Foreskin restoration

[temp256]

I am considering undergoing foreskin restoration as a result of a botched circumcision. I don't suppose anyone has done this? I am hoping it will increase sensitivity by restoring the mucous membrane. Is this merely wishfull thinking?

Remember parents, don't let anyone cut off a part of your little boy's penis.

 

[kkoozz]

sorry

Sorry, but I can't help. My is totally covered.

Good Luck!

 

[Quoll]

Bit more info HERE

 

[human_male]

I should go and thank my mum and dad right now for not butchering me when I was a baby.

 

[SmilinAngel]

It's so comforting to hear of men who don't want it. My husband and I actually had a talk about this the other day. I don't want to circumsize (spelling?) our son ... when and if we have one. He does, since he is. He think if they look different, it may be upsetting for our son. Plus, he still believes the old myths about infections. It makes me all the more determined to know that there are men who wish it hadn't been chosen for them. Anyway, good luck with the restoration. I hope it goes well.

 

[hook848]

I don't have any first hand experience for you but I did see an interesting episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit on Showtime that discussed restoration. If you can get a copy of that it might be informative.

Here is a link from their web site that might be helpful. The National Organization for Restoring Men

 

[Pyro Paul]

It's so comforting to hear of men who don't want it. My husband and I actually had a talk about this the other day. I don't want to circumsize (spelling?) our son ... when and if we have one. He does, since he is. He think if they look different, it may be upsetting for our son. Plus, he still believes the old myths about infections. It makes me all the more determined to know that there are men who wish it hadn't been chosen for them. Anyway, good luck with the restoration. I hope it goes well.

technicly those myths arnt myths. non-circimsized people can be more prone to attacting UTI's than non circimsized people. but in this day of medicine, to fix a uti you just take some penicilin, its not like a couple hundred years ago where you Had to basicly suffer through the pain.

 

[LadyJeanne]

technicly those myths arnt myths. non-circimsized people can be more prone to attacting UTI's than non circimsized people. but in this day of medicine, to fix a uti you just take some penicilin, its not like a couple hundred years ago where you Had to basicly suffer through the pain.

Why would an uncircumcized guy be at more risk for UTI? He washes, doesn't he? Or did you mean infant UTI?

"Many different “medical benefits” of circumcision have been claimed, but the only one in which a “statistically significant” benefit has been shown consistently is that circumcised infants are less prone to urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. After that time, the risk of UTI in both circumcised and normal (intact) males drops to a rate far below that of females throughout the rest of life.

A recent study, initially involving over 58,434 boys in Ontario, was published in the Lancet (1). The relative risk of hospital admission for UTI in the first year of life was 3.7, meaning an intact boy was 3.7 times more likely to be hospitalised for a UTI than his circumcised counterpart. This was highly statistically significant and sounds meaningful until you consider the absolute rarity of UTI’s. The absolute risk of a UTI was 1.88 per 1000 person-years in circumcised boys and 7.02 per 1000 in normal boys. In other words, a normal intact boy has a 99.298% chance of getting through his first year of life without a UTI, whereas a circumcised boy increases his chances to 99.812% (see graph below). "

http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

 

[devils_daughter]

Seems like there's genuine reasons both for and against circumcision, and because of that, there is no way on earth I would circumcise my son (if and when I have one that is). It's a form of mutilation just the same as piercings and tattoos (both of which I have, and the only ones I regret is the two piercings my parents chose for me to have) and because of that I think it should be totally down to the boy at an age that he is ready to decide whether or not to be circumcised. TBH, the fact that men are having restoration proves the wrong decision was made for them. Good luck to every guy who'se going for the restoration x

 

[Pyro Paul]

Why would an uncircumcized guy be at more risk for UTI? He washes, doesn't he? Or did you mean infant UTI?

"Many different “medical benefits” of circumcision have been claimed, but the only one in which a “statistically significant” benefit has been shown consistently is that circumcised infants are less prone to urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. After that time, the risk of UTI in both circumcised and normal (intact) males drops to a rate far below that of females throughout the rest of life.

