Reversing Circumcision

[B_dxjnorto]

Mat,

At this time HIV prevention in Africa is being underwritten by the likes of Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. Not science.

Just about everything you've said is your opinion and conjecture. You and baseball are probably referring to the much quoted Orange Farm study involving 69 experimental subjects who were paid to be circumcised. This is far from conclusive. Other studies are under way. Hold your Pony Express horses. The history of circumcision alone (and the difficulty of generalizing from population to population) should make you want to see real research before spouting off that the efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV is

not debatable....

 

[baseball99]

Mat,

At this time HIV prevention in Africa is being underwritten by the likes of Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. Not science.

Just about everything you've said is your opinion and conjecture. You and baseball are probably referring to the much quoted Orange Farm study involving 69 experimental subjects who were paid to be circumcised. This is far from conclusive. Other studies are under way. Hold your Pony Express horses. The history of circumcision alone (and the difficulty of generalizing from population to population) should make you want to see real research before spouting off that the efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV is

read a frickin post before commenting.....both of us have said there is no significant difference. I seriously hope you are a better reader at your job than you are on this board

 

[MattBrick]

Hm....well there was the one study in Africa, but that wasn't the only one. That's just the only one that is making the news lately. Circumcision does lessen probability of many kinds of infections. That is how it became the norm in many western countries, whether or not it was ultimately a good thing. It's one of the main reasons it is a thousands of year old tradition in many societies.

About Africa, one thing I wonder about is if religion social class has been taken into consideration. If circumcised men there contract HIV less frequently, might it be at least partly because they also adhere to a muslim code of sexual ethics as opposed another system, or are from a higher socio-economic background? In anycase, the prevailing notion in Africa is, that anything that can be done, to slow the spread of AIDS is worth taking into consideration.


About polarizing rehtoric: If some members won't concede to be reasonable and moderate in their choice of wording, all I can say is that it does very little for their argument to be though radical, extreme, and reactionary.

Mutilate, simply means to deprive of a limb, or to cripple in people, or disfigurement by the destruction of an essential part. In things, it means to disfigure by damaging irreperably. We need to be careful how we use this term. It is a very strongly. We no longer refer to people as "cripples" for example even if they do have less than the apportioned number of limbs, simply because the term is offensive. Mutilated can be likewise offensive, as I mentioned in my earlier post, when used to refer to a circumcised penis. In short, you're being a jerk, so check yourself.
You may feel that your penis is mutilated, because it is deprived of what you view as an essential part. Most of us, even those against infant circumcision don't though. Others would say that the circumcised is not "damaged " in a way that significantly affects it's function, or irreperably for that matter. Furthermore the penis itself, (and the man as a whole) are not in anyway, crippled, disfigured, imperfect or missing. Saying mutilated, in that light, is at best a gross exageration, and what's more, insulting. Even using the term "mutilated foreskin" would be a very great strech of the word as it is used today.
I value how you feel about your penis, but please show some respect about how others feel about theirs.

Perhaps you wish to end infant circumcision, and you feel that the only way parents will not want to have their son's circumcised, is if they view their own circumicision as a mutilation, a loss, a tragedey, or a horror. Is this the only that parents will want to break from the social norm, or a generations old tradition? I'm not sure. There is a venerable old saying, that you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar though. My advice to you is, following the example of many pro-foreskin resources, focus on the positive of being uncircumcised. Show how uncircumcised is "normal", normal too. It may prove a more effective strategy to disarm, than to counter attack with the same predjudice, fear, and insults you are working against. After this rationally allay arguments of it being "dirty" unusual, "wierd" ect, and be reasonable in admitting that there are pros and cons on both sides. In the end respect the parents raising their son, as they see fit, just as you would wish them to do for you.

About gays....If there are boards about this, where there is an about even gay/straight ration....there aren't still nearly as many gay men in the world to begin with though....neither are there a proportionate number of gay men with children to straight men with children, for whom this issue is of primary concern. That is what struck me about this.
Best wishes.

Matt
Matt

 

[SteveHd]

It is very well to say, wait until the baby can decide on his own if he wants to be circumcised.

But ...

