Gimme Some Skin
Why a growing number of circumcised men are submitting to foreskin-stretching devices—and even surgery—to reverse the unkindest cut of all.
-By Elisa Ludwig
-Photographs by Dan Forbes
Jonathan started seriously thinking about his foreskin—or, to be more precise, its absence—the night he and his wife, Linda, went to a live sex talk show in downtown Los Angeles. Jonathan and Linda (their names have been changed) were seated in front, a few feet away from the sexologist host, Dr. Susan Block, and her naked guests. One guy, a porn star who was well-endowed and uncut, drew Jonathan's attention—and his wife's. "Her eyes were just glued to that cock," he says. "She'd never seen or touched an intact penis. She was fascinated by the foreskin."
Three years earlier, when Linda was pregnant with their son, Jonathan had weighed the pros and cons of circumcision. Through research he discovered the advantages of leaving the foreskin intact (it contains thousands of nerve endings that, according to some experts, make sex much more pleasurable) and the risks of removing it (bleeding, scarring, and—very rarely—death). He and Linda decided against circumcising their newborn. But when the child was born with hypospadias—a malformed urethra and foreskin—their doctor recommended circumcision. The couple agreed, though Jonathan was disappointed.
Like most American men of his generation, Jonathan, 40, was circumcised at birth. In the United States, the practice became widespread between the World Wars. Doctors claimed it was hygienic and prevented everything from epilepsy to cancer to excessive masturbation, assertions that have since been discredited. (Current proponents of circumcision point to studies linking it to decreased risk of HIV infection, a matter of major debate.) After peaking in popularity in the sixties, circumcision has been in a slow decline: In the eighties, some 60 percent of male newborns in America underwent the procedure; that number had dropped to 56 percent by 2006. Today the United States is the only Western country besides Australia and Israel (of course) in which a majority of male citizens are circumcised.
Jonathan had never had any problems in the bedroom, but the more he learned about circumcision, the more he believed that regaining a foreskin would take his sex life to new heights. That, plus the fascination and excitement he saw in his wife's eyes that night, made him wonder whether there was a change he could make, for both their sakes.
As a fitness trainer and former professional boxer, Jonathan understood that with patience and hard work the body can be transformed. So he went online and purchased a device called the TLC Tugger. Jonathan is now eight months into a two-to-four-year foreskin-stretching process using the device. He wears it around the clock—except when making love with his wife or going through airport security. He attaches it by placing one cone, which has a metal loop on the end, over the head of his penis; rolling his excess shaft skin over the cone; securing a second cone, with an opening at the top, snugly over that skin; attaching an elastic band to the loop; and finally strapping the band around his knee. The contraption, which pulls gently and steadily downward, has lengthened Jonathan's new "foreskin" so that it now extends halfway over the head of his penis. Millimeter by millimeter, he's re-creating what he was given at birth—and what was taken from him. He already feels like a new man. "I always thought my penis was totally sensitive and fine," he says. "It's one of those things—you can't know it until you know it. And I didn't know what I was missing."
Jonathan is one of a growing number of men who are out to reverse that first and unkindest cut of all. They gather in groups like the National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM), which has seen its membership rise steadily. The Circumcision and Information Resource Pages estimates that tens of thousands of men are restoring or have already restored their foreskins. Some want to regain sensitivity and create a more pleasurable experience for their partners and themselves. Others do it for the sake of appearance—to get the virile, heavy-hooded look they see in European or gay porn—or simply to share a bond with their uncut sons. Still others see it as a way to fight back against what they believe is a violation of human rights.
The foreskin-restoration movement is a subset of the intactivist movement, the community of doctors, parents, and embittered men who believe that circumcision is not only unnecessary but harmful—a ritual akin to the female-genital mutilation practiced by some African cultures. Intactivists lobby against the routine circumcision of boys at birth and, though they generally claim to respect Jews who honor the traditional bris, they rail against our propensity for snipping, blaming it on everything from misguided tradition to a regressive, Victorian-era fear of male sexuality to a multimillion-dollar industry that uses foreskins in cosmetics and medical research (they're a leading source of stem cells).
