PDA

View Full Version : when you are restored........


cloud7
October 10th, 2007, 20:46
if someone asks if you are circumcised after you completely restore, how will you answer

David
October 10th, 2007, 20:49
I said "intact" (which is what I say nowadays in non-restoration circles). When it's appropriate, I say, "restored" (but that is infrequent).

Joseph
October 11th, 2007, 06:57
Not a question for me, as I am intact...

However, I think that for a cut man that restored to say "intact" to such a question is quite pretentious.

I mean, by all means, if you want to restore and get something of yours back, DO it. But do you have to LIE about it?

z726
October 11th, 2007, 14:15
I figure I might as well explain restoration to them, since most people probably haven't heard of it or don't know anyone who's doing it.

George
October 19th, 2007, 00:41
It really depends on the context. I'd imagine most of the time, for the sake of brevity, I'd just say I'm intact when asked; if people are really curious, I'd explain that I restored and tell them about the restoration process.

But then, I really don't go around talking about my penis a whole lot. (It's not a regular topic of conversation, sadly.)

spooled2k3
November 4th, 2007, 21:39
I personally would say intact. Unless someone who knew me and knew that I was circumcised and then saw me afterwards and was like...WTF. I would explain the situation. However, just explaining restoration to a normal person(in the usa) who is indifferent on the situation may likely bring some confusing and they may think you are some sort or freak - until they are more informed on the purpose of the foreskin. saying intact is just easier and requires much less explanation.

Unregistered
December 25th, 2007, 02:13
Not a question for me, as I am intact...

However, I think that for a cut man that restored to say "intact" to such a question is quite pretentious.

I mean, by all means, if you want to restore and get something of yours back, DO it. But do you have to LIE about it?

Why is anything but perfect honest pretentious? You say this as if the choice one's parents made when they were born, or the general circumstances of their birth--and thus the history of the person's genitals--are some important character trait for a relationship etc. But I say if my hard work someday allows me to look and function as if I was intact (and it hasn't, yet) I deserve to be able to simply say "intact" without having to explain myself. Knowing I could never be truly whole I would like to put my mutilation behind me and join the rest of mankind in being "intact." I don't want to forever belong to a
a strange and marginalized portion of society that has to explain the history of our twice-modified genitals and our and our uncommon preoccupation with stretching them back to something like the original.

For now if I have sex with a girl I will have to conceal or explain my restoration cone because it is now agonizing to walk around with an exposed glans and inner skin, but once I look normal I'd like to be able to say and act like I am too.

I think you Joseph are the pretentious one for thinking your luck gives you a superiority, such that we who work hard for something to close to normal sexual function cannot claim to belong to the same category as you.

Joseph
December 25th, 2007, 05:53
I think you Joseph are the pretentious one for thinking your luck gives you a superiority, such that we who work hard for something to close to normal sexual function cannot claim to belong to the same category as you.

It's not a matter of luck, or a matter of me trying to be superior because of the "luck of the draw."

It's a matter of truth and honesty.

The way I see it, people need to be honest no-matter what. Playing the name game is not going to make the truth go away, just conceal it.

The same goes for those that claim that circumcision "is not mutilation," as well as those that try to pretend to call themselves "intact," as if nothing ever happened.

Call it what it is.

If you are cut, say you are cut. If you are intact, say you are intact. If you are restored, you must say you are restored.

If you think you've stretched out your skin long enough for you to get by calling yourself "intact," more power to you.

Still doesn't change a thing. Only YOU know who you are fooling.

Don't take it so hard, man, that's just my point of view, and I post it without any reservation. People are free to do and say whatever they want.

I just believe in honesty, is all.

I'm not trying to be more "superior" than anyone.

I hate to say it, but I think you might be suffering an inferiority complex. It's not my fault your parents decided to cut you at birth, and it's not your fault either. I'm not trying to look down on you; you can't be blamed for something that was out of your control.

