|
|
jimrow
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: January 2007
Messages: 1
|
|
|
I always felt discriminated against because I had a foreskin. Now that I had to be cut I am restoring myself so that I can once again look intact. Too much was lost in operation. Any comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Hi Jim
This is not a subject that gets discussed here very often so I don't know how many are qualified to comment but I have been down this track myself. I spent about 4 yrs restoring and feel it is one of the best things I ever did for myself.
Of course a lot of patience is required so dedication is the key. At least you know the cut uncut feeling already. Yes I recommend it to anyone who feels cheated out of something they should have had.It is a slow process but the rewards make it worth it in my opinion. I would be happy to give any advice you require.
Good luck
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... because I was never cut. But it seems to me that the US tradition of circumcision for hygenic reasons owes a lot to the misguided beliefs of the Kellogg dynasty. I keep seeing references to the need for scrupulous hygiene if you have a foreskin, and to the need for fathers to have 'the talk' with uncircumsised sons - but in Europe uncut is the norm; we don't go overboard about it, and (apart from the French, who eat too much garlic!) we don't smell.
The foreskin developed in the evolutionary process. It increases sensitivity and with that the pleasure of intercourse. It's true that it appears that circumcision may impede HIV transmission, but HIV is but a fleeting moment on the evolutionary scale.
So I guess my twopennorth amounts to this: if Jim felt 'different' because he was uncircumcised, that reflects adversely upon the US tradition of wholly unnecessary circumcision. In any rational system, 'uncircumcised' should be the norm. I therefore fully understand his wish to restore, and all I can say is (if you'll forgive the expression!) - more power to your elbow!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
What caused the need for circumcision?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
>but in Europe uncut is the norm<
…except in Scotland where half cut is the norm.
(Now, where's my anti-haggis protective helmet?)
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was cut as an infant, and like Aussie spent around 4 years restoring. I absolutely agree with everything he says - both about the need for persistence and about the eventual rewards.
I guess I was "lucky" in some ways - routine infant circumcisions in the UK (when they were a common middle-class thing, as they were in my generation) generally removed only a rather moderate amount of foreskin. I'm rather under the impression that the typical American circ. takes away a lot more.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Thinking back to school showers in the 1960s I think it depended very much on the surgeon. Most UK kids did not have the tight cut of their US counterparts. When I was born it was pretty much 50/50 whether you were cut or not.
I, of course, escaped that knife, but have the distinction of having been cut twice. I can only say "owwwwww!"
Sexual sensation decreased after the healing period of the first cut, and all but vanished after the second one, though for different reasons.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie says that this isn't a subject that gets discussed very often here. That's true (though it has been a few times), but that's not because there are no strong feelings about it. A large portion of Timmy's site is devoted to the subject.
I'm not circumcised, and I have never felt the need to be. I have suffered from occasional phimosis (tight foreskin) and even consulted my GP about it. However, he made it very clear that, medically speaking, circumcision is a last resort. Stretching the foreskin has proved much more successful, as I still have it and no surgical procedure was required (which in turn could have led to scars, pain, mistakes etc.). On cosmetic grounds only it is not justified at all.
Fortunately it is not 'trendy' in the UK to be circumcised. According to Wikipedia only 3.8% of children are before the age of 15. To be so would in fact be the anomaly -- a child might, I suppose, feel discriminated against if he didn't have a foreskin (though I don't remember it ever being discussed at school -- you must come from a very different culture if there was genuine discrimination on that basis). There is, of course, a great advantage in having one because one can always rationalise that if it really becomes necessary to remove it, one can; but if one has had it removed already (and especially if it was removed at birth) it will never be possible to return it to its unmutilated state.
This is quite apart from any supposed benefit on health grounds. It used to be done in the UK, but it started to become unfashionable in the late 1940s (so I understand) when it was demonstrated that there were no medically valid reasons for it. It is certainly not condoned by medical personnel over here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#United_Kingdom
I think Cossie is right about the Kellogg dynasty, but I don't know a great deal about it. It seems bizarre to think that John Kellogg advocated circumcision as a 'treatment' for masturbation, for it does not in fact prevent it, except as form of punishment or torture for the child coupled with vigilance on the part of adults. It is quite interesting to see what he actually said, however:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Kellogg.html
There is a recent statistic about circumcision reducing the infection rate of AIDS in third-world countries. Chopping off the penis altogether would also prevent AIDS (much more reliably, in fact!), but no-one is suggesting this as a reasonable alternative. People are entitled to keep parts of their bodies if they wish to; they can also jettison them if they like, but (I would forcefully maintain) not until they are old enough to make decisions about their own bodies (which also, incidentally, includes whether or not they will have sexual intercourse, and, I suppose, be likely to become infected by AIDS). In any case, a 50% decrease in infection rate is not nearly as good as the almost zero or zero infection rate that results with education, vigilance and contraception.