A recent study, initially involving over 58,434 boys in Ontario, was published in the Lancet (1). The relative risk of hospital admission for UTI in the first year of life was 3.7, meaning an intact boy was 3.7 times more likely to be hospitalised for a UTI than his circumcised counterpart. This was highly statistically significant and sounds meaningful until you consider the absolute rarity of UTI’s. The absolute risk of a UTI was 1.88 per 1000 person-years in circumcised boys and 7.02 per 1000 in normal boys. In other words, a normal intact boy has a 99.298% chance of getting through his first year of life without a UTI, whereas a circumcised boy increases his chances to 99.812% (see graph below). "

http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

yes, in this day and age, UTI's in males are very very very rare. but i was mearly pointing out the medical truth behind the supposed 'myth'. technicly there is no diffrence between a cut and uncut one. the statment i made was basicly that it Had a Reason, even though today, that reason is null and void, the reason is still there. the likelyness of getting a uti is very rare, and acctualy getting one wouldnt really matter for any anti biotics would instantly knock it right out with in like a day or two.

 

[LadyJeanne]

yes, in this day and age, UTI's in males are very very very rare. but i was mearly pointing out the medical truth behind the supposed 'myth'. technicly there is no diffrence between a cut and uncut one. the statment i made was basicly that it Had a Reason, even though today, that reason is null and void, the reason is still there. the likelyness of getting a uti is very rare, and acctualy getting one wouldnt really matter for any anti biotics would instantly knock it right out with in like a day or two.

Frankly, I suspect that if insurance didn't cover the procedure, there would be far, far, far fewer circumcisions in the United States.

But then, I'm a cynic.

 

[lizaveta]

I don't have any first hand experience for you but I did see an interesting episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit on Showtime that discussed restoration. If you can get a copy of that it might be informative.

Here is a link from their web site that might be helpful. The National Organization for Restoring Men

That ep disturbed the crap out of me! I had to leave the room, literally. (LOVE the show, tho!)

I've always been opposed to infant circumcision, but my husband is not. Like yours, SmilinAngel, my DH would want to have it done if we ever have a son, more for social reasons than anything else.

I'll probably defer to him on that, since the majority of men with whom I've spoken about it agree with my husband. But it's still an awful decision to have to make in this day and age...

 

[muskokan]

My husband and I had a huge discussion on circ, he's cut, my son (not his son) is not cut, he WANTED to get it done, I basically told him to shut up because it's not getting done, Here in ontario circ'ing isn't covered by health insurance, and in reality do your husbands know whether their father is circumsized, and as for the bathroom/changeroom talk, for one what are they doing staring at each other at that age, and in reality, here in ontario anyway the circ to non circ stats are usually atleast 50/50 and usually more towards more boys being un-circed

I think the real topic though here is restoration, it is nice to see someone wanting to "undo" something that was done to them, I wish you luck, but don't have any help for you, and for that i must apologize.

 

[Quoll]

I'm circed but my two boys aren't, originally I bought into the whole "look like dad" thing, but really I couldn't justify having it done just for that reason. When you stop and look at that tiny baby and then think about what will be done, it just doesn't seem worth it. My two boys know they are diferent from dad, they also know that they are the ones who have a "normal" penis and dad is the one that had the bit at the end cut off. In their words "Well that's just silly isn't it."

It doesn't bother me either way that I have been done, never had the urge to get it back. For some it is a big thing (smirk) and even if only psychologically it helps, then why not. No skin off my nose.

Foreskin Restoration

 

[temp256]

Thanks for info.

My history is a bit more complex. I was born uncut, but I had priapism (inability to retract foreskin). What's worse, it went undiscovered for 13 years. Yes, due to society's idiotic phobia of sex, I was completely ignorant of the workings of a penis until I developed a UTI. The GP said I would likely need circumscision, but there might be alternatives. He sent me to a urologist, who said there were no alternatives, and I had the surgery.

Keep in mind my ignorance. I had no idea what foreskin was, and no idea just what circumscision entailed. No one ever told me. Bastards. So I got cut, and after three horrible months of pain and codiene, things were fine. So I thought.

Several years later, I stumbled upon one of those anti-circumscision pages and was horrified. I had nearly every complication associated with the mutilation (scarring, painful, incomplete and bent erection, little sensetivity, etc). I'm sure you can imagine how I felt. I have another urologist appointment scheduled to see what they can salvage.

Parents, let that be a lesson to you. Not just about circumscision, but knowledge. Had I known better, this whole thing could have been taken care of nearly a decade ago without surgery. Talk to your kids about sex early and often. The schools don't tell them shit.

Oh, and unless you're planning on being a pedophile, the whole "looking like the father" argument is pathetic. And the only other time I had a UTI, it was cured within a day when I started antibiotics.