The way I see it, though, I don't think it helps the intactivist movement to call yourself something you are not. Why? Because pretending to have never been circumcised gives a reason to those that circumcise to promote their practice further. "You see? A man can re-grow a foreskin if he wants later on. So it makes no difference if you circumcise him as a child." They'll say.

The truth is, that even restored, your new skin will not be as good as it was if it were your real one. Not trying to look down on you, simply stating the facts of life. Your skin won't be as tight, and it won't constrict at the end. If you lost your frenulum, there's no way to regrow THAT. Furthermore, you will not have aquired the nerve endings that you lost. There IS a difference.

The way I see it, if you state with pride that you are restored, the more people that restore and say it, the more people will see that yes, men DO resent being circumcised, and there is a whole population that has done something about it.

Nothing can come about if you just sit there and pretend to be something you are not. It only adds silence to the movement, and possibly a reason to those that circumcise to push even further.

That's just my two cents man, take 'em or leave 'em.

Please don't take me the wrong way, because to pretend to be superior than a man who has had the misfortune of having been circumcised as a child is the LAST thing that I want to do.

Peace.

Unregistered
December 25th, 2007, 11:11
You've still yet to give any reason why restored men must be perfectly "honest" about their genital history other than "for honesty's sake." While this Judeo-Christian humanist logic may make you feel as if you are on the moral high ground, you fail to demonstrate any harm that comes from a restorer declaring himself "intact" other than some imagined moral stain. But the point remains: Why does my lover or anyone else need to know the (unfortunate) history of my genitals? If a girl takes off my pants and sees what looks like an uncut cock, will she even say anything? Need I say anything? Or am I a lying scumbag if I don't take the time on every first date to explain what restoration is, why I do it, why a foreskin is good, how stretching works, etc.?

Intact, cut, restored, whatever, I could care less about anyone's penis other than my own. And I'm gonna call it whatever the fuck I want. Why? Because it's my penis and I earned it. I'm not lying to anybody and I'm not deceiving anyone-- the liars and the deceivers are the ones who circumsized me and tried to pass it off. It's not about pulling the wool over anyone's eyes or covering up the past, it's about RESTORING and RECLAIMING what is RIGHTFULLY MINE.

I'm not going to make up an elaborate story about how I escaped circumcision because of my unexpected birth while my parents were vacationing in the Cayman Islands where the procedure is unheard of, and if I get to know the person well enough maybe I'll even go out of my way to explain the story. But when I pull my dick out of my pants to stick in some girls mouth and she says with a smile as she retracts my skin "Uncircumsized, I see," I'm just going to smile and nod. There's no sin in that and it doesn't hurt myself or her.

Yes it may benefit the restoration movement if all us restorers are loud and vocal about it. Some of us, however, like me, wish to keep our restorations to ourselves and be "normal." Once I am restored I want to put it in the past and move on. This is my penis, and I don't care about what happened to it in the past, only how it is now.


So, fuck you, Joseph. Go to hell. You can't possibly understand what it's like to be one of us victims. You make it seem like we're all just hopelessly striving for something we can never have anyway and deceiving ourselves into thinking we've come something close to normal. That's not the mindset I want as a restorer and there's no reason why you, as one who was spared the gruesome procedure, need to spread this type of negativity on this forum. Yes it may be a matter of "truth and honesty" that we can never have what you have but we don't need that rubbed in our faces and we don't need to remind everyone of it everytime we even invoke the idea of our penises. Go find somewhere else to be proud of your tight taper. You fucking asshole.

cloud7
December 25th, 2007, 11:33
calm down everyone...

there are good points to each side,in some cases it might be better to lie or at least not tell some that you are restored if it would do more harm then good at that point in time. but as said before if we always call restored as being the same as intact it does lessen the perception of the harm to the public.

It is important to remember although we as a group need to share this with the world, it's not always appropriate to do so

mindset wise we restorers will appreciate the foreskin more then any intact person will since we have been without it for so long.