David
[Updated on: Wed, 17 January 2007 10:55] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
I agree was all of what David & cossie say on the matter.
I am not circumcised and have never had a problem with the foreskin retracting when fully erect, I do know that some people have a problem when the helmet stretches the skin so that it will not retract which can be dangerous trapping blood when the errection recedes.
They have to be surgical sorted. But foreskin does protect the main part of the penus,
We do now wash correctly perhaps if water is scarce then perhaps some don’t..
Only a joke they do have a little water left down under.
Jack.:-/
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack said,
>I do know that some people have a problem when the helmet stretches the skin so that it will not retract which can be dangerous trapping blood when the errection recedes.
>They have to be surgical sorted.
True, though the surgery does not usually have to be a circumcision -- I don't know the details, but I understand the procedure can be much more minor than that. A foreskin that is only slightly tight can be stretched with stretching exercises, and no surgery at all is required.
David
[Updated on: Wed, 17 January 2007 11:30] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> True, though the surgery does not usually have to be a circumcision -- I don't know the details, but I understand the procedure can be much more minor than that.
a brief description is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preputioplasty
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, NW. I have no doubt that that is what I would have had had I not been able to resolve the problem through daily stretching.
In our conversation a few days ago, I bemoaned the waste of time that is masturbation; in fact, I had forgotten that it has had the useful effect of apparently getting rid of my phimosis altogether. (It was while stretching the foreskin that I discovered masturbation in the first place.)
David
P.S. My spell checker, for some reason, keeps trying to replace the word 'phimosis' with 'animosity'. Strangely appropriate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Masturbation has a further use.
Regular emptying of the prostate appears to keep it healthier than not doing so, and may reduce the incidence or prostate cancer.
Prostate massage is said to help in cancer prevention, too
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Regular emptying of the prostate appears to keep it healthier than not doing so, and may reduce the incidence or prostate cancer.
I always did believe in taking care of myself ... so to speak!
some details of the research, which seems pretty well-founded, on http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942
I've had particular reason to follow this rather closely ...prostate cancer often runs in families: my grandfather, and great-grandfather died from it, and my father is currently receiving radiotherapy for it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
These days you can be checked for prostate cancer from a simple blood test.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says,
>But why should ejaculating more often cut the risk of prostate cancer? The team speculates that ejaculation prevents carcinogens building up in the gland.
Argh -- I've presumably been carrying around concentrated carcinogens for the past 11 or 12 years! What does this mean for my life expectancy? 
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey so I am not so unusual after all. I always figured that my doctor thought about the merits of cleanliness issue but also never did anything to the extreme so I would say that "half cut" pretty much describes me.
I had no idea it could be sort of traditional anyplace, but now I know. So what I consider as normal is actually not; that most who are circumcised have no covering at all? I can remember being admonished as a little kid who was going to be bathing myself, to take care to clean yourself thoroughly "there".
But when I went to look for myself on the internet, I quickly saw I wasnt exactly uncut either. Perhaps the way it was done to me is not so bad then!
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> Argh -- I've presumably been carrying around concentrated carcinogens for the past 11 or 12 years! What does this mean for my life expectancy?
I did actually think of you before posting the link, David! As "The protective effect is greatest while men are in their twenties: those who had ejaculated more than five times per week in their twenties, for instance, were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer later in life", and you're not that far into your 20s, I think you'll have a chance to get caught up on any backlog ...
and
Jack wrote:
>These days you can be checked for prostate cancer from a simple blood test.
Well, it's true that a blood test for PSA (prostate-specific antigen) is available ... opinions on how useful it is vary considerably. Most prostate cancer is not very aggressive, and men tend to die WITH it, rather than OF it. My own GP is of the opinion that she'd rather stick a finger up my bum at regular intervals ... she says it's more useful!
But every individual case is different (family history, other risk factors, etc), and anyone over 50 should definitely discuss it with their doctor.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
well, actually, not totally. The blood test determines whether you are in a high risk state. At that point a biopsy is recommended
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I don't think that you're unusual, Ken; circumcisions vary considerably, and as has been suggested the practice here is to remove less skin than is usual in the USA. But to avoid an international incident I feel that I should make it clear that whilst Nigel's scurrilous suggestion that the Scots are half-cut may contain a grain of truth, it has nothing whatsoever to do with foreskins. In colloquial British English, half-cut describes someone who is under the affluence of incahol (hic). We Scots may drink more than our namby-pamby southern neighbours, but we retain just as much foreskin as they do!
Nigel, you will present yourself at my office after school!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
cut/uncut 
