Big thanks for this website.
I was cut as a baby, and so to read about some great men, who are having some problems with what I have felt "robbed" of, is very amazing to me. I'm so sorry that maybe having a foreskin isn't as easy as I had thought. I remember as a four-year-old gathering what little skin I had left, up around the head, and just wishing it would stay there. I now know about restoration, but that seems like a lifetime pursuit. At my age, the resurection will be faster.

After learning the history of circumcision, it was a no-brainer for me to leave my sons intact. Thing is, I really felt kinda inadequate as a father, since I couldn't really tell them how to take care of themselves. I wish I had known about this site. I tried to show them how to start to retract when they were ten or eleven, but since I had nothing to retract, it was pretty lame. Since then, I would ask periodically how it was going, but they never said much. They are late teens and early twenties now, and I still don't know if they can fully retract or not. I would feel really badly if they were having problems and didn't know who to ask. It can be a bit embarrasing somehow. At least they have both expressed their appreciation for leaving them their skin.

I wish that Americans weren't so stupid about foreskin.
Paul & Jim, Keep up the good work. To all you men who are having a challenge, just know how much I admire your determination, and hope for your eventual success.
Brandon

To most American men, this is a non topic and a done deal. My own feeling is that the pain of loss is so great that it's buried and kept in denial of existance. Denial to men is hard to admit, so they cover it with lies of acceptance and jokes, or worse yet, carrying out the cruel act upon their sons in order not to have them receive something they cannot have. I've been involved in recovery work for about seven years now, and have a pretty good understanding of behavioral traits and what causes them, so I think I'm pretty close to the truth.

The anger displayed by some when the topic is approached is a key indicator of hidden feelings. The demands of circumcised men upon their wives to have their sons circumcised even in light of the wife's resistance is another clue. If it were not so hot a topic, why the anger and why the instistance? In the former case, if it's so good, why are you so touchy. In the latter, it's not your penis, so why the insistance?

Restoration isn't a life-time project at all, but it does take considerable dedication. The latest method employs air pressure and is very effective and fast. The speed and the result of increasing the inner mucosa are probably its greatest benefits. Most methods take at least twice as long and tend to increase the outer skin to a greater degree than the inner mucosa. My view is that the mucosa produced should be equal to what was lost. Check out www.foreskinrestore.com to get a better idea of it. There are three men's results graphically displayed and they're quite impressive. What is your age?

In a Bible study, I recently learned of the obsessivenss of the Jews under the reign of the kings to the practice of circumcision. I find a parallel in that society with the current American society in nearly all respects. As we (society in general) asked for king and got one, we have repeated the error the Jews made. We are also deeply entrenched in a circumcision fetish, albeit one for quite different reasons, but ironically quite possibly for another form of religion, perhaps best called pseudo religion, the worship of the circumcised penis. Interestingly, the phallus has been symbol of many cultures over the years, and I do believe the US has lowered itself to that kind of worship.

I encourage you to approach your boys. You already opened the door a few years ago, so they would remember it. If they thanked you, it's a subject open to them.

I'm curious where you are located. I'm in California, a state which boasts one of the lowest rates of neonatal circumcision.

Thanks for your comments. We're dedicated to save what exists!

I would guess one in a hundred - at the least.

It's not usually the "done thing" to discuss this with the men who come to see me, but I actually do recall one fellow whom I saw in the past week where this was mentioned and who did indeed perceive that being circumcised was a component of his erectile dysfunction.

In the same week I also encountered two women of different age groups who expressed an expectation that circumcision was "necessary", one of whom related all the men who "had to" be circumcised at one stage or another in life. Now of course, while I have seen a few (boys and) men who have had recurrent problems, I have yet to agree that circumcision was appropriate; cessation of soap use and persistent use of anti-candidals along with some motivation to improve diabetic control seem to be preferable and generally effective.

An interesting point was made in a presentation I attended a few days back. It was suggested that someone (the example was female) who is over 75 or 80 and in a nursing home, having been treated for diabetes for perhaps 20 or 30 years, should be managed with an emphasis on quality of life and their diabetes treatment - including insulin - withdrawn - except that is, to prevent the problem of "Thrush" - Candida - which might be expected to present with blood sugars over 20 mM (360 mg/dl for the Americans).

