“The Men Who Want Their Foreskin Back,” reads the title of an article published in The Cut by Bianca Bosker, in which she discusses the case of a man named David Floyd, who discovered the concept of “foreskin restoration” through various online forums. Upon turning 18, he purchased a TLC Tugger, a non-surgical medical device designed for foreskin restoration (it uses silicone and tension to stretch the remaining penile skin and promote the growth of new tissue). This is a popular option for men seeking to recreate their foreskin after being circumcised. But it wasn’t enough. Over the years, he tried all sorts of methods to recover his foreskin until last winter, when he decided to undergo surgery, opting for an experimental procedure. He says that when he had sex with his husband after the operation, he cried with emotion.

The operation cost him $25,000, including travel from Pennsylvania to California, where plastic surgeon Sven Gunther operated on him. The surgeon proposed dissecting the penile skin and sliding it forward, incorporating a small portion of the scrotum into the shaft, and then reshaping the skin — transforming it from a column into a cone — so that the glans would remain covered.

Floyd has shared before‑, during‑, and after‑surgery photos of his penis on Reddit for anyone interested in following his path. And there’s no shortage of interest: Dr. Gunther has said he performs this type of operation every week. “I probably have an obsession,” he told The Cut.

The reporter notes that in recent years, physicians and scientists have quietly begun exploring the field of foreskin‑reconstruction surgery, driven by rising demand, the expansion of gender‑affirming care (which has helped surgeons like Gunther refine their skills in genital reshaping), and the decline in circumcision rates.

Male circumcision involves removing the skin that covers the tip of the penis, leaving the glans exposed. There are medical reasons for performing it (such as when a patient has phimosis), religious reasons (it is very common among Jews and Muslims), and also pediatric‑cultural ones (in the United States, it is believed to make hygiene easier and potentially reduce the risk of urinary infections and STIs).

Although circumcision rates range from 2% to 20% in Europe and reach up to 71% in the United States, experts say the figure is considerably higher than what would be acceptable. Opponents argue that far from being harmless, circumcision is irreversible and marks men for life, with some going so far as to claim that it infringes on a child’s right to physical integrity and bodily autonomy.

Dr. Juan Manuel Poyato, urologist and andrologist at Next Fertility, tells EL PAÍS that prophylactic circumcision is a topic that has always generated much controversy and conflicting opinions. “In the current view, it is very important to address the issue based on scientific evidence and respect for patient autonomy, but above all, separating myths from realities,” he says.

The doctor clarifies that, technically speaking, it is not currently possible to reimplant the original tissue once it has been removed, especially if several years have passed. What some men often seek is foreskin restoration, whether for religious reasons or personal preferences.

“To achieve this, there are aesthetic reconstruction techniques, through the design of a neoprepuce using skin from the body or the base of the penis, with quite satisfactory results,” he says. “By exerting constant mechanical tension on the skin of the penis for several hours a day, after months or years, the skin cells [keratinocytes and fibroblasts] detect the stretching and activate cell division [mitosis], so that the skin tissue is stretched to cover the glans.”

Sex and human rights

When Marilyn Milos, a nursing student, first witnessed a baby being circumcised, she was shocked when the doctor told her there was no medical reason to do it. That was in 1979. Since then, she has become an advocate for eradicating medically unnecessary circumcision and founded the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Center (NOCIRC). “It’s a sexual issue and it’s a human rights issue,” she said.

Dr. Juan Manuel Poyato points out that Milos’s stance has been fundamental in shifting the debate from the purely medical realm to one of ethics and human rights. “From the perspective of established science, her argument regarding bodily integrity carries considerable weight: the foreskin is, after all, healthy and functional tissue, which is why Milos doesn’t hesitate to describe circumcision as an unnecessary mutilation,” he explains.

For his part, José Martín del Pliego, a sexologist and psychologist, says that many men feel this procedure was performed on them in childhood without their consent. “This generates feelings of loss, anger, or betrayal, and questions about bodily autonomy,” he says. “Previously, it was common practice due to cultural and religious traditions, old medical beliefs about hygiene or prevention, and social normalization. For decades, and even today, the child’s opinion wasn’t considered important.”

He continues: “Today, the trend is toward preservation whenever possible, unless the man expressly wishes otherwise. Most international pediatric associations maintain that, although it has certain benefits, these are not significant enough to justify standardized, routine, or mandatory procedures, preferring that the individual decide upon reaching maturity.”

“The foreskin isn’t extra skin, it’s essential,” says attorney Eric Clopper, president of Intact Global Inc., which protects children from non-religious genital mutilation, in a video on Instagram. “The foreskin contains many thousands of fine tactile nerve endings. It protects the head of the penis and it enables natural lubrication during intimacy. It is not a mistake. It is a feature.”

“More and more men are turning to non-surgical foreskin restoration,” he adds in another video. “Whether for comfort, sensitivity, or to reclaim what was taken, the growing number of restorers shows one thing: circumcision is NOT as ‘harmless’ as they say.”

Dr. Gabriel Bastidas agrees, pointing out that far from being just “excess skin,” the foreskin is a specialized tissue containing thousands of fine tactile nerve endings. “It is designed, among other reasons, to ‘caress’ the glans and generate a soft, pleasurable sensation during sexual intercourse,” he explains. “When the glans is permanently exposed [post-circumcision], it undergoes a process called keratinization. The mucosa becomes thicker and less sensitive to protect itself from constant friction with clothing.”

He continues: “By covering the glans again, whether through restoration or surgery, the epithelium could regain its moisture and a thinner texture, which usually translates into increased tactile pleasure and a lower arousal threshold. Therefore, these men’s desire might not be a whim, but rather a quest to recover a biological sensory function.”

“The interesting thing is to understand that it is not just a medical or sexual issue,” concludes José Martín del Pliego, “but one where body, identity, culture and consent intersect.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition