2008-10-04 Details Magazine - restoring article - Gimme Some Skin

[Tally]

The reporter that asked for volunteers for her article on restoration has apparently finished her article. The article can be read here (http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/2008/09/gimme-some-skin.html). The article even links to this forum. :)

It sounds like our very own 1Taoist offered some information to the reporter. Good job!

[Distalero]

Just another assassinate-the-concept-with-oblique-references, though. Lots of statements, many of them managing to cross the border of misunderstanding, with no depth. Depth: this is what is needed. You go deeper, you get closer to the truth. Too bad, but then I wouldn't get my hopes up that someone would write something a bit more objective.

When will this culture, and it's article writing representatives (apologists, really) get it, that the glans is NOT the primary seat of sensation in the penis. This is circumcision-culture belief (because the vast quantity of truly sensitive tissue has been robbed without most knowing it), and not in any way what even current study has revealed, as little of it as there is for this organ. Yet this is always the focus in articles like this, and on forums like this one, for that matter.

So there's always a last shot from the robbers and their cronies, concerning how what some of us have discovered, real sensation, is "unsupported" by some vaguely referred to set of studies. Right.

[Tally]

Just another assassinate-the-concept-with-oblique-references, though. Lots of statements, many of them managing to cross the border of misunderstanding, with no depth. Depth: this is what is needed. You go deeper, you get closer to the truth. Too bad, but then I wouldn't get my hopes up that someone would write something a bit more objective.

When will this culture, and it's article writing representatives (apologists, really) get it, that the glans is NOT the primary seat of sensation in the penis. This is circumcision-culture belief (because the vast quantity of truly sensitive tissue has been robbed without most knowing it), and not in any way what even current study has revealed, as little of it as there is for this organ. Yet this is always the focus in articles like this, and on forums like this one, for that matter.
With American culture being the way it is today, I think articles that even mention restoration will raise awareness. I don't think every article should be in-depth. If anything, in-depth articles will cause the typical person to "tune out." That is, if widely distributed magazines would even carry such articles.

I think the article will cause more than a few guys to wonder and possibly investigate. As more people investigate and become aware of the results of circumcision, the more likely that society will begin to condemn it. It is all about education. We need to start with elementary level information before we can present upper graduate level information.

[greg_b]

It will raise awareness, I agree, and that is good. But it is not well written and comes off making restorers sound a bit flaky. This line caught my attention:

"It's a little bit of skin and it raises so many passions, but, you know, it isn't worth the effort of worrying about it."

If it is such a "little bit of skin" and not enough to worry about, maybe they should not be doing RIC....

Regards

[Distalero]

You're absolutely right, greg. Somewhere on this forum I described how this type of article has historically been done, and more or less predicted the outcome of this one. I don't say this to crow or boast, but explain why I wasn't interested in contributing in any way, not the least of which was because surgical restoration seemed to loom so large in her view, when it's the least of this practice, almost another myth.

So for this reason, and a number of others, I don't think this is some kind of teaser, or even an ambassador of sorts, for restoring loss of sensation and eventually, function, to guys, hell a generation practically, who otherwise have nowhere to turn. This practice, personal journey as it is, is also one of the better natural (historical moment: Distalero used the word "natural" :D) potential remedies for ED. But the authors always miss that one. This isn't deep particularly, and it's damn sure of general interest in the male population. Screw this type of article. Bring on the real stuff, is what Distalero says.

[z726]

It will raise awareness, I agree, and that is good. But it is not well written and comes off making restorers sound a bit flaky. This line caught my attention:

"It's a little bit of skin and it raises so many passions, but, you know, it isn't worth the effort of worrying about it."

If it is such a little thin and not enough to worry about, maybe they should not be doing RIC....

Regards

I just posted a comment pointing out how ironic it is that this quote comes from a man who has performed surgical restorations and spoken at a NORM meeting in the past. Note that Dr. Sharlip is currently spokesperson for the American Urological Society, so he may have to watch what he's saying - for all I know, even to the point of giving only "official" opinions.

I just don't understand why almost every news article on subjects of circumcision or foreskin restoration has to contain a paragraph or two dismissive of everything else that's been said.

[Joseph]

Not surprising, not surprising at all.

It's an article about the foreskin and circumcision. Dismiss foreskin fetishists and the people that are obsessed with regrowing it. DUH...

[tony12345]

I didn't think the article was that bad, anytime the issue is raised for discussion, and both viewpoints (pro-con) are discussed, is basically a good thing.

I think many circs are done because the parents are just following the herd mentality, if they stop to think about what they are actually doing to their son, they wouldn't do it.

[admin]

FYI, the print version of the article is on p. 127 of the NOVEMBER issue of Details magazine, on news stands now.
-Ron

[1Taoist]

I see everybody's points. However, it is a journalistic technique of learned "balanced journalism" to offer, in the next paragraph, evidence refuting or dismissing an idea. It's how we avoid propaganda or "an agenda piece". I thought the article was simple and to the point. I spoke to her and tried to disway her from the surgical end of it, but she probably felt it to be reader-worthy. Not to be confused with accuracy or legitimacy.

Depth is not nearly needed here, Distalero. I was glad she mentioned the political and HIV angles which are disputed (upon my urging), showing that there is an active dispute to consider on a widespread medical and social scale.

I agree with Tally, depth will tune people out.

All this did was lay out the point. I threw in the anal sex bit for sensationalism and to lighten the emphasis on technicality and steer it into sexual performance. I knew she would put it in because of that, and even though many people don't engage in the back-door slide, it represents the wilder side, which always perks curiosity. And especially when it's true (in my
case).

I thought she got in most of the methods, and she made this sound like somethin, a little somethin, men are doing to get that edge back. And that's all you can expect.

Maybe the New England Journal of Medicine article will be better. Written by Distalero and Uni-whatever his name is.