Although the idea of restoring foreskin may seem bizarre to some, there are many good reasons for doing so. Human beings show remarkable hubris in blithely cutting off something which it took mother nature millions of years to design. Some of the reasons for the existence of foreskin can be seen by comparing intact men with circumcised men. The foreskin of intact males produces pheromones--sexual stimulants--which have been proven to increase the man's attractiveness to others. Removing the foreskin also removes its natural gliding, "lubricating" function. Of women who expressed a preference, 90% favored sex with intact, rather than circumcised, men. Women are 40% more likely to have multiple orgasms with intact men. Not only his partners, but the male victim of circumcision himself also has greatly reduced sexual pleasure as the result of losing his foreskin. Besides losing millions of sensory nerve endings in the cut off skin, his unprotected glans is converted from a moist, glassy smooth, highly sensitive mucoid surface into a rough, dry, cornified structure with greatly reduced sensitivity.

Although routine infant male circumcision is still commonplace, its frequency is declining. This trend has been hastened, in part, by positions taken recently by two prestigious medical bodies in the United States. Although it had been claimed in the past that circumcision prevents many deaths from penile cancer, this research has been found flawed, and the American Cancer Society website currently has the following statement: "The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors." Also, "As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer."

In 1998, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new policy statement which states, ". . . data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

At present, there is no medical organization anywhere in the world which recommends routine male circumcision.

Although female circumcision has long been viewed with alarm as being a form of genital mutilation, the corresponding male genital mutilation of circumcision is often considered inconsequential, or even desirable.

The United States is the only industrialized nation which routinely circumcises male infants for non-religious reasons. The widespread American practice of routine infant male circumcision began between 1880 and 1920. In the widespread anti-sex atmosphere of that period, circumcision advocates pushed infant circumcision, claiming that it would prevent boys from masturbating, and further claiming to believe that by preventing masturbation, then one would also prevent many cases of brain tumors, epilepsy, diarrhea, etc. Although circumcision didn't stop masturbation, it did leave many males with a lifetime of impaired sexual enjoyment for both them and their partners. These are some of the reasons that some men have decided to restore their foreskins.