Intact, Mutilated, Largely Restored

I was born in Mississippi in 1949. My father (and his five brothers) was intact and saw no reason for routine infant circumcision. Luckily for me my mother's obstetrician agreed, and so I was left as God made me.

My brother was born a year later and he, too, was left intact. He and I were almost the only intact boys we knew. This didn't bother my brother, but it did concern me. So at the age of 19 I elected to be circumcised. But I soon realized what a great mistake I had made!

Prior to circumcision the glans had been tender and moist, similar in texture to the inner surface of the mouth. The inner surface of the foreskin was smooth and tender as well, and very sensitive to erotic stimulation. The frenulum, also, was delicate and extremely sensitive to stimulation.

When I learned about masturbation from my (circumcised) peers, I first attempted to masturbate as I imagined they did: keeping the foreskin retracted with one hand, I tried rubbing the other hand up and down over the glans. Ouch! This was much too painful to be pleasurable at all. I soon learned the most common masturbation technique of intact men: holding the penis on the shaft and pulling the foreskin back and forth over the glans. (Later I would find out that the same foreskin movement happens during intercourse, when the thrusting penis is gripped by the vagina.)

On each downstroke the foreskin's delicate, moist inner surface glided erotically over the glans, and the frenar band's gentle constriction slipped down the glans and "snapped" past the highly erogenous coronal ridge. When the foreskin was completely retracted, the frenulum gently pulled down on the underside of the glans (which I now know improves sensation to the glans during intercourse).

On each upstroke the frenar band once again "snapped" past the coronal ridge with an erotic mini-startle to the erogenous system, and the foreskin's inner surface one again glided over and stimulated the tender, moist glans as it moved up, which it was designed to do.

In later years I learned that my circumcised friends sometimes or always used artificial lubrication during masturbation. I never needed any, as the glans and inner foreskin were naturally moist, and the clear lubrication which was produced soon after having an erection was automatically applied to the glans by foreskin movement.

The glans was extremely sensitive to the touch, and only enjoyed pleasure when it was stimulated by another mucous membrane (such as the inner foreskin or an opening in another person's body). As an inner organ (covered by the foreskin unless it was retracted) the glans was much too tender to be rubbed casually.

Orgasms were reached easily (but not prematurely), and they were intense enough to make my knees give way if I was standing.

Everything was different, however, after I was circumcised. Initially I experienced continuous and disturbing irritation, as the glans was very tender before it became constantly exposed. It took about a month for it to become accustomed to constant friction from clothing, and sexual activity could be resumed. But the sensations were dulled now.

The glans dried out and became much less sensitive. Even though I still have a frenulum, its nerves have been damaged and it is nowhere nearly as sensitive either.

I now had to masturbate most frequently with artificial lubrication (or risk the distinct possibility of an irritated penis). Orgasms were often achieved with extreme difficulty. They were still pleasurable, but they were much, much less intense than prior to circumcision.

I married at age 23, and throughout the next 17 years my wife and I had a good sex life, but I often had trouble climaxing in intercourse due to a lack of sensation with the glans. I never could climax through fellatio, although this had not been a problem when I was intact. I assumed that my orgasm problems were probably psychological, and supposed that I would simply have to adjust to it (my wife was a virgin when we married, so she assumed that the long time I took to climax was normal, even if it often caused her to become raw during intercourse).

In the late 1980s I came across references to foreskin restoration, instructions for which I was able to obtain. I was one of the rare and extremely fortunate men who were able to achieve full glans coverage within a year of beginning skin expansion techniques.

The glans is now tender and moist once again. It also has regained most of its lost sensitivity, although not as much as before circumcision. As a consequence of these changes I now have no trouble climaxing during either intercourse or fellatio.

My wife enjoys the feeling of the loose, moving shaft skin during intercourse, which gives her a different and "better" (according to her) feeling vaginally. We both enjoy the "glide sensation" of the loose-skinned penis during intercourse, and we like intercourse more than before restoration.

I enjoy masturbating with my restored foreskin (which is almost as good as the original, only lacking the frenar band), and my wife also enjoys playing with my restored foreskin during lovemaking and fellatio. She supports my views that routine infant circumcision is genital mutilation that must be stopped.

Aesthetically, my penis appears quite natural and can pass as intact in locker rooms to all but the most observant. I have even passed as intact during medical examinations, for the circumcision scar is not visible unless the foreskin is retracted. (Knowledgeable physicians, however, may notice the lack of the frenar band at the foreskin opening.)

My wife and I have two sons, born in 1979 and 1983. Although we had to take a stand against the hospitals' wishes, we were able to keep both of our sons intact.

Our sons already know why many of their friends are circumcised (which my sons consider horrible), and as they become adults I will share with them the sexual advantages of the intact penis. Neither they, my father, my brother, or I ever had any problems traditionally but mythologically associated with keeping the penis intact.

I strongly believe, with millions of persons around the world, that the penis was designed with a foreskin on purpose, and to routinely redesign this organ at birth is a grave mistake and probably a serious crime of child abuse.

If you put this on your website, please sign it either "Anonymous" or "David from Baltimore."


Go back to "Just Anecdotal."

Return to main page.