The Flap Over Foreskins
I thought Chris LaMorte's story on foreskin regeneration ("Boys and Their Hoods," November 14) was wacko enough. But the letters in the last issue! These guys don't need a foreskin. They need a life.
I began restoring in late 1985 and have reasonable full coverage. I can remember the first time that I peed through my foreskin and felt a great achievement. Restoration has made me feel whole. Like the men in your article, I had felt deprived. I was missing something that should have been mine. Since restoration, I have had my foreskin pierced, with two holes on the underside--something I had also wanted since I restored.
Good luck, and keep on restoring.
via the Internet
Chris LaMorte's article states that only 5 percent of infants are circumcised in Canada. Not so. I am not sure of the actual numbers, but I can attest from childhood camp and swim experiences that only about 5 percent of us in Calgary, Alberta, were not circumcised. As an adult, I had recurring STD due to chlamydia; the urologist that I saw, who no doubt had circumcised thousands in WWII in the name of hygiene, said the only way to stop the problem was to circumcise. I was 34, and what did I know?
So I had it done. What a shock! When the bandage came off, I was one and a half inches shorter flaccid, nearly three inches shorter erect. The doctor put so much shame on me that I never sued him, but I should have. This was sixteen years ago. Sexual pleasures were reduced by over half, and I felt pain during showers and constant chafing in Jockey shorts. Boxer shorts were out of the question. I am now restoring using the D. Evans system and find it is fantastic--another year and the job should be done.
So as for your statistics, I don't think you have the whole story. As for how important this is, I would say very important. Men are being mutilated, and it is time it stopped. I think one of the unsaid elements in ritual circumcision (non-religious) is male anger, or whatever, to dominate other males. We need to revise our attitudes toward other men, and hurting babies and unknowing adults like me is about as sick as it gets. Thanks for the article.
Name withheld on request
By the same measurement of today's medical servants, perhaps we should lop something else off at birth. I feel circumcision should be considered child abuse, for sure. They want to pass laws against women being circumcised but go on without even considering it's all in the same frame. Good luck--spread the word (if the evangelicals will let you) and educate America!
By the way, for some reason, I escaped the knife!
via the Internet
Is it really possible that the only responses to Chris LaMorte's article came from men who feel mutilated? I am glad that I was circumcised as a newborn rather than having to go through it as an adult. I simply cannot understand the feelings of these men. I wish them luck in their tortuous effort, but I am perfectly content to stay as I am.
Child abuse? The proper comparison to female genital mutilation would be removal of the penis and testicles. I hardly think male circumcision compares.
via the Internet
Editor's note: If you missed Chris LaMorte's "Boys and Their Hoods," it's still online--complete with links--at www.westword.com
A Banner Day
I'm usually amused by the wordplay of your banner writer, Bill Gallo, but the one over his November 14 sports column, "No Balls, Maybe a Strike," had me reaching for the scissors. It was a keeper. The accompanying column was, as usual, composed by a true pro (I've been reading him for twenty-plus years now).
Gallo and Kenny Be are original talents and acutely astute observers this town should be proud of.
Take Your Medicine
I wanted to commend you on Tony Perez-Giese's wonderful article about Dr. Paul K. Hamilton, "Mind Over Medicine," in the November 14 issue. The first time I read it, it made me cry as I remembered this special man. The second and third time, I smiled and was reminded that memories stay with you forever. Thank you so very much for this lovely tribute to a very special man.
The Meat of the Matter
First, let me say how much I like reading Kyle Wagner's reviews. Good or bad, they're always informative and often entertaining. I eat out frequently, and she's given some information on new places I otherwise might not go to.
Second, I want to clear up something about vegetarians. I'm impressed with the letter-writer quoted in the November 7 Mouthing Off and am glad she tries not to eat too much meat...be it cow, chicken or tuna. But in calling herself "mostly vegetarian," she is wrong. She is or she isn't, period. Nobody can be mostly, in one way or another, vegetarian. If you eat any type of dead animal intentionally, you are not a vegetarian. I've been vegetarian for five years, and people ask me all the time if I eat poultry or fish. Hell, no! No dead animals for this guy. There are a lot of misconceptions about us vegetarians but a lot of us have just as much fun, and just as much testosterone, as our omnivorous counterparts. I hope Kyle addresses this in some way sometime--not the testosterone part, of course--as Denver has some great places to eat meatless.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Keep up the good work, and bon appetit!
Editor's note: Kyle Wagner doesn't duck the issue of poultry. See page 61 for her look at the life of the pate.
Letters policy: Westword wants to hear from you, whether you have a complaint or compliment about what we write from week to week. Letters should be no more than 200 words; we reserve the right to edit for libel, length and clarity. Although we'll occasionally withhold an author's name on request, all letters must include your name, address and telephone number.
PO Box 5970
Denver, CO 80217
or e-mail to: