation of children occurs.")
He looks forward to the day when the Tugger and other restoration devices are sold at the local drugstore. Until then, he's just one dude making dick-cones in his basement. The device hasn't made him rich, but none of the people selling restoring devices online appear to be in it for the money. They appear to be genuinely interested in helping other guys feel at peace with their penises.
Guys like John Long, who admits that, since his second child a son was born seven months ago, he's been too busy to wear the Tugger consistently.
"People going to get into it...you need to be committed to it: It can be a long haul," he says. He's happy with the results he's seen so far, but a little bitter that he has to go through the process in the first place.
His wife describes it best in an e-mail: "When our son was born in December, we left him intact. For the first few months, during diaper changes, my husband would look at our little boy and shake his head, saying 'Lucky little bastard.' But we know that by the time our son is old enough to know the difference, his dad will look like him, too!"













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