If he decides to be circumcised later, it is a much serious matter though. It is more of a major surgery, more expensive, more dangerous, longer recovery time. There is the period of abstainance to consider in an adult too. Leaving a baby uncircumcised leaves him very little more choice than circumcising him.

That appears to be advocating routing infant circumcision.

We might consider that some of the negative effects eperienced after adult circumcision, are caused precisly because it was an adult who was cirumcised. When such a small amount of skin is removed on an infant, perhaps it has comparitively little effect on how the penis grows and developes. On the other hand, many men report positive results after adult circumcision.

That also appears to be advocating routing infant circumcision.

As I was hinting at before, infant circumcision doesn't necesarily in result a lesser degree of sexual pleasure later. There is simply no way to gage it.

Again?

I think this is all very interesting, but personally that there are more important matters to ignite our activism.

No, actually, it isn't interesting but violating the human rights of nonconsenting infants is in fact important. Other causes have Hollywood bigasses advocating for them. I take immense pride in an activism which is ruefully ignored and dismissed by "the mainstream".

 

[Matthew]

If you have unprotected sex, you have to understand that there is a risk of STDs, including HIV. It is extremely dangerous to think otherwise. If you do it anyway and get any STD, you knew the risk you were taking.

Sorry to stay off-topic, but I find this viewpoint very problematic. Besides the fact that people can get HIV from blood transfusions and from their mother at birth, sexual transmission often happens when people have sex with a spouse or partner who they have every reason to believe is monogamous. That's not even to mention transmission during sexual assault and people that are coerced by their partner to have sex without protection. To blame any of those people is cruel and wrong-headed at best.

And even for people who make the mistake of not using protection outside those situations, the effort you are making to blame them seems cynical and unproductive. What is the point of saying that it's their fault - that we shouldn't have to care, or that they don't deserve treatment? If you are interested in placing blame, better to focus on the elements of our society who are restricting knowledge about and access to methods of protection.

 

[jfrsndvs]

now from what you said does have some validity to it, however, lets face facts here, the number one cause for transmitting STD's including HIV, is in fact Unprotected sex and sharing of needles, you can be in denial of that if you want, 20 years ago people could blame lack of knowledge when it came to passing STD's, not today, everywhere you turn, you can find plenty of knowledge on protecting yourself, it's on the news, in commercials, on MTV, on the internet, and the list goes on and on. there is no excuse for ignorance when it comes to protecting yourself and others.

while it's true that mothers can pass HIV on to thier babies, but doctors can stop HIV from being passed from mother to baby, that has been around for a few years, yes in the case of rape can HIV and STD's be passed on unfortunately, but the virus can be stopped within 24-48 hours, that was discussed recently on this board, the treatment was pure hell, but it was stopped, true that HIV can be transmitted through blood transfussions, but the number of those cases are very very small. you mentioned couples where they thought that they were in a monogamous relationship where HIV was passed, what could have helped prevent the person from transmitting the virus, PROTECTION, then he/she might not have caught it and passed it on to their partner.

foreskin is not the cause of disease being spread around, it's lack of protection, all to many times, you hear that those who caught HIV and other STD's got it from Unprotected sex, the use of condoms has been promoted over and over again, yet so many people don't want to go to the trouble of putting one on, there are so many lame excuses that people use for not using them, very foolish. and yet people want to blame foreskin for the transmission of STD's and HIV.

now back to the main topic here please, those who wish to restore their foreskin really should go for it, it's going to take some time, especially if you were cut real tight, I was lucky, I wasn't cut quite as tight as others were, I was left with enough loose skin to help me out, those who are starting to restore, I urge you to give it some time, and don't give up, don't be discouraged if you don't see results right away, but with a little persistance and patience, you will gain some extra skin.

Sorry to stay off-topic, but I find this viewpoint very problematic. Besides the fact that people can get HIV from blood transfusions and from their mother at birth, sexual transmission often happens when people have sex with a spouse or partner who they have every reason to believe is monogamous. That's not even to mention transmission during sexual assault and people that are coerced by their partner to have sex without protection. To blame any of those people is cruel and wrong-headed at best.

