Content area
Full Text
A thoughtful reflection on the presence or absence of a man's prepuce (foreskin) is not a regular part of everyday conversations. Many would even consider it a nonissue, just a small flap of skin that is either there or not, but not really a big deal either way. However, a quick scan of the Internet reveals a rather heated debate over the topic of circumcision. Proponents argue that circumcision reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of acquiring HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). Opponents argue that circumcision is a mutilation that excises healthy tissue, which can impair sexual functioning and satisfaction (Earp, 2015; Lang, 2013).
The two populations of intact (uncircumcised) and circumcised men are compared and contrasted in an intensely polarized conversation with each side providing expert commentary and research to support their position (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2012; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012; Earp, 2015; Lang, 2013; Melby, 2002; Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor, 1996). What is often overlooked in this discussion is a third group, those men who have been circumcised but have decided to restore their foreskin (Earp, 2015).
Foreskin restoration is an attempt to "restore" a pseudo-prepuce through surgical or other means (Earp, 2015). Common non-surgical approaches include stretching the remaining skin on the penile shaft by various manual methods, tapes, weights, and other devices (Collier, 2011; Earp, 2015; White, 2013). It is expected to take years of stretching to obtain the desired results.
From a historical perspective, foreskin restoration is not a new phenomenon. The Apostle Paul instructs Christians to live as they were called, not to worry about becoming uncircumcised if they were called while circumcised (1 Corinthians 7:18). Presumably, early Christians were seeking to restore their foreskins and appear "uncircumcised." Foreskin restoration was an attempt by the Jews and Christians to avoid social stigma and religious persecution while participating in athletic events or while attending the public baths in the nude (Collier, 2011).
In modern history, it is less likely for one's foreskin status to be a cause for religious or political persecution. Nevertheless, restoration has often been viewed with suspicion, as a possible psychotic obsession or sexual fetish, for example. Mohl, Adams, Greer, and Sheley (1981)...