When a penis is circumcised, the glans, originally covered by the mucous membrane of the foreskin, is left exposed, causing the skin to toughen and desensitize over time. The restoration process re-covers the glans with skin—not foreskin, exactly, but an approximation of it—encouraging the hardened skin to peel away and leaving the glans moister and, according to advocates of the procedure, more sensitive. There are two primary restoration methods: DIY devices for tissue expansion, like Jonathan's, which can take several years, and surgical reconstruction. In the latter, a surgeon cuts the skin on the shaft of the penis and stretches it over the head; the denuded shaft is then pinned down and tucked into slits cut in the scrotal skin, which in time fuses back over the shaft. "It looks like a toad in a blanket," says Dr. Robert Stubbs, a Toronto-based plastic surgeon who has performed several reconstructions. A month or so after the initial surgery, the patient returns to have the penis detached from the scrotum.
Very few doctors in North America advertise surgical reconstruction. "The demand is very small. For as many anti-circ individuals as there are, not that many will go for surgery," says Dr. Harold Reed, of the Reed Center for Genital Surgery, outside Miami. "The operation is a type of cosmetic surgery, as I see it, where someone wants some adornment, like putting jewelry on the penis."
But the surgery is also uncommon because it's flawed. Even when successful it leaves the shaft with a darker and hairy patch, covered as it is in scrotal skin. And failed operations can cause scarring, infection, a retracted foreskin, and even the loss of all penile function.
Those facts didn't dissuade Ben (his name has been changed), an electrician from Lynchburg, Virginia, from going under Reed's knife five years ago, at the age of 38. Ben had wanted to restore his foreskin ever since he was a teenager, when he became aware that his penis had not always been circumcised. Angry and disillusioned, he eagerly plunked down $7,600 to get his foreskin back. "It is impossible to re-create what was destroyed, but I'm happy with the surgery," he says.
Given the dangers of surgical restoration and the intactivists' philosophical aversion to the knife, it's no wonder the majority of restorers opt for nonsurgical methods. The online market is awash in devices like the TLC Tugger, the PUD (Penile Uncircumcising Device), and the CAT II Q Stretcher. Never mind that they sound like things Ron Popeil might hawk on TV—their users swear by them.
Michael (not his real name), a 42-year-old CPA in Southern California, enthusiastically wears the Dual Tension Restorer under his suits. The white nylon plunger with two grippers simultaneously holds the head of his penis and pulls the excess skin outward—and no one at his white-shoe firm is the wiser. "I have wide pants I can hide it underneath," he says, "and I can go to the bathroom to re-situate." He doesn't find it painful but admits that he has on occasion overtugged.
Other restorers jury-rig their own devices. Richard Baker, a 28-year-old network analyst who lives in surburban Dallas, is using a sanded-down PVC pipe with medical tape, S hooks, and elastic waistbands from boxer shorts. He expects to finish restoring in about two years. "I'll feel complete," Richard says. "I won't be ashamed of my body."
Richard shares his progress online, posting photos on a website called restoreforeskin.org, which, along with sites like foreskin-restoration.net, serves as a "What to Expect When You're Stretching" guide. Forum posts on the sites reveal a range of motivations for restorers—the first locker-room exposure to other guys' junk, foreskin envy among gay lovers, chafing during athletic activity, a desire to have a phallus that looks like one's father's (or one's son's). But the overwhelming reason these men want to restore their foreskins is better sex. The restorer community sees the foreskin as the vehicle for whole-body orgasms and erotic rediscovery—or as the remedy for problems such as premature ejaculation and the inability to climax.
The latter reason appealed to Tom (not his real name), a 43-year-old IT consultant from the Midwest. "I could never orgasm from oral sex," he says, "and intercourse took a very long time and was often uncomfortable for my partner. Clearly something was wrong."
A year ago a doctor put Tom on an erectile-dysfunction drug. Since then he's experimented with a few devices, partially restoring his foreskin, and he says he no longer needs the pills—arousal and orgasm are not a problem. Although he's currently single, Tom likes to think his restoration is a gift for his future wife. "Even though I'm not sure who she is yet," he says, "I'm doing it for her."
Many restorers are egged on by their partners. "When you're married, it has to be a joint decision," says Michael, whose European wife was accustomed to sex with uncut men. Michael was the first in his immediate family to be circumcised and, while at a Swiss boarding school, began to feel his circumcised penis looked meager, but his wife helped seal the deal. "She said, 'I like your penis, but it's not as comfortable as an uncut penis.'"