Joseph
December 25th, 2007, 14:17
You've still yet to give any reason why restored men must be perfectly "honest" about their genital history other than "for honesty's sake."

I GAVE you a reason. If honesty is not good enough for you, I'm sorry.

While this Judeo-Christian humanist logic may make you feel as if you are on the moral high ground, you fail to demonstrate any harm that comes from a restorer declaring himself "intact" other than some imagined moral stain.

No harm comes from it, I'm sure, if you can pull it off. I think it is up to you to explain to me how deceiving a person is an "imagined" moral stain. That is, unless you don't think it's wrong to lie to people... I do. If you don't, well, I think there is something wrong with your value system and you need to do some soul searching.

But the point remains: Why does my lover or anyone else need to know the (unfortunate) history of my genitals? If a girl takes off my pants and sees what looks like an uncut cock, will she even say anything? Need I say anything? Or am I a lying scumbag if I don't take the time on every first date to explain what restoration is, why I do it, why a foreskin is good, how stretching works, etc.?

Where do you live, Mr. Unregistered person? If you live in the US, a girl would most likely say something because it is expected that all American men are circumcised at birth, and then, yes, you WOULD have to say something to her, explain that you were cut, you wanted to restore, why, etc. That is, unless you really do want to continue diluting her and yourself.

And don't be ridiculous. You don't have to go through all of the restoration process. Again, I really do think you are paranoid. There are many things that go through a man's mind on the first date, including what to explain to a girl. You don't have to go through a litany of all your past failed relationships, what you did and did not like etc., what your prefered sexual activities are, and you don't have to go through all of your restoration process; all of these things take time, not just explaining to her the current condition of your organs.

But I really think that eventually, you would have to tell her. Tell me. Let's say you slip by a girl in the US with an "intact" penis. What will you tell her, if and when she talks to you about children and she tells you that it's OK for you to be "uncircumcised" but not OK for her children? This story happens over and over again.

"Intact, cut, restored, whatever, I could care less about anyone's penis other than my own. And I'm gonna call it whatever the fuck I want. Why? Because it's my penis and I earned it. I'm not lying to anybody and I'm not deceiving anyone-- the liars and the deceivers are the ones who circumsized me and tried to pass it off. It's not about pulling the wool over anyone's eyes or covering up the past, it's about RESTORING and RECLAIMING what is RIGHTFULLY MINE."

You can call it whatever you want. But sorry, I disagree with you. If you tell people that you are intact, you would be lying to them, and you would be lying to yourself. Yes, those who circumcised you were liars, I'm not arguing with that, but then it would be not one lie, but two. You can restore and reclaim, but unfortunately, you are not going to erase the fact that what happened, happened.

"I'm not going to make up an elaborate story about how I escaped circumcision because of my unexpected birth while my parents were vacationing in the Cayman Islands where the procedure is unheard of, and if I get to know the person well enough maybe I'll even go out of my way to explain the story. But when I pull my dick out of my pants to stick in some girls mouth and she says with a smile as she retracts my skin "Uncircumsized, I see," I'm just going to smile and nod. There's no sin in that and it doesn't hurt myself or her."

You're trying to rationalize it, buddy. "What she doesn't know, won't hurt her." Kinda like "if he can't remember it, it's OK."

Sound familiar?

You weren't supposed to find out, and you were supposed to smile and nod too. THAT wasn't OK, but this is?

"Yes it may benefit the restoration movement if all us restorers are loud and vocal about it. Some of us, however, like me, wish to keep our restorations to ourselves and be "normal." Once I am restored I want to put it in the past and move on. This is my penis, and I don't care about what happened to it in the past, only how it is now. "

Sorry, I really do think you need professional help. Some circumcised men are in denial, and try to put their past behind them by belittleing it and pretending that they are "just fine." I don't see how calling yourself "intact" and pretending you are "normal" is any different. You are still trying to deny the past. Sorry, but that is dishonest. I'm can't tell you NOT to fool yourself and your girlfriends, but I say that's dishonest, just as it is dishonest to make the assertion that being circumcised makes no difference. Take it or leave it. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

Everyone has baggage, unregistered. We all have those things that we can't just blurt out on the first date. But dating isn't about witholding and lying to a partner so that he or she can like you. It's about putting it all out there and being accepted for who and what you are, your past and all. Cut, intact, restored, or whatever, people need to see this. If they don't like it, you need to move on instead of trying to please everyone.

