Some of us were circumcised as babies, and we are absolutely fine with it. Some of us are uncircumcised (intact) and fine with it too. A small percentage of men who were left intact decide to have it done later in life – mostly for medical reasons but sometimes for cultural reasons. And that’s fine too.
But there are some men who were circumcised and are not happy about it. For this group, in the past it was a case of just having to accept it, or being told to ‘get over it’ when these concerns were expressed to others.
Now it seems that more and more Australian men are learning that there is actually something that can be done about it. The news.com.au website today published an article called Meet the circumcised men who want to restore their foreskins. The article explains the basic concept of putting tension on the remnant foreskin to encourage the growth of new cells, to gradually grow the skin over the glans. While not re-growing some of the specialised structures and tissues, the result can closely resemble and function like a real foreskin.
While foreskin resotoration was well known in Roman times, the art was lost until it was rediscovered in the 1970’s. The proliferation of the internet in the 1990’s made it possible to share the knowledge and techniques more widely. However, I believe that today was the first time that the Australian mainstream media, albeit an online outlet, has dedicated an entire article to foreskin restoration.
Unfortunately it seems that no comments are being published, so I’ll make some corrections and highlight ommissions here.
Firstly, the article portrays foreskin restoration as a process that is so disruptive to normal life that it is almost impractical to do. Most restorers I have connected with have managed to easily fit the routine into their lives with only minor adjustments. In addition, the article omits to mention that their are other methods that are less invasive, especially the manual methods where the restorer needs to only use their hands to gently stretch the skin at various times throughout the day – usually at toilet breaks.
My next comment on the article is that the ‘top doctor’ the author spoke to at the Australian Medical Association appears to have no knowledge of the natural restoration process. His comments were in relation to surgical restoration techniques, which was not the topic of the article. Ironically, he warned that surgery would result in a scarred penis – much like the scars caused by the original circumcision surgery.
Finally, I found it odd that the article ends with links and phone numbers to mental health and depression services. Is the author suggesting that only men with mental health issues would worry about being circumcised and consider restoration? Is this an attempt to dismiss the real concerns of men?
In any case it is good to see the media finally taking the topic of foreskin restoration seriously, and exposing many more Australian men to the benefits of restoring.