---
Female circumscision is outlawed and despised nearly everywhere, while males are enthusiastically mutilated by the millions. Yet another reason I wish I were a woman.

 

[gregor2001us]

There is no medical reason for routine infant circumsision. All of the arguments for it have serious fallacies and faulty logic. And it is completely against widely accepted moral standards and against the hypocratic oath. Adults who feel it is something they want to have done can do as they see fit to their own bodies, of course.

As far as "does restoration work", YES. Search on the web and you will find plenty of support information. I am restoring my foreskin. I have a ways to go, but after 3-6 months I and my wife could feel a significant difference. Many who have completed it have found that a restored foreskin can easily fool a doctor unless he examines very closely. I would recommend restoring your foreskin highly. But it is a long and tedious process. Not everyone will be sufficiently motivated to carry through. But even if you stop part way, you will have significant improvement to enjoy. Read and decide what is best for you.

gregor

 

[Halo_n_horns]

OK. I don't get this. I've been with a number of women who have said that they've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and they've told me that during sex there was no difference or too little difference to bother over.

So what the hell is the big deal with foreskin??? Is this just another way for guys to say that they're unhappy with the size of their dicks, and somehow having the foreskin back will remedy that?

Now, if regaining one's foreskin is going to find a cure for cancer or help the plight of the Katrina Refugees, then sure, I'll do it. But otherwise, what the hell?!?!?!

 

[gregor2001us]

Halo n Horns: I certainly understand your confusion. Circumcision is a very devisive subject in my experience. For a lot of reasons.

Many find that they cannot stomach the fact that they were molested, tortured, and had healthy body parts removed without their permission when they were infants.

Many have been brainwashed that doctors and researchers are always right and yoiu dare not question them.

Many have strong religous feelings about it.

Some have a fetish about wanting to get circumcised.

Many can't deal with fact that they made a bad decision and must stay in denial to maintain their comfort.

Many have found that they have trouble getting enough sensation as they get older.

Many are afraid to buck a norm in our society. Consider how uncomfortable it is to do things like not shaving, not wearing clothes, picking your nose, etc.

And maybe the biggest reason of all: Sex is so darn great that it is inconcievable that it could be better, so if you are already circumcised, it will be hard to convince you that you are missing anything.

To get at your questions:

Why do women who have... No easy answer, partly because your mind is the biggest sex organ. But many women say just the opposite. So a mixture of the above issues may be at play.

The reason most undertake this very time consuming and frustrating restoration is many fold and different for each person. But it does restore sensitivity and pleasure in many cases. For both the man and woman. Men who were circumcisied as adults describe the difference as between color and balck and white. Or a symphony and a single instrument.

But everyone needs to do their own soul searching and research and decide for themselves. There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it dispensed by doctors that should know better and be better informed. Read and weigh what people say. Don't take things at face value. Listen to your inner voice. And don't worry about what everyone else thinks, do what is right for you. If people want to be circumscised and they are of legal age to consent and they are given all the information they need to make an informed decision, fine, no matter what their reason. If people are already circumcised and happy, fine. No argument from me. Whatever floats your boat...as long as you don't try to sink mine.

 

[blackopal19]

to add my two cents......

What does it really matter at some level if you choose to have your son circumcised? I will most likely have mine circed if and when I have children. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's a personal issue. I highly doubt that most men out there are suffering because they were cut or not cut. Also, deciding to have it done or not done does not make anybody out to be bad. Honestly, I prefer cut ones. But that's just me.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Halo n Horns: I certainly understand your confusion. Circumcision is a very devisive subject in my experience. For a lot of reasons.

Many find that they cannot stomach the fact that they were molested, tortured, and had healthy body parts removed without their permission when they were infants.

Many have been brainwashed that doctors and researchers are always right and yoiu dare not question them.

Many have strong religous feelings about it.

Some have a fetish about wanting to get circumcised.

Many can't deal with fact that they made a bad decision and must stay in denial to maintain their comfort.

Many have found that they have trouble getting enough sensation as they get older.

Many are afraid to buck a norm in our society. Consider how uncomfortable it is to do things like not shaving, not wearing clothes, picking your nose, etc.

And maybe the biggest reason of all: Sex is so darn great that it is inconcievable that it could be better, so if you are already circumcised, it will be hard to convince you that you are missing anything.

To get at your questions:

Why do women who have... No easy answer, partly because your mind is the biggest sex organ. But many women say just the opposite. So a mixture of the above issues may be at play.