"So, fuck you, Joseph. Go to hell. You can't possibly understand what it's like to be one of us victims."

Oh? Heh heh heh. Please. You can't even pretend to know me. You are an unregistered user who doesn't even have the gall even use an assumed screen-name. You can't even begin to understand why it is I have decided to be a part of this movement, even though I am intact.

"Us victims." HAH. Get over yourself. You are not the only victim in this world. You're nothing special.

"You make it seem like we're all just hopelessly striving for something we can never have anyway and deceiving ourselves into thinking we've come something close to normal. That's not the mindset I want as a restorer and there's no reason why you, as one who was spared the gruesome procedure, need to spread this type of negativity on this forum."

You need to stop and take a look at yourself, Unregistered. This is a very old thread, and it was YOU who decided you'd revive it to have your psychological victim emotional puke. I am not a negative person. Take a good look at this long thread. The only person spreading any "negativity" is yourself.

And please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that you are striving for nothing. I never said that anyone was deceiving himself into thinking he'll become anything close to normal.

What I did and continue to say is that a restored person is a restored person, and that even though he comes a long way at reclaiming something he has, no, a restored person ISN'T as though he has never been circumcised. His foreskin was still shorn from him as a child; it is gone and that which is gone cannot be gotten back. Such is life.

And as much as it hurts your feelings it's the truth, and you need to live with it. You need to use this truth and point to it whenever people preach their circumcision message.

No, I'm not trying to be better than anyone else here. Cut or intact, I think a sane person can see what I'm saying, and can accept reality for what it is.

If it were true, that by restoring, a man can become as though he were never circumcised, well then let the circumcising of newborn children continue! Afterall, he can choose to become "intact" later on if he wishes. It makes absolutely no difference. So says the great unregistered from the Foreskin Restoration forums...

"Yes it may be a matter of "truth and honesty" that we can never have what you have but we don't need that rubbed in our faces and we don't need to remind everyone of it everytime we even invoke the idea of our penises. Go find somewhere else to be proud of your tight taper. You fucking asshole."

I'm sorry, unregistered, but this is all in your head. You have an inferiority complex, and have anger issues to deal with.

I'm not TRYING to rub it in your face, but I'm not going to help perpetuate a lie just because it hurts people's feelings.

I get the same reaction from people defending cut men. "Don't tell them being circumcised isn't normal. It hurts their feelings."

I'm not here to make people feel good about the reality that circumcision is fucked up.

Reality is what it is, and I'm going to say it. I simply refuse to walk on eggshells.

Just as a cut guy can't claim that "he's fine" and his penis is "normal," a restored guy who tries to act and pretend as though nothing ever happened is lying to himself just the same. Forget that it's dishonest, I think pretending the past never actually happened is plain unhealthy. It's most definitely possible to overcome the past, but to pretend it just didn't happen? George Orwell called it a "memory hole."

Lying doesn't help anyone. It only helps perpetuate the lie that taking a child, strapping him down and forcefully mutilating his penis is "normal."

I'm sorry this hurts your feelings.

Good day to you.

Get some help.

~Joseph

cloud7
December 25th, 2007, 18:40
everyone lies to themselves in some way or another, think broadly, how many people think of themselves by their faults? If a guy has hair restoration surgery does he need to be up front about it? or lasik? we simply can't do that or everyone would be really depressed.