Jonathan has found that restoring his foreskin has paid off by giving him and his wife a more fulfilling sex life. Intercourse is now smoother, less "roughshod," he says. "Anal sex is different too. My wife was never into that—but we tried it again out of curiosity. The gliding made it completely tolerable, and she actually enjoyed it." And it's given him more intense orgasms, he says. "Masturbation is better—even hand jobs are better."
Regardless, the medical community is dubious. Many doctors think restorers are tilting at phallic windmills, dreaming of an impossible sexual ideal or compensating for a sense of inadequacy. From a purely scientific point of view, they may be right. "There's no convincing evidence that having a foreskin increases sensation," says Dr. Ira Sharlip, a professor of urology and a spokesperson for the American Urological Society. "There are an equal number if not more papers that show sensation and sexual satisfaction are better after circumcision. It's a little bit of skin and it raises so many passions, but, you know, it isn't worth the effort of worrying about it."
But norm members and their cohorts contend that the "little bit of skin" is fundamental to their identity and sexuality, and that it was taken without their consent. That loss, for some, has had deep repercussions. Ben asked his parents to pay for his foreskin-restoration surgery as a means of righting their past wrong. They refused—and he no longer speaks to them. In 2000, a 21-year-old Suffolk County, New York, man sued his mother's obstetrician and hospital for having him circumcised in 1981 (the case was settled out of court).
Most restorers, though, are looking for reparations of a physical nature. Jonathan hopes to complete restoration in another 16 months, and he plans to stay active in the restorer community to raise awareness. "It's the idea that most of us are walking around with a desensitized, seriously handicapped penis," he says. "Restoration's not like getting a boob job—you're trying to restore something to the way it's supposed to be."
Do you suffer from foreskin envy? Sound off in the comments section below.
Check out these top stories from Details:
 |
HOW FAR WOULD YOU GO TO GET TALLER? Why an increasing number of vertically challenged men are subjecting themselves to excruciatingly painful leg-lengthening surgery. |
 |
IS BEING WELL-HUNG THE KEY TO HAPPINESS? Some guys never seem to worry. The reason for that is probably in their pants. |
 |
ARE YOU REALLY SATISFYING YOUR WIFE? There's a very good chance she isn't as happy with her sex life as you think. |
RSS FEEDS & PODCASTS
web sites:
I am cut, but was never angry about it, just disappointed. RIC should be illegal for no one has the right to make that decision for you as a new born. It is sexual mutilation just as female circ has been deemed. It is no different and simply put it is there for a purpose that is why we are born with it.
eloi141
Oct 4, 2008 8:53:39 PM
The irony of including the quote from Dr. Sharlip among the cynical part of this article is that he has performed surgical foreskin restorations in the past. He once even spoke at a NORM meeting in San Francisco. Has he changed his opinion since?
z726
Oct 4, 2008 9:53:07 PM
I'm disappointed that the article presented surgery as if it's one of the two "options" for foreskin restoration. It is so vanishingly rare that there are probably only a few dozen men who've undergone surgical reconstruction, while there are hundreds of thousands of men involved in non-surgical foreskin restoration.
My own client count from just the past four years surpasses the feeble estimate in the article for global number of restorers, and I have several serious competitors, not to mention the majority of restorers who use no commercial device.
Restorers do face choices, but it's not surgery yes/no. It's more about tape or tapeless methods, whether to try and tug at work and/or while sleeping, who to tell, how often to let the skin rest, weights vs elastic tension, and whether to discuss it with a doctor (who will probably try to give a psych referral) or slog on with just anecdotes for guidance.
Fortunately, the benefits accrue rather quickly and motivate a restorer to keep going. Restored foreskin feels REALLY good.
-Ron Low
President, TLC Tugger
TLCTugger
Oct 5, 2008 11:18:04 PM
I was circumcised at birth and I am restoring my foreskin. For the past several years my penis has lost more and more feeling. Now, as I restore, my penis is getting very sensitive from being protected by my new foreskin. The difference is amazing and very appreciated.
TennTally
Oct 6, 2008 1:09:49 AM
I am "that woman guest". Some of you may know me. I showed my hubby the way and explained to him what he was missing. I have learned most men growing up know nothing about being circumcised. When they find out they feel cheated. Parents are taught that having their baby boys done is a good thing.