The reason most undertake this very time consuming and frustrating restoration is many fold and different for each person. But it does restore sensitivity and pleasure in many cases. For both the man and woman. Men who were circumcisied as adults describe the difference as between color and balck and white. Or a symphony and a single instrument.

But everyone needs to do their own soul searching and research and decide for themselves. There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it dispensed by doctors that should know better and be better informed. Read and weigh what people say. Don't take things at face value. Listen to your inner voice. And don't worry about what everyone else thinks, do what is right for you. If people want to be circumscised and they are of legal age to consent and they are given all the information they need to make an informed decision, fine, no matter what their reason. If people are already circumcised and happy, fine. No argument from me. Whatever floats your boat...as long as you don't try to sink mine.

Obviously this could very easily become a tremendous debate and you, in particular by the looks of it, would be too strongly biased to make a proper debater.

In the end, no pun intended, I get the feeling that the guys who are going through with this are amping themselves up over a trivial piece of skin. Of course they're going to say that it's like comparing black to white because otherwise they'd look like complete asses for having gone through all the effort of making it happen.

Or, perhaps, this is one of those debates that can go both ways because both ways actually exist. For some men that go through foreskin restoration the changes to their sensations are minimal at best, while for others the black and white analogy exists.

In either case I think that there is one simple truth that probably exists with all of the men that go through this; an insecurity. The reasons you listed can only be fuel for that one simple axiom.

For me personally, there are pleasures in life that I know that I will never experience. If the results of foreskin restoration is actually one of them then that's fine. I can easily accept that simple little truth because I also know that there's a greater truth: The number of pleasures that I do get to experience in my sex life far outweigh the number of pleasures I don't get to experience. That means that the ones I'm missing are trivial at their greatest.

 

[gregor2001us]

As I said, it is a highly devisive subject. Very hard to discuss without people shutting down their minds and judging other people instead of listening.

But in the end, if you are happy however you are, then there is no problem.

Bringing infants into the discussion brings up the issues of 1) how much right to a fully functioning body do infants have, 2) how much good does a given procedure have to do before it can be justified by the caregiver, 3) How much information does a parent need to have before they can make a truely informed decision, 4) how do you define humane treatment of infants, and I am sure there are others.

I can only really speak for myself. I was circumcised as an infant. Always thought it was merely a cosmetic thing, with no realistic way to change it. A trivial peice of skin. I also went through the experience of having sons and hearing what the doctors told my wife and I. They did not give us information about its function or the pluses or minuses. Basically left us in the dark and told us it was a personal decision. But, in fact, the doctor made additional attempts to persuade me to have it done immediately after I cut my first son's umbilical cord, despite the fact that I had previously said no. He was visible agitated and could not let it rest. Seemed more like his personal decision almost.

Later, in my 40s, by chance I found that some people had found a way to restore and there was a lot of information about foreskins and functions and what is almost never said by doctors and others than had previously been available. I read and made my own decision. Open dialogue can really open your mind. That is why boards like this are so valuable, imho.

I am not happy with my parents decision to have me circumcised. If I could go back and have it undone I would. They could have left that decision for when I got older. But I do not believe the medical system gave them the information needed for them to make an informed decision. Water over the dam.

If I want to restore, and it makes me feel better and enjoy sex more and makes sex feel better for my wife too, well I am not bothering anyone. No debate needed. I am not trying to convince anyone else to do anything, just think. I may jump in where I see fallacies and misinformation being repeated, but everyone needs to make up their own minds. Hopefully well informed.

Each person needs to decide how trivial something is in the context of their own life. Everyone needs to decide which battles are worth fighting and which are not. You want to restore, that's cool. You think its not worth pursuing, that's cool too.

 

[LadyJeanne]

For me, the circ debate is academic as I don't have a penis. If I were to have boy children, I would leave that decision to my SO as he's the one who has the penis and is more 'qualified' to have an opinion, either way, and it probably matters more to him than to me.

Whenever this topic comes up, though, I find myself reacting negatively to people who choose to circumcize their kids based on misinformation (all those medical myths). Worse, they make that decision based on appearance (foreskin is ugly and disgusting), and when the storm of protests comes in from those who think it's not ugly or disgusting, or who consider it a mutilation of a perfectly healthy, normal human male, then they resort to citing health issues as the reason for their decision.