From the statements I would say if he met a girl and they had sex or another guy in the locker room asked if he was intact then it's ok to lie, that is ethical as far as I see as the complete truth has the potential, although not likely to do more harm then good.

now if he was getting married the truth would need to come out as that would be the moral thing to do.

ideally yes we should all be out there jumping at every opportunity to spread the word, but we must be able to maintain a normal life in the process.

Joseph I certainly see your points and they are good, but you have to remember if we look at ourselves as being irreparably damaged then it's not just an issue of being honest or not, it's an issue of feeling like a person. yes circumcised men lie to themselves about being ok, and so will restorers, carrying the burden of feeling mutilated is a horrible thing and people need to cope the best they can.

Joseph
December 25th, 2007, 21:25
Cloud.

Thank you for being a sane voice in here.

"everyone lies to themselves in some way or another, think broadly, how many people think of themselves by their faults? If a guy has hair restoration surgery does he need to be up front about it? or lasik? we simply can't do that or everyone would be really depressed."

If a woman gets breast implants to replace breasts lost due to cancer, how far do we take her assertion that those are her "real breasts" at face value? Is it the rest of the world's duty to go along with her assertion that they are her real breasts, so as to not hurt her feelings?

I believe it would be a situation as in the Emperor's New Clothes story.

And I think most women that go through this know this and handle the truth.

I really do think it's the same kind of thing here.

"From the statements I would say if he met a girl and they had sex or another guy in the locker room asked if he was intact then it's ok to lie, that is ethical as far as I see as the complete truth has the potential, although not likely to do more harm then good."

Like I've said before. People have consciences and know what they do. Everyone has their ideas of what would be "OK," "right" or whatever. If people want to misrepresent themselves because it makes them feel better, maybe somethings can be left unsaid? To me, however, I say people need to face and accept the truth, no matter how hard it hurts to realize it.

But you see, that's only what I think, nothing more. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion. We can agree to disagree. There is no reason why people need to start hurling insults.

"now if he was getting married the truth would need to come out as that would be the moral thing to do."

Maybe unregistered doesn't think so. And if he doesn't it really is his life and he can do whatever he wants. Again, I'm just saying it wouldn't be right for me.

"ideally yes we should all be out there jumping at every opportunity to spread the word, but we must be able to maintain a normal life in the process."

Agreed.

"Joseph I certainly see your points and they are good, but you have to remember if we look at ourselves as being irreparably damaged then it's not just an issue of being honest or not, it's an issue of feeling like a person. yes circumcised men lie to themselves about being ok, and so will restorers, carrying the burden of feeling mutilated is a horrible thing and people need to cope the best they can."

And again, I think you may have misunderstood me.

Please feel free to cut and paste my words. But did I ever say restorers must forever view themselves as being irreparably damaged?

I don't think so.

It is said in the very TLCTugger front webpage. Go down and you'll see this:

"Be it resolved:

Circumcision removes valuable specialized erogenous tissue; 100% of circumcised men suffer reduced sensitivity and pleasure
...
YOU CAN UNDO SOME OF THE DAMAGE!"

Restoring can most definetely undo some damage. Sensitivity can be regained, and so can the appearance of having a foreskin as well. The shine of the glans returns. I NEVER DENIED THIS!!!

But I think it would be a lie and a disservice if one of the bullets said "It would be just as if you were never circumcised!"

That's all I'm really saying.

There was no need to dump on me as condescending to restoring men.

Unregistered's response seems to be the indication of a deeper problem that restoration alone will not be able to address.

I think men need to restore with a consciousness that even though yes, they'll be undoing some of the damage, there will still be some elements missing. It WON'T be "just as good." BETTER, just not as good.

(I'm not saying this to elevate myself at ALL. WHY do I need to do that? I'm just saying this as a statement of fact. How would this argument change if I were a circumcised man restoring?)

The idea that it would be "as good" would not only be dishonesty, in my opinion, but I think it's also unhealthy to act and pretend as if a lie were true. This doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who has put the past behind him, rather, like a victim who is still hurting and would rather put his head in the sand than accept and realize the truth.