I am so glad my hubby decided to begin restoring his foreskin. I really want him to enjoy more sexual pleasure. He is half way there now.
fatplants@verizon.net
that_woman_guest
Oct 6, 2008 9:04:14 PM
Circumcision should be called "circumrape." "Rape" comes from the Latin "rapere" to take by force. It is also more accurate because the procedure involves more than cutting: ripping, crushing, strangling, sometimes burning. The procedure probably causes ADHD - an American boys' disease that European psychiatrists do not believe exists.
nunuvyorbzness
Oct 7, 2008 10:53:51 AM
As an uncut guy (came to the U.S as an adult) sometimes i feel weird when I see all the cut guys and I think a cut penis looks beautiful. But I should agree that your penis is much more sensitive when you are uncut and lube is not necessary at all. Nature knows better. I think cut male doctors still do it to babies as a revenge.
semanal
Oct 9, 2008 11:42:34 PM
Both my dad and brother are not cut, yet I was. I am not happy with it and want to work on restoring it. My son is not cut and I am happy with that decision as is he.
osu1
Oct 10, 2008 12:54:08 AM
Specifically, this post is for American, Cut guys. (women, take note too!) What is needed is more education. I salute Details for bringing up an unspoken subject that should be brought out into full daylight.
Put simply, Circumcised and uncircumcised penises work very differently. Surgery changes the dynamics. Restoring can bring back some benefits, but not all.
NEWSFLASH! The foreskin is actually more sensitive than the glans. It is hard for circumcised men who are restoring their foreskins to understand this fact. Any gay couple where one is uncircumcised actually knows this point very well.
For example, even the slightest temperature change is arousing. For instance, when you peel the foreskin back, the cooler air can begin an erection. Also, those lovely, translucent folds of skin as it rolls back are your target areas. Forget the head of the penis. Focus on the zone of the folds of the skin and the frenulum-- the small piece of skin that attaches the foreskin to the base of the penis shaft. These structures and tissue are removed during circumcision.
I commonly see most foreskin restoration websites mistakenly believe that the foreskin protects the glans. Not entirely true. These sites are edited by circumcised men, most likely. Yes, the glans is softer, smoother, and sensitive. Nevertheless, why would the glans of so many cut guys doing just fine?
Remember, the penis for intact guys is an internal organ, not an external organ. For intact guys, the glans is there to support the foreskin -- not the other way around. Have you ever considered this aspect?
My hope is that cut men educate themselves -- and forget the ego that you lost a very important sexual feeling. Please treat your partner's foreskin like a rare, valuable commodity.
If we can do this one person at a time, America can finally see that 100% pleasure for the next generation is possible.
eyesblueme
Oct 10, 2008 9:33:25 AM
Dr Harold Reed reminds me of McMonkey McBean in Dr Seuss's "The Sneetches", who had two machines, for putting on and taking off the stars from the Sneetches' bellies. (Eventually he had them going from machine to machine in an endless loop.)
Dr Reed is a tireless circumcisor and pro-circumcision advocate, and it's ironic/farcical that he also does surgical restoration, taking money from both. (One almost wonders if he just carries the foreskins from his circumcision patients to stitch them onto his restoration patients...)
Hugh7
Oct 11, 2008 8:53:46 PM
That Dr is wrong that said:
"There's no convincing evidence that having a foreskin increases sensation," says Dr. Ira Sharlip, a professor of urology and a spokesperson for the American Urological Society. "
1st, how could it be the same, when the inner lining of the foreskin is the MOSt sensitive part (see post above). If you lose the thousands of nerve endings, you have lost sensitivity.
2nd most studies compare the parts in common, namely the glans. The glans is MUCH less sensitive than the foreskin. Also, some studies considered glans sensitivity when errect but this part goes a bit numb when errect, so meaningless data. If they want to test glans, compare sensitivity in flacid state.
3rd most studies ask men if their p enis is OK. Most men say yes. That is useless data.
jacknoknife
Oct 15, 2008 2:26:22 PM
In an otherwise pretty good article, there is a glaring omission. No mention is made of the discovery in the early 1990s of a human sense organ new to science at the time, named the "ridged band" by its discoverers, Taylor, Lockwood and Taylor. This vital and vitally important sense organ contains the greatest density and highest number of nerve endings yet known to exist in the penis. It's like an eye, an ear, a tongue. This complex, highly specialized human sense organ is located in the inner mucosal skin of the foreskin. It is and always has been the real target of circumcising. Circumcising is designed to desensitize the penis and reduce sexual sensation, satisfaction and pleasure. It works.