Back to the matter of how many men comprehend their circumstance, I think that a fair few do. It is however, certainly true that even considering the information available about foreskin "restoration", it will be relatively impractical for most due to the time and effort involved, and the aspect of family support - which tends to require that a wife (or girlfriend) be equally convinced of the desirability of the end result. I would on this account suspect that not all, but the majority of "restoring" men are single.

Short of "restoration", the three other responses are (probably in order) quiet acceptance, active denial and finally, "intactivism". Denial is a major aspect of psychological make-up (Jim's reference to "recovery work" is not primarily in respect to foreskin restoration, though I am aware that he has a particular interest in that; but to youth problems in the more general sense,) and accounts for a great number of irrational and grossly harmful actions.

Brandon, I endorse all of Jim's comments. It is interesting to note that the "Asherah poles" referred to in the Old Testament were in fact, phalluses as part of a fertility cult. Circumcision as introduced to nineteenth century America (previously unheard of) had bizarre religious connections and does so to this day. American - and arguably to a lesser extend British and Australian - society is beset with prudery and ignorance through which the breakdown of moral society (as evidenced in unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children and unwanted spouses) is denied and effectively accelerated.

If your sons have expressed appreciation for leaving them intact, I believe you do have a line of communication to enquire as to whether they have any concerns at all because to counter the profound ignorance that perpetuates the practice of circumcision, we need people not only to be aware of the importance of the foreskin, but to literally treasure and defend it. We expect you - the "one in a million" or hopefully more likely one in a thousand (the approximate proportion of medical practitioners in my country) to be actively doing this - an "intactivist" - as we do here, but we need more people - such as your sons - to at least take an interest and be just a little proactive.

Paul,
Thank you for your great response. I'm going to have to look up "Asheroh poles" now. (Life is a Phallacy.) I was facsinated to see pictographs in Mayan caves that depict a bleeding penis watering the ground for crops. Keep that knife away from me!!!

I also hadn't thought much about Diabetes being a problem for penile health as men age.

As for speaking up, thanks for your support. I do indeed try to talk with as many young father's as I am close to. I have failed on most occasions to sway the cultural gridlock. My younger brother was absolutely determined to short his son. Still there are those who will at least think twice, and years from now, I hope their sons have a piece of them. (Payback)



Another part of the problem as I see it, is that so many Christians misread their bibles, and actually suppost circumcision. So intactivism has to fight both social AND religious customs, that are far from factual.

What country are you from?

The real problem is that they have not read them at all! If they were to read Paul's letters concerning the dilemma caused by the Pharassees as Gentiles were being attracted to the early church, they find some pretty strict lessons on what is to take place! As you'll read, the Jews wanted them to become Jews before they could become Christian. That is not the case at all. They are to be received just as they are, foreskins and all. Circumcision is very definitely not supported by the Bible for Christians in any way shape or form as relates to the foreskin. The message is for circumcision of the heart!

Circumcision in English speaking countries has evolved into a religion of its own. It's a form of phallic worship, not much different from what was happening in the early days of the kings of Israel. Phallic worship is something God became angry about with the idol worshippers. They made their own gods, and that is exactly what circumcisers are doing today. They are making gods of denuded penises!

I'm in California.

Thanks for the reply.
I'm pretty tired of the circumcision of the heart business as well.

Broken heart, contrite spirit. Fine.

As far as I'm concerned, we could dump the whole circumcision of the heart crap. We read scriptures as a family, and I cringe every time we come across those verses. It pains MY heart to have my sons think they are somehow irreligious because they are not circumcised.

Cutting "around" the heart makes no sense at all. Are we supposed to just get by without an Aorta or two??

Whatever prophet or apostle came up with that term was up in the night.

The word contrite explains it. We are told that not all things will be understood on this side of Heaven, but that one day we know. Currently, we are looking through a glass darkly.