Personally, I don't care what people do. I have been with both cut and uncut men, and I like both. The guy is always more important than what his penis looks like, and I don't get more or less pleasure based on its appearance, size, angle, or whatever. But I honestly can't stand it when people cut their boys because they hate the look of foreskin, or because they think it's medically necessary.

Restoring it? Well, adults can do whatever they feel is important for their own happiness.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

As I said, it is a highly devisive subject. Very hard to discuss without people shutting down their minds and judging other people instead of listening.

But in the end, if you are happy however you are, then there is no problem.

Bringing infants into the discussion brings up the issues of 1) how much right to a fully functioning body do infants have, 2) how much good does a given procedure have to do before it can be justified by the caregiver, 3) How much information does a parent need to have before they can make a truely informed decision, 4) how do you define humane treatment of infants, and I am sure there are others.

I can only really speak for myself. I was circumcised as an infant. Always thought it was merely a cosmetic thing, with no realistic way to change it. A trivial peice of skin. I also went through the experience of having sons and hearing what the doctors told my wife and I. They did not give us information about its function or the pluses or minuses. Basically left us in the dark and told us it was a personal decision. But, in fact, the doctor made additional attempts to persuade me to have it done immediately after I cut my first son's umbilical cord, despite the fact that I had previously said no. He was visible agitated and could not let it rest. Seemed more like his personal decision almost.

Later, in my 40s, by chance I found that some people had found a way to restore and there was a lot of information about foreskins and functions and what is almost never said by doctors and others than had previously been available. I read and made my own decision. Open dialogue can really open your mind. That is why boards like this are so valuable, imho.

I am not happy with my parents decision to have me circumcised. If I could go back and have it undone I would. They could have left that decision for when I got older. But I do not believe the medical system gave them the information needed for them to make an informed decision. Water over the dam.

If I want to restore, and it makes me feel better and enjoy sex more and makes sex feel better for my wife too, well I am not bothering anyone. No debate needed. I am not trying to convince anyone else to do anything, just think. I may jump in where I see fallacies and misinformation being repeated, but everyone needs to make up their own minds. Hopefully well informed.

Each person needs to decide how trivial something is in the context of their own life. Everyone needs to decide which battles are worth fighting and which are not. You want to restore, that's cool. You think its not worth pursuing, that's cool too.

OK.

 

[temp256]

I think you're missing just what foreskin does. To me, it looks ugly either way; genitials are not known for their beauty. Restored foreskin is really just skin; the nerves of the original cannot be regrown, and is rather insensitive. It's what it does for the glans. It keeps the mucous membrane moist, making it slick and shiny like the inside of your cheek. Removing foreskin and exposing the glans to the air causes kerotinization to protect it. It forms a callous over the glans.

Take a look at the heels of your feet. That tough insensetive layer of skin is what forms over the glans. I can poke at my heels with a pin and not feel a thing. Yould you really want this in a sex organ?

Ladies, if you're having trouble imagining this, try a little experiment of your own. Take your clitoral hood, and secure it open, oxposing your clit to the elements. Leave it this way for three months. Then tell me there is no difference.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I think you're missing just what foreskin does. To me, it looks ugly either way; genitials are not known for their beauty. Restored foreskin is really just skin; the nerves of the original cannot be regrown, and is rather insensitive. It's what it does for the glans. It keeps the mucous membrane moist, making it slick and shiny like the inside of your cheek. Removing foreskin and exposing the glans to the air causes kerotinization to protect it. It forms a callous over the glans.

Take a look at the heels of your feet. That tough insensetive layer of skin is what forms over the glans. I can poke at my heels with a pin and not feel a thing. Yould you really want this in a sex organ?

Ladies, if you're having trouble imagining this, try a little experiment of your own. Take your clitoral hood, and secure it open, oxposing your clit to the elements. Leave it this way for three months. Then tell me there is no difference.

See now, you're offering up something that, once again, doesn't apply to everyone. If my glans was anymore sensitive I'd cum on the first stroke every time I had sex. As it is I've learned all sorts of fun techniques to keep myself from having that problem while simultaneously being able to provide pleasure for much greater lengths of time for both of us. Yea mom and dad for not leaving me with too much sensitivity down there!!!

If adding sensitivity to the penis is one of your arguments for getting this restoration done, then it sounds like a better argument to not have it done, or to go ahead and get circumcized. Now I'm wondering how many men who suffer from PE are circumcized and how many aren't???