Furthermore I think the acceptance of this idea is also dangerous, as I've already said, because it can be used as just one more excuse to keep circumcising children. People can say that circumcising a child would be ok, because after all, a child can decide to restore and get a foreskin back that is "just as good" as the one that was cut away. This is not true, nor should it ever be thought of as true. And I think it would be unhelpful, not to mention dishonest, for people to assert this as matter-of-fact truth.

I think it's parallel with the assertion pro-circs try to make that "there is no difference in sensitivity." "It is the same."

In the end, the facts speak for themselves.

People really are free to do whatever they want, and in the end, that's just what they will do, and really, I accept the fact that there is nothing I can really do about it.

But the question WAS posed. And the last time I checked, I think we are free to express our thoughts? If this were not the case and we had to remain silent all the time to prevent people's feelings from being hurt by the truth, I don't think there would be any hope to stop circumcision in the future.

We all have thoughts. There is reason behind mine, as I'm sure there is reason behind unregistered's.

It all comes down to this. People that get restored could probably get away with calling themselves intact.

Call it what you will, but is being restored the equivalent of have always been intact and/or never have been circumcised? If you asked me, I would disagree. To say it is the same thing would be lying by misrepresentation and that's all I am saying.

Ideally we can respect each other's thought's and opinions, but I guess some people think that if you don't like somebody else's point of view, it's OK to hurl insults at them.

----

We should be able to agree to disagree here. There is absolutely no reason to become hostile.

Cloud, again, thanks for being the voice of reason.

freddys
December 28th, 2007, 21:55
Joseph and Cloud,

Thank you for your civilized discussion. You may not realize it, but it does help us to understand other men's points of view. Personally, I am grateful that a reasonable, intact man offers so much to this forum.

Cheers,

Freddys.

Distalero
December 29th, 2007, 19:22
Why not say, in a noncommittal tone (depending on the context, as a previous poster wisely said), "Well, there's a story that goes with it". This, only if you choose to answer at all.

That would pique the curiosity of those who want to listen, and cause the uninterested (belive me, the vast majority, including those about to be involved in the manipulation of said organ :D) to smile faintly and withdraw at that point.

How you feel about "honest" v. "intact" and your efforts towards either, no matter how long you spent at it, is how YOU feel. Inside. Seems everyone here presumes that you have some duty to have an answer. You don't. If you think you do, THAT's the issue you need to investigate, not act out on someone else. Understand?

Randel
December 30th, 2007, 02:30
Cloud7,
Interesting poll. I never knew how many men who were intact visited this site. I have online chatted with some guys who said at puberty they had to be circumsized because of the foreskin being too tight.
Sincerely,
Randel
ps in the UK.

Joseph
December 30th, 2007, 03:08
Cloud7,
Interesting poll. I never knew how many men who were intact visited this site. I have online chatted with some guys who said at puberty they had to be circumsized because of the foreskin being too tight.
Sincerely,
Randel
ps in the UK.

I say puberty's too early to say it's "too tight." I wonder about these doctors and their diagnosis methods. Mine was tight up until 13. Now I've got over hang on my tip.

On the other extreme, one of my little cousins was circumised at age 5, because according to a checkup he went to he had "too much foreskin." The doctor said he needed to be circumcised ASAP, and his stupid mother just said "OK, when do we come in?" I found out because the poor little boy couldn't stop grabbing at his crotch. His clothes must have kept getting stuck to his bare and raw glans... poor little boy...

People need to be weary of doctors that are ready to suggest circumcision, especially here in circumcising America. Sadly, either parents choose to circumcise boys as newborns, or consent to circumcision for a "tight foreskin" or "too much foreskin" without consulting a second opinion. I have a feeling that in most of these "phimosis" cases the boys are absolutely healthy and have absolutely no problems at all. It's just doctors that see a price-tag on the end of the boys' penises.