And even for people who make the mistake of not using protection outside those situations, the effort you are making to blame them seems cynical and unproductive. What is the point of saying that it's their fault - that we shouldn't have to care, or that they don't deserve treatment? If you are interested in placing blame, better to focus on the elements of our society who are restricting knowledge about and access to methods of protection.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Mat,

You are not saying anything new. Consider posting links to some sources. Meanwhile check the dictionary for the definition of mutilate:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/mutilate

You may argue that the term mutilate is inflammatory, but there's not much leeway as to its etymology (truncated, maimed).

A foreskin is not a birth defect. That said, I prefer the terminology male, female and intersex genital cutting (MGC, FGC, IGC). It follows that they have much in common.

 

[Matthew]

now from what you said does have some validity to it, however, lets face facts here, the number one cause for transmitting STD's including HIV, is in fact Unprotected sex and sharing of needles, you can be in denial of that if you want, 20 years ago people could blame lack of knowledge when it came to passing STD's, not today, everywhere you turn, you can find plenty of knowledge on protecting yourself, it's on the news, in commercials, on MTV, on the internet, and the list goes on and on. there is no excuse for ignorance when it comes to protecting yourself and others.

while it's true that mothers can pass HIV on to thier babies, but doctors can stop HIV from being passed from mother to baby, that has been around for a few years, yes in the case of rape can HIV and STD's be passed on unfortunately, but the virus can be stopped within 24-48 hours, that was discussed recently on this board, the treatment was pure hell, but it was stopped, true that HIV can be transmitted through blood transfussions, but the number of those cases are very very small. you mentioned couples where they thought that they were in a monogamous relationship where HIV was passed, what could have helped prevent the person from transmitting the virus, PROTECTION, then he/she might not have caught it and passed it on to their partner.

So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you have established that when people get HIV, it's their own fault. So what??? What does that prove? That we can smugly pat ourselves on the back for shaking our finger at them and saying that they deserved what they got? That we should feel justified in denying funds to treat them? What you wrote does not in any way address the point of my post: that blame is useless. I mistrust anyone who spends their energy making arguments to prove why it's people's own fault that they got infected. A person who is truly concerned about HIV will spend their energy on prevention, treatment and finding a cure.

 

[baseball99]

I'm pretty much stayin out of this argument bc its always heated with opinions but i just want to point out some of the medical misconceptions

while it's true that mothers can pass HIV on to thier babies, but doctors can stop HIV from being passed from mother to baby, that has been around for a few years,

not true.....a baby being born by natural delivery has a 25-30% chance of acquiring HIV when the mother is not being treated with AZT. If the mother is being treated the risk drops to 8%.....which is a significant drop but it is by no means 100% preventable

yes in the case of rape can HIV and STD's be passed on unfortunately, but the virus can be stopped within 24-48 hours, that was discussed recently on this board, the treatment was pure hell, but it was stopped,

not completely true either.....studies are small but post-exposure prophylaxis is rougly 81% and is effected by the viral load of the person. The study i looked up was for PEP with needle sticks but still same idea

true that HIV can be transmitted through blood transfussions, but the number of those cases are very very small.

now it is.....but there is still a small risk and usually because if a person donates prior to blood being able to be tested positive bc antibody levels arent high enough but the virus is still present

you mentioned couples where they thought that they were in a monogamous relationship where HIV was passed, what could have helped prevent the person from transmitting the virus, PROTECTION, then he/she might not have caught it and passed it on to their partner.

i use protection to prevent pregnancy not because i think my wife has been screwin around.....you cant assume that they are and its horrible for those people that it happens to

 

[Dave NoCal]

Well, I've stated my position and I'm sticking to it as, I suspect, will everyone else. Those who oppose routine infant circumcision may be interested in doctorsopposingcircumcision.org. They have downloadable fliers and scientific papers and references. I think the attorney group is lawyersfortherightsofthechild.org.

That said, let's talk about methods that have yielded success. Unfortunately, I can't provide any glowing recommendations.
Dave

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I think the attorney group is lawyersfortherightsofthechild.org

Dave it's lots shorter than than--->http://arclaw.org

I have bought two of the semi-commercial restoration devices (TLC tugger and CAT), but I prefer t-tape. Tapeless devices work by trapping the skin between two cones or shells. T-tape is by no means comfortable, but it's been the most comfortable to me, so the easiest to continue over an extended period.