Widespread ignorance of this important scientific discovery is the only thing that protects Ira Sharlip and others like him from being the laughing stock of the country.
The objective discovery has been confirmed by the more recent research of Sorrels et al which shows that the most subjectively sensitive areas of the penis correspond with the location of the objectively discovered sense organ.
Circumcising is now shown to be criminal activity. What sex the victim happens to be is 100% irrelevant. Boys must be granted equal protection of the federal anti-genital mutilation act. See http://MGMbill.org
Another error in the article: Australia does not circumcise the majority of its baby boys. The rate there is down to about 10%. The USA is the only nation in the entire world where the medical profession circumcises the majority of its male infants.
Jail circumcisers.
vanlewis
Oct 18, 2008 10:12:42 PM
Wow, I am uncut and love it.
vincefallen
Oct 20, 2008 4:51:31 PM
I am cut. I find men who are not cut either jelious or atributedly farmish. I like the fact I can see the tip of my penis all the time, and when exposed in private, I enjoy hearing comments relating to being cut and am one who feels incrediable feeling just as it is. Back in high school (13 years ago) it was the poor family who seemed to not have their sons 'cut', finding this out in the looker room showers....Also, it's an immediate visual confirmation for women to see that what my penis looks like before engauging in sex, it's not hiding behind skin, and that I am clean. It's been described that some women think that behind the skin, when flaced, there is crusty lint or a breeding ground for horrible smells. I'm not saying that men who are 'not' cut to be unclean, it's just that I have asked a few women what they thought and that was their responce. Sure, it's natural...like a horse or cow and other animals that were naturaly wild. The thing is, we are human and have evolved to fine-tuning our bodies, at the health club, at the out religion and I hope it's obvious as hell that I am biased to being cut. Also, look at the benifts to using the discarded foreskin.
saltyjax
Oct 28, 2008 1:42:16 PM
I AM 68 AND UNCUT....FOR YEARS I HAVE BEEN LOOKED ON AS, WELL, ODD...BUT WOMEN AND MEN HAVE LEARNED THE JOYS OF THAT EXTRA MEAT...AND THEY LOVE IT..HAVE HAD MORE COMPLIMENTS THAN COMPLAINTS..GRATEFUL MY PARENTS DID NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY NOR DID THEY GIVE INTO ANY HOSPITAL OR DOCTOR PRESSURE..
DANAWINNIE
Nov 2, 2008 3:07:37 PM
I HAVE FOUND THAT IN CONVERSATIONS OVER THE YEARS, 6 OUT OF 10 MEN WISH THEY HAD NOT BEEN CUT..WOMEN APPRECIATE THAT EXTRA SKIN BRINGING THEM TO GREATER CLIMAX..THIS CUTTING CRAP IS JUST SOME STUPID ADOPTED RELIGIOUS RITUAL THAT JEWS STARTED BY SCARING WOMEN INTO CUTTING THEIR SONS SO THEIR WIVES WOULD NOT GET CERVICAL CANCER...BULLSHIT..THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY CONFIRMED CONNECTION...JUST AN ADDITIONAL MONEY MAKER FOR DOCTORS WITH KNIVES OR SNIP HAPPY RABBI'S
DANAWINNIE
Nov 2, 2008 3:14:41 PM
10 OUT OF 10 MEN WHO HAVE BEEN SNIPPED AS ADULTS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE SENSATION IS DEFINATELY DEMINISHED AT THE HEAD OF THE PENIS...EVEN ORAL SEX WAS A LET DOWN FOR THEM...YOU CANNOT ASK AN INFANT IF IT FEELS BETTER OR NOT...THEY GROW UP CUT AND HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO..I HAVE 2 FRIENDS WHO GOT CUT BECAUSE THEY MARRIED JEWISH GIRLS..BOTH ARE CRYING OVER WHAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE AND THAT IS ONLY SOMETHING AN ADULT MALE WILL BE ABLE TO CONFIRM NOT AN INFANT..
DANAWINNIE
Nov 2, 2008 3:19:55 PM
Foreskin is great. Period. Forget the comments on cleanliness, smells, and looks. The people that make uneducated comments like that, are the people who have never been exposed to the world and have a blinded sense of what anatomy is.