Randel
December 31st, 2007, 10:10
Dear Joseph,.,Unregistered,
Get registered. We need your strong voice to stand up for us victims. I asked my mother when did the decision of circumcision get agreed upon. She told me that she was never asked. She didn't even know which day they did it. I looked into circumcision. Believing that it was brought on by what you had stated-Judeo=Christianity(Zionism). I actually found out a deeper historical beginning of it. King Tutankamun was circumcised as a rite of reaching manhood. Of course his father King Aucknaton was actually the first beliver of monothesium. I do find you Joseph, as a Senior Member, would be more compassionate towards others in this situation. I am actually glad that during my Jr. and High School years in phisical education I was cut. Only because everyother guy in the showers and locker room were cut. Joesph If you had to shower with other naked guys I could only imagine what you had to go through being 'intact'? I never lie, I seek the Truth. If I was to tell someone I'm cut, then next thing if I join the skiny dipping in the spa or pool. I would look to be the liar. The term 'intact' isn't even used by regular society. If I was asked, when I achieve a full cover of foreskin,. I would not use the word "intact". Because I'm not intact. I luckily do have an intact Fernulun.
Piece,
Randel

Joseph
December 31st, 2007, 12:38
I am actually glad that during my Jr. and High School years in phisical education I was cut. Only because everyother guy in the showers and locker room were cut. Joesph If you had to shower with other naked guys I could only imagine what you had to go through being 'intact'?

I've had to shower with other guys, and, at least in my case, no one ever gave a fuuuuuck. :D I did think that other guys' dicks looked funny, and I couldn't figure out why. Actually, I did WISH to become like them at one point, but researching circumcision, how and why it's done, I came to appreciate the fact that I was intact. I felt sorry for other guys, picturing what they might have looked like spread open on operating boards as infants.

"The term 'intact' isn't even used by regular society."

In a society that circumcises and that having no foreskin is what people call "normal," people will use the circumcised penis as a point of reference. It re-inforces the idea of "normal," and the idea that a penis shouldn't be anything else but circumcised.

You are right. It's not having one's normal, natural organs that needs a clarifier like "intact." It's having had them mutilated at birth.

Notice how there is no "intact" term for women. They don't even have to use terms like "un-infibulated" or "un-circumcised." Women don't need to justify keeping their private parts un-harmed by ritualistic mutilation. They don't have to say "intact;" it's only obvious.

Notice women who have their breasts aren't ever refered to as "un-mastectomied."

Nevermind that the word "un-circumcised" is a fallacy, there shouldn't even have to BE the word "intact."

As with women who have not been forced to undergo the cosmetic ritual, it's only natural..

I wish I didn't have to use terms like "intact" myself.

I wish I didn't have to defend myself for being allowed to keep the parts of my body that I was born with.

It's people that forcefully circumcise non-concenting individuals that need to justify their actions, not those who defend the rights of the individual.

Randel
January 3rd, 2008, 04:34
Dear Joesph,
I'm sorry. I didn't mean anything hurtful in my post. I had just read the previous post and I guess I still have some issues in regarding my circumcision.
Thanks for the feedback,
Friends,..?
Randel
jr. member.

Joseph
January 3rd, 2008, 05:56
Dear Joesph,
I'm sorry. I didn't mean anything hurtful in my post. I had just read the previous post and I guess I still have some issues in regarding my circumcision.
Thanks for the feedback,
Friends,..?
Randel
jr. member.

???

Randel, I don't know what you are talking about.

I did not take offense to your post at all.

Sorry if I came off that way...

NP

Joe

likes
January 8th, 2008, 15:55
I said 'other'. I would feel obviously I would not be 'intact' as I would not be the way I was born. Certainly, I would not deny that I 'was circumcised' but given the amount of skin I hope to have over the end of my glans I don't think anybody would regard me as currently being in an active state of circumcision :)

I think 'restored' might be right except that my penis would not have been restored to its original condition and, also, 'restored' is not a word the vast majority of people would understand. I said 'other' because I think if asked I would perhaps, unless details were asked for, just say that 'I have foreskin' which (Distaltero notwithstanding) seems to be nearest to the truth.

