Circumcised men may soon be able to REGROW their foreskin!

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: PsychoEmperor
Let's remove apendix and tonsils at birth as well then, they could cause problems in the future.
Lame argument, anecdotal at best.

I was responding to "hygiene being a myth" it is not a myth. I wasn't making an argument pro or against.

a reply to: Telos

Ya i guess so lol

a reply to: PsychoEmperor
What 'hassle' are you talking about?

*Edit*

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

I was responding to "hygiene being a myth" it is not a myth. I wasn't making an argument pro or against.

Of course if one does not wash then it is an issue.
If I don't wash between my little toe and the one next to it it would likely become dirty and/or infected. Should we remove little toes of infants, they don't actually do much for balance or anything else.

Talk about a waste of science, I suppose they will trigger abnormal cell growth and boost the cancer growth in the body.

originally posted by: Shepard64
I am not talking about infection hygiene. I am talking just cleanliness in general. You can shower everyday and clean that area in the morning and being uncircumcised it doesn't take long for that area to smell pretty rank.

If I may be so bold...



Man's best friend when arriving at camp before the latrines.

Anything to gain an inch.

a reply to: Shepard64

I am not talking about infection hygiene. I am talking just cleanliness in general.

So it is an issue of personal hygiene. Ones ability to shower and cleanse properly. If someone doesn't know how to do that, the amount of skin or lack thereof is the least of their worries..

I'm uncircumcised and cleanliness has not been an issue for me. It's rather straightforward.

a reply to: Anyafaj

I think this is great.

It wasn't a choice for them then, but it is now.

So....

If they were circumcised BEFORE the age of consent, how can they complain of a "desensitizing of sexual pleasure"??

a reply to: truthseeker84

I love out of context quotes... so your assertion that "hygiene is a myth" must be countered with...

"No, it's not."

I think that there is enough interest in this area to make it profitable for people to have such redone and more and more men want such. It is a matter of choice, these days, the problem is that doctors want such for babies born and some men do not want such. And this debate goes back years.
The history of such is as follows:
At first it was part of a religious movement, part of Judaism. Later it was done for ascetic reasons. Sometimes it was a medical necessity, as in the case of King Louis XVI, where he was unable to get aroused or perform as his foreskin was too tight and caused him pain, and only after he had a circumcision, that it allowed for him to be able to perform and have children with his wife. Later it was first on medical and then based on moral arguments for such practice.
The origin of this practice is not known when it started. It was at one time believed to be a part of a religious sacrifice or a rite of passage. In some, it was the marking of a slave, symbolic of castration. The earliest known accounts goes back to the time of ancient Egypt, during the 6th dynasty, where it was seen as a religious ceremony . Later it was written that the Egyptians did such as a practice of cleanliness, and found it better to be clean than comely. Some suggested it as used as part of a mark of being adult. In the Judaic cultures, it was part of a religious practice, often known as the Abrahamic Covenant. Ancient Greeks considered it to be a form of mutilation, and the Romans did not see such as being necessary. Even the Romans viewed this practice to be of some benefit, as it showed who as considered to be a Jew and who was not when it came to taxes.
In the United States, and in Europe, it was in 1855, that an English doctor, determined that it was best to prevent the spread of STD’s after doing a study of the Jews of the country and those who were not, reflecting on the rates and spreading between 2 groups. It was not until the Victorian age, that it was considered to be a virtue to be circumcised, as it was determined to do such would stop a male from masturbating. And would be a cure for all sorts of diseases and conditions, of which non really had any bearing on if a man was or was not circumcised.
In the 1930’s the leading advocate for such a practice was none other than John Harvey Kellogg, and he believed that a man who is circumcised would not be wanting to masturbate at all.

So there is the history of why circumcision. Now there are arguments for and against such practice, and the bottom line is this: The best argument against such a procedure, is that those who are against it are correct, they were never given a choice, it was done at an early age. And in some cases it was done wrong or caused problems later on in the person’s life. It should be a choice for the person, as it is their body and they have to decide how they want, and like any kind of body modification, it has to be personal.
Some like that they were and that is fine, but let those who did not want such, go through such a procedure and determine if they want such or not. It has to be a personal choice.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

As I was reading that was kind of my thought. I can't miss what I never had and although I am curious about what I might be missing, I am not curious enough to have it grown back on me...lol

< eyeballs article with incredulity >

Is this really some major concern with guys now? o.O Comparing it to the outer labia of women, I can't see how the loss is that much of a big deal. Without getting too TMI or breaching T & C's about it, it's not like it's the end of the world without either one, and in terms of removing the labia, I've seen a few "genital modification" pictures over the years of women with drastically reduced or without the outer labia. IMO, it's quite aesthetically pleasing -- nowhere like the garish appearance I'd expected. And I'm going to take their word for it that it's not much of a sensation difference, just aesthetics at that point. I'd imagine for men, the sensation can't be all that different without foreskin, either.

a reply to: Anyafaj

Regarding the Salamander, its interesting that if it looses a limb, the stump has a negative charge of electrons. Then it regrows the limb. just like the tails of some lizards.If we loose a limb the scar tissue holds a positive charge and we don't regrow said tissue. I noticed a while back that they had an ointment that seemed to regrow parts of thumbs that had been amputated. It was primarily a zinc ointment . Which to my reasoning, would act like a mini battery on the stump, and keep a negative charge on the area that requires the regrowth. So why not attach a capacitor, that hold a load of electrons at one end up against the wound, with a small battery to keep it charged.

They seem to have worked out that bones heel better if they are held in an electrical field. Interesting stuff.

If your happy with your penis clap your hands? Bam, bam, bam.

a reply to: Nyiah
So do you support the removal of either from male or female infants without their consent and/or without pain relief?

a reply to: Anyafaj

To answer your question: without a single doubt i would undergo such a procedure regardless of the pain. I am not enjoying sex the same way my friends do and would give my both hands to get my foreskin back (had it removed at the age of 2 for medical reasons)

This is really good news

a reply to: HellaKitty89

What's the point of getting the skin back, if you gave up both hands to get it?

I kid, I kid...

a reply to: Anyafaj

what happens if the skin doesn't stop growing. we could end up with a generation of men with aardvarks in their pants.

originally posted by: BestinShow

originally posted by: grainofsand
I always wonder why we don't call it Male Genital Mutilation.

Not even a good comparison, as losing ones foreskin would be akin to a female losing her labia, not clitoris.

The Small Man in the Boat would agree...

In truth, you've given another good idea as to another good application. To help victims of female genital mutilation victims. I can see this apply to them if possible. Especially if it can help recreate sensation.