The following websites come from a friend of mine who has been restoring his foreskin. He's in his late forties.
We had dinner recently on his way to China (he's a world traveler) and he showed me his results. Very impressive. His penis looks completely natural with his new foreskin. The email he sent shows the particular method he used to restore:
Hi BAD, forgot to send you links to the DTR (dual tension restorer) website - it's my method-of-choice:
this is the basic device:
I’m not right-brain’ed and hardly an artist, but I can appreciate aesthetics to a limited extent. see what you think of this gallery of natural men?
these are healthy, vital, appealing images of the normal, vigorous male form, see what you think?
I’m sort of wondering, aesthetically, about the fully endowed manhood, from an artistic standpoint? There’s something “whole” about it, it’s just obvious, but it has a certain quality to it, the partial (circumcised) penis looks like it’s trying to “scream”. How does it strike you? Does that make sense? The exposed glans just seems “inappropriate” to a flaccid state. It’s inappropriate, vulgar, coarse. While the “tucked in”, neat, “discrete” sort of look of a fully endowed manhood has a definite masculine, reserved, disciplined, ordered semblance. Does this make sense?
My response: Yes, it makes sense. You have simply described your personal sense of esthetics. Since I grew up with brothers and a father none of whom were circumcised, the first penises I saw were natural. However, my husband was a Jew and his circumcision left him with a hole further up on his shaft that he had to keep clean. He was also a premature ejaculator which I now think was related to this cruel cut!
My first long term lover as a gay divorce was not circumcised. I think we need to reach first time mothers who are the ones that give the doctor permission to circumcise their baby boys. Change comes slow in the medical field especially when its related to making some extra money!