Let me introduce myself and also explain
why I chose to restore the skin
that covers the glans of my penis.
Yes Virginia, you can regrow a "foreskin"!
Actually, I am only growing back my covering, not the entire foreskin.  
An explanation and your re-education are on the way.  Keep reading...
I began this journey as a middle aged Caucasian male.  As per the custom of the times, the day of my birth was
celebrated by having the skin that covers the end of my penis (the prepuce) amputated.  Now, there is a fine
how-do-you-do.  "
Welcome to the world, you sweet little baby.  Now hold still, this will only take a second."

What only takes a second has scarred many, MANY men for life: physically, psychologically, sexually and
 Please be forewarned, the links below will take you to photos of what happens every day to an infant
boy somewhere in the USA.  In many cases, no one even knows there IS a problem until the infant later reaches
sexual maturity.

I am very blessed.  After my circumcision, I did not suffer from any, shall we say, recurrent medical problems that
I am aware of.  One study shows that up to 55% of infant males have complications directly relating to
circumcision.  This hits close to home because my youngest brother nearly lost the entire head of his penis during
circumcision.  What only took a moment nearly ruined him for life.  Many and varied are the complications that
occur from circumcision
(pictures don't lie), including urethral fistula, (you'll have to get a medical dictionary--I'm
just giving you the information), urinary tract infection, transected glans (what nearly happened to my brother),
penile curvature--a shaft that bends noticeably to the left, right, up or down;
too much skin removed which can result
in painful erections
for the adult male and/or painful intercourse for the female, skin bridges.  Meatal
narrowing (small hole for urination--occurs in about 1/3 of all circumcised), the need for skin grafting,
total loss of the
penis.  A buried penis, a hairy shaft, a double meatus and a scarred glans are all tell tail signs of a botched
circumcision, especially if they all occur in one man's penis.  Arterial hemorrhaging (causing some deaths by
bleeding out), laceration of penile or scrotal skin, infection (
not pretty), urinary retention due to swelling, beveling
deformities (
part of the glans cut off).  Hypospadias deformity caused by the crushing bell tipped too far forward
causing the urethral opening to be on the under surface of the penile shaft, epispadias deformity (similar to
previous, only the urethral opening is on the top of the glans).  Keloid and other
scarring, sexual dysfunction in
various forms including impotence and, yes, even death.  (
Click here and then follow the links and here too if you
still are in doubt.)  This is only a
partial list.  For a photo gallery of circumcision issues, click here.

"Through lack of understanding they remained sane."
George Orwell, 1984

"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity." George Bernard Shaw

I had a friend in my late teens and early twenties that had a severe curvature of his penis.   My own private joke
to myself was that he could make love around a corner, it was that bent!  Now that I am more educated, this was
probably a direct result of too tight a cut on one side of his penis during circumcision.  (I did not bend down to
investigate.)  We played softball together, worked out together, etc, so casual nudity while dressing was not
uncommon. Ours was a normal heterosexual friendship.

There is an unusually large number deformed penises as a result of badly performed circumcisions.  No infant
has ever suffered from a medically induced deformity of the penis or died as a direct result of NOT being
circumcised.  Do the math.  The fact is it would take great deal of courage and honesty for a physician in the United
States of America to admit that an infant death was caused by circumcision because the procedure has been deemed
unnecessary by both the American pediatric and obstetrical societies.  If a death by circumcision was reported, the
physician would immediately open himself or herself up to a lawsuit because circumcision is a procedure that is
NOT medically necessary and the first line in the Hypocritical Oath is,
Physician, do no harm.  So it is painfully
obvious that death by circumcision is vastly under reported.  

Robert L. Baker, writing in the November 1979 issue of
Sexual Medicine Today, estimated that at least 229 babies
die as a result of circumcision in the U.S.,
every year.  How many almost die?  How many later wish they HAD died?

The ugly facts are these:  The skin covering the glans (head) of the penis is adhered (stuck) to the glans at birth.  
It has to be cut around, then ripped off, leaving the glans a bloody pulp.  Your circumcision and mine was done
without an anesthetic (too risky), but was said to not be painful and caused no lasting physical or psychological
effects.  If it is not a painful procedure, as stated in the medical literature, why then does the infant boy scream his
fool head off?  
Photos not for squeamish.  In fact, the new born is taken away from the comfort of his mother's
arms/breast, and is put in a papoose, a device where his arms and legs are restrained in a "spread eagle" position
.  The room is cold and the lights are bright; for all intents and purposes, a hostile environment compared to the
dark, warm embrace of the womb he just exited.  I find it interesting (abhorrent actually) that female circumcision
(practiced in some African and many Islamic nations) is considered barbaric by Americans, but male circumcision
is deemed acceptable.  This is a VERY cruel double standard.  [Please note: recently medical practice has been to
use a local anesthetic during circumcision, so it is no longer painful DURING the procedure.  It is now just painful
afterward, and the patient STILL has to live with any damage incurred.]

For the record, I am not bitter.  Honestly, I am not bitter, not at my parents anyway.  My parents were only doing
what their parents and grandparents had done before them.  I cannot place blame on my parents for something that
they did not understand.  This may come somewhat as a surprise, but I accept and believe that Scripture commands
males to be circumcised at 8 days of age.  So why am I restoring what my parents instructed my physician to
surgically remove the day I was born?  Why am I making myself look "uncircumcised" if I believe males should be
"circumcised" according the covenant the Creator made with Abraham?

Three reasons...

1.  What I and most victims of circumcision have had done to the end of our respective penises was NOT the
method of circumcision prescribed in Scripture.

2.  No person was born with something they did not need for a specific purpose.  You and I were not born with
tonsils, a foreskin (males only), or a gall bladder and appendix just to keep our personal physicians and surgeons
from defaulting on their home mortgages or boat payments.

3.  Because I can.

So can you or your mate.  I will soon "show and tell" you how.

If you desire to know why the type of circumcision practiced in the USA today is a lie or if you believe
Scripture is telling the truth, read this paragraph:  While I will not go into the health reasons why you need your
tonsils or gall bladder (and so on), I will say that if you are a male, you were born with skin covering the glans of
your penis for a reason; it was not there for the sole purpose of removing it.  The Creator had a purpose for the skin
covering the end of the penis and only required a small portion of it, not all of it.  If you are a practicing believer
and the thought of restoring the covering of your (or your mate's) penis troubles you, or if you are curious about
the history of the circumcision practiced anciently and presently, I invite you to
click here.  If this is not of interest
to you, the following page probably will be.
Many thanks to the following sites.  If you visit these sites, please understand that some of them have not taken the
same care as this site has to protect the more sensitive among us.  
Please be forewarned.  These sites promote the
abolition of ALL types of circumcision.  If they understand the difference between Brit Milah, the Scripturally
prescribed circumcision, and Periah, the type of circumcision performed in America, they do not make that distinction.




To learn just exactly WHAT you are missing, click below.  
Please be forewarned: Sex with a Periah circumcised male
and his partner is openly discussed and compared to sex with a Brit Milah circumcised, uncircumcised male (or restored
male) and his partner.  Correct anatomic terminology is used.  It is not intended to excite or titillate.  Again, the
information on this site is for the purpose of education only.  Please heed this warning if you might be offended.  
Enter at your own risk.