Let me start by saying that I am a rare guy in that I am half-cut/half circumcised. I was circumcised at birth, but the doctor gave me a loose cut. In short, I am covered when flaccid, and look fully cut when erect. I can verify that when covered and the glans of my penis is "moist", I AM more sensitive. When erect, and the moisture goes away, not so sensitive.
Up until now, I used to encourage the skin to stay back. I realized that my sensitivity had diminished over time, so now I am encouraging a forward placement of my skin. In doing so, I can now really feel a difference. Day by day, I feel like I did when I was younger and more sensitive. I am also in the process of restoring due to this fact, and the fact that my foreskin is partially there.
Am I angry that I was circumcised? Yes! I also think that guys who seem to be indifferent about their own circumcisions, should try to re-sensitize themselves and see what they are missing. Imagine the good feelings with lube, but not needing any. Thats kinda what it's like.
I encourage guys who are having sons, to let their sons make the choice to be cut/uncut. Just like guys can choose to have tatts or piercings. Some guys like em, others do not.
There will always be people who promote either side of the issue. But the fact of the matter is, the person who owns the penis should be the one to choose to keep or cut his foreskin. Period.
KniteShayd
Nov 12, 2008 8:53:27 PM
You are delusional if you believe the foreskin does nothing. I was cut at age 18 (I won't go into it now..) and I can tell you that absolutely there is every bit a difference. You know how women squirm around and make faces when they get eaten out? Yeah, that's the feeling you could get if you are uncut and intact. That sharp, superficia, tingly sensation... not at all like the pressure build up you have to control when you're cut. The foreskin has a ton of tingling nerve endings in it. Why anyone (let alone a whole nation and large religious groups) would cut off that - probably the most important part of your dick, is beyond me. You think it's ugly, or unsexy? Fuck you. Reevaluate your image standards, it's normal.
Anyways, end rant.
extollere
Nov 18, 2008 4:39:16 PM
Growing up in the U.S. I wasn't aware, until my 20's that my penis had been surgically altered.
Since finding out and seeing what a NORMAL penis looks like, it's always bugged the hell out of me since, and gets to me more and more as time goes on. I find an UNcircumcised penis SO...much more attractive! I HATE the way a cut penis looks, with that brown ring of scar tissue and the way it looks all pulled tight when erect!
I think cut penis's look like what they are...mutilated! I asked my mother why this was done to me, and at first she told me "...they just did it". I asked her again at a later time and she admitted that she had essentially been brow beaten into it by the Dr. and Hospital in 1974!
I was realy saddened when she told me that she was NOT initially inclined to do it, nor did she really have any knowledge of it. My father, having been born via a mid-wife in 1928 was a fully intact male. This is what my mother knew to be normal. She revealed to me that my father was VERY opposed to the idea the docs were pushing and she kept putting the docs off. Eventually, the Dr.s browbeating and guilt trips paid off when they convinced her that my health was at grave risk if she let me go on with my natural penis! What "loving" mother would do that to her child? This is SHAMEFUL to do to a woman exhausted and hormonally unbalanced from pregnancy and delivery!
My father NEVER accepted it and was always mad that it had been done to us. I never knew this until she told me.
I really don't see how infant circumcision does not violate basic medical ethics if not human rights laws?
How dare SOMEONE ELSE decide FOR ANOTHER PERSON what kind of penis they shall carry with them for the rest of their lives? You betcha I'm MAD AS HELL that someone else took it upon themselves to surgically alter the function and appearance of THE MOST PERSONAL PART of MY BODY without my consent or even my knowledge! It is the absolute height of arrogance and beyond rude!...
When I did my research and found out why this lunacy was introduced into the U.S. population at large, I was outraged to say the least. It was introduced by religious nuts in an attempt to stop boys from the "evils" and "ill health affects" of masturbating! It was recognized as desensitizing the penis!...That's exactly what they were introducing it for!
Over the years, the "reasons" for it, given by the U.S. medical industry have conveniently changed to keep the practice relevant.
I think the real reason this continues in the U.S. is that Dr.s get to charge for the procedure and then the hospitals get to sell the foreskins to biomedical research and cosmetic companies! I know this is America, but is NOTHING sacred from the quest of the almighty dollar?
I have recently started restoration with one of the devices listed in the article and I am actually determined to grow an EXTRA long...foreskin just to spite the spirit of my genital mutilator, who I hope is rotting in hell right now for all of those he victimized like me!
highmarcs
Nov 29, 2008 10:23:59 AM