Your sons are just physically just a God designed them. What He wants from them is their devotion to Him, not physical sacrifices.

You could explain to your sons - wherever the topic comes up - that the Old Testament focuses on sacrifice, sacrifice of valuable animals (but as you will recall, only the very most valuable was acceptable) and in this context, sacrifice of a very valuable sexual function.

I cannot see that these early Semites were idiots. They certainly were unreliable as the story unfolds, but they knew only too well what the foreskin was for. As happens in our day, it was as a concession somewhat easier for them to do this to their children instead of having to make the sacrifice personally, so an element of denial clearly comes into it. Even then, it became ridiculously ritualised when the Bible makes no such expectation whatsoever.

Just why did God - who created Adam "perfect" in detail including the foreskin - then require circumcision? I would say it directly relates to the prevailing religious cultures mentioned here - the fertility rites which involved amongst other things, semen and sometimes blood. (You clearly realise the importance of blood in the Old Testament and will recall that emitting semen was also a cause for becoming "unclean".) A circumcised man would be less than acceptable in such rites, because an important part was missing, so this provided just one little barrier for their participation. Of course, it did not entirely stop them, but it was a nagging reminder that they really were "set apart" and should not be participating. As with the Egyptian priests who also were apparently circumcised (at puberty, of course, as part of their initiation).

When you explain these things, it follows that since we as Christians are neither required nor permitted to perform sacrifices (which makes Roman Catholicism the more suspect), then circumcision falls in the same category - if it has any religious significance (even tangential), circumcision and anyone recommending it, repudiates Christ.

Paul's writings make this only too clear, so there is no reason to shy away from such references as long as people understand them. "Circumcision of the heart" does not at all connect with the act of cutting, but the sacrifice of something of personal value - autonomy - in deference to God.

Paul,
You and Jim have thrown me for a loop. I meet and mingle with a ton of Christian men and women who have never taken the time to consider circumcision, and who have circumcised their own sons without a second thought. To the point of actually thinking they were doing God's will. I also know many would-be Christians who cannot reconcile themselves with circumcision and have abandonned organized religion in the process.
You two are somehow unique.
To acknowledge circumcision as God-directed in the past, and yet not be angry about it.
I consider myself a religious man, yet I can't seem to help myself being angry about it.

I would really give a nickel to know what your personal situations are.

Have you suffered the indignity of having your foreskin removed without your consent?

If the matter of circumcision were the only matter on which "Christian men and women ... have never taken the time to consider ... without a second thought".

Since the single criterion of being a Christian - faith in Christ - is accepting and (openly) declaring Jesus' death on the Cross as expiation for one's corpus of sin, the ongoing practice of sin both of commission and omission cannot be used to deny someone's faith, so while the fact that Christians continue to do and say foolish things is regrettable, it remains a fact of life. To do something believing it is God's Will despite the Bible clearly stating the opposite indicates a lack of understanding and a need for enlightenment which are only too evident in many fields.

Christians, and we must presume that many and possibly even most who identify as such are genuinely believers on that first fundamental point, all too frequently get "the cart before the horse", particularly in respect of sexual mores which as it is correctly observed, were very low in the list of concerns exhibited in Jesus' ministry - He did not entirely ignore them, but focused on forgiveness where people were clearly repentant. {I am however, greatly perplexed and saddened by Barack Obama's recent repudiation of Christian Morality, which may yet prove to be the ultimate act of political suicide.}

I bear no anger at God for requiring circumcision of His people when it may have had a value commensurate with their situation in antiquity. I share however - as it is right to do - God's anger at the obstinacy of people who would continue to promote evil practices by claiming to be in His name as is so graphically illustrated in the New Testament that they apparently either do not read, or choose not to understand.

That so-called "Christians" should claim circumcision is actually a very recent phenomenon, it did not happen and would not have even been considered in Anglo-American culture until the twentieth century; it is simply an ignorant result of the circumcision epidemic in that century, not a driver. Of more concern is the bogus "medical" campaign that is still being pushed at least partly by the Jewish medical community in America and as this linked article indicates, Australia.