What method(s) have you used?

 

[Snozzle]

Can you really be that stupid and misinformed? Reading over your past posts the answer is clearly Yes.

I wish you'd be more specific.

I have experience (perhaps too much) and can telll you that I have been with guys who have a foreskin and orgasm before any sexual contact even begins...oh yeah that's superb control On the other side I have been with guys who have been circumcised and can control their orgasm for long periods of time All the extra skin cells for sensitivity and stimulation add more things to keep track of which can and often does make a guy cum faster.
Does my having a foreskin make me cum faster or slower? I would say no. What makes me cum faster is when I am overly turned on by the guy I am with If I know a person I can learn to go slower and have more control as can any man with or without a foreskin However there are still times when I am going to be oozing precum before I have my clothes off. I am not alone in this and as I indicated, I speak from experience and have met many others (again both cut and uncut) who have the same physical going ons So it is not all about the foreskin.

All this is called "anecdotal evidence". It's evidence of a kind, but one swallow does not make a summer, and one example does not prove a generality.

I have read enough of your rantings to know that you are pro-skin which is fine but when you talk about stimulation and the such you are clearly speaking out of your rear-end

This is called "abuse".

It may interest (or kill you off) to know that the best sexual experiences I ever have had have been with circumcised men They had amaZing control, they knew what they were doing sexually and they were content enough with who they were that they did not spend hours crying about a circumcision I also knew a man who was uncircumcised who used to complain about his damned foreskin

More anecdotal evidence.

One afternoon as he went on about yet again I went to his kitchen and came back with a knife and told him if he didn't stop yapping about it I'd cut the damned thing off myself. It took a while but 2 years later he had an adult circumcision and in my few encounters with him since he has been much better and more in control than he ever was before.

Fine for him. No argument with elective adult circumcision, or any other amputation if it makes them happy. (I can scratch my head, though, and wonder what his sex life will be like 20, 30 years hence.)

No way to argue any of this logic

That's called "irrefutable". Otherwise, there is a way, not just copping out.

 

[D_John Bareass]

I was successful in restoring my foreskin by using tape and cones. Some sensitivity was regained and I have fooled many people into thinking that I have a foreskin. Check my pics.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

You would have fooled me. But I can see where that vein on the bottom ends at your scarline. I have a color change at my scarline that has stretched out somewhat, but it's still there, so my restoration will not be as convincing as yours.

Good on you mate.

 

[Dave NoCal]

dkjnorto,

So far I've used home made tuggers and have taped. It doesn't seem to me that just taping exerts enough tension to cause any growth. My first home-made appliance was built using two one inch to halve inch copper couplings joined by a short length of copper tubing. I filed a V shaped notch on the coupling end that went over the glans to try to allow for a frenulum to form. I wore it most of the day for a summer and the increase in sensitivity was pretty good. The weight was supposed to do the job and, in fact, it caused some growth.

I made a similar contraption using a pill tube attached to a kind of halter that, in turn, connected to a peice of elastic sewn to a knee support. It was taped on. I think that would have worked but I always worried abut having to to explain it in a medical emergency. So I didn't wear it long enough to do too much.

Finally, I have taped using either an o-ring or a ring of tape. A guy named Ross a restoringmen.org has pictures, instructions, and comments on various methods and in his last update several years ago seemed enthusiastic about a device called ACRD (Advanced Concepts Restoration Device). It's basically a stainless steel weight with a hole drilled through to allow urine to pass.
Enough growth has occured to be able to keep an o-ring on, for a while, without tape. But as I said, I don't think that exerts enough tension. How about yourself?

KNOB, impressive in more ways than one!

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Dave, I use Rejuveness medical tape to make an attachment point to my penis, then an elastic strap for tension. Buy a pair of Farrah suspenders from Wal-Mart and take them apart. You now have two adjustable elastic straps. I pass mine to the outside of my knee, around my calf, over the top of my foot, under my foot and clip it back to itself at the top of my foot. This provides some tension no matter the angle of your knee.