However, ultimately I think if pressed it would be one time it would be good to drop the word 'intact' and say 'uncircumcised' because while I was circumcised when I am finished the circumcision will have been reversed :D I will be uncircumcised and the guys who were never cut will be intact!

L!

SirTugsAlot
August 5th, 2008, 09:54
I'd stay restored.

Why?

Because people need to know that circumcision is mutilation, mutilation tragic enough that as adults men will take the enormous amount of time that restoration takes to try and fix what some careless doctor fucked up.

Unless people are aware, unless people have an idea how bad circumcision is and how much harm it does... then it will continue, business as usual.

To put things in a different context... I'm extremely pro-second amendment. (for those of you outside the US, the 2nd amendment covers the right of citizens to have firearms.) In the US because of the increase in urban living and decrease in rural living less and less people each year are exposed to firearms in a safe and recreational setting. As a result it's very easy for the media to demonize gun owners and paint them as crazy country people who should be pushed to the fringe and ignored. The right to bear arms is a human right and no human should be deprived the right to defend themselves and their families. Rather than clam up about the topic and pretend I'm not a gun owner... I take my friends shooting, I talk passionately about gun ownership, I don't hide the fact that I enjoy target shooting and keep firearms for defense of my home... because I want friends, coworkers, etc to see a normal happy person who enjoys firearms, to dispell some of the stupid myths that the media cranks out.

Now whether or not you agree with my stance on firearms, you can see how taking steps to not be overly guarded leads to me being able to share information and make an impression on people.

Nate67
August 21st, 2008, 15:12
You've still yet to give any reason why restored men must be perfectly "honest" about their genital history other than "for honesty's sake." ..............
So, f*** (edit) you, Joseph. Go to hell. You can't possibly understand what it's like to be one of us victims....... no need to spread this type of negativity on this forum. ..... Go find somewhere else to be proud of your tight taper. You fu***g (edit) a**hole (edit)..

Wow..talk about blind hostility. It is all too easy to attack when you hide behind "unregistered". Negative? Indeed, but not from Joseph.

I am 41, circumcised, restoring for 4+ years. When I am finished I will be restored, hopefully. Now at that time I might call myself intact, female, Martian, immortal or the Saviour incarnate. They would all fantasy and incorrect. Truth is truth. Sometimes truth is hard to face, but simply calling something that which it is not, does not make it so. Wishing and deception is not reality, it is not true.

There is no need to attack Joseph, personally I did not think he was gloating, or disrespectful. I wish I had a foreskin like Joseph's, intact with a tight taper and full frenulum. Do I hate him for it? Do I resent his "luck"? Of course not. I wish I would have been as lucky, but I was not, I was circumcised, it happened, it is a fact. I am now restoring. If I am lucky enough to get a skin that looks and acts like the original, it is still a restored skin. I will never be intact, that is simply a fact. I will be happy and live my life the best I can with the reality that is.

I am thankful that there are intact men out there that even care at all to be in our forum, to provide us their point of view, insight and experience. To Joseph, I say: Thank you my friend, for caring enough to even spend your time here, to help us. Thank you for not simply believing we are pathetic and delusional nor ridiculing and insulting us.

To the cowardly who hide behind "unregistered", who spew venom, rage and hate: While I understand your are hurting, likely young, and filled with rage, try and rise above it and focus your energy more usefully, otherwise you are just sad and alone.

Seek truth, do not deny it. Share knowledge.

Nate

Joseph
August 23rd, 2008, 04:26
WOW. THIS is an old thread.

Thanks for understanding.

:)

freddys
August 23rd, 2008, 21:12
Just like Nate 67, I voted "other". If pressed, I would also say: "Circumcised. but trying to reverse it."