Surgery – Sexual appliance
Reexamination Certificate
2001-04-26
2003-06-17
Gilbert, Samuel G. (Department: 3736)
Surgery
Sexual appliance
Reexamination Certificate
active
06579227
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates generally to gripping or clamping devices, and more particularly to devices which grip or clamp the skin. It also relates generally to stretching devices, and more particularly to devices which stretch the skin. It also relates to devices which promote expansion of skin through new skin growth.
2. Description of Prior Art
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.
The methods of foreskin restoration presently available are quite limited. One method has been the creation of a new foreskin through surgical techniques. Donor skin is usually taken from the scrotum and attached to the penis so as to form a somewhat natural-appearing foreskin. This method has many disadvantages, which have caused it to fall into disfavor. Its use is discouraged by groups of men interested in restoration because of the following disadvantages. It is quite expensive, costing several thousand dollars. It has all the risks associated with surgery, including scarring, infection, hemorrhage, and risk of reactions to anesthesia. The transplanted skin does not have the characteristics of normal foreskin: It is wrinkled rather than smooth, has hair growing where it doesn't belong, and, being deprived of nerves, it lacks sensation. After surgery, there is a period of recovery during which the man cannot engage in sex. But the greatest disadvantage is that the surgically restored foreskin does not have the normal gliding action of the natural foreskin.
Organizations of men interested in foreskin restoration are unanimous in their recommendation that restoration be achieved through the application of tension to the skin of the penile shaft. Tension on skin does not merely stretch the skin, but, more importantly, it actually induces growth of new skin tissue.
Foreskin restoration through tension avoids the disadvantages of surgery and produces a foreskin which is nearly normal in both appearance and function. But, as generally employed, restoration through tension is very time consuming, generally taking several years to complete. It also has many other disadvantages, to be described below.
The most commonly employed method of restoration through tension involves applying tape to the skin of the shaft and pulling on it—via either an elastic band or by small weights hung from the tape. Since this method involves tape left on the penis for days at a time, it causes problems with spontaneous sex or showers in public places. Also, since stress is concentrated along the edge of the tape, skin tears are common. Furthermore, repeatedly applying and removing the tape is very irritating to the skin. The most commonly used tape configuration, called T-tape, requires that one get an erection before applying the tape. Needless to say, this greatly increases the inconvenience and time required for applying the tape.
In a search for foreskin restoration patents, the only patent found was U.S. Pat. No. 5,344,396, “Device for stretching the foreskin of the penis.” This device has many disadvantages compared to this current application because:
1. It uses adhesive tape to secure the foreskin to the device, with all the above-mentioned problems with tape.
2. The device is essentially a large, cumbersome metal weight which would swing around while one walked, making it inappropriate for use in any public setting.
3. The device is so large that it would be very conspicuous under most clothing, and so, again, not suited for public use, and not suited to use during sleep because of discomfort if one rolled over on it during the night.
Another patent which has some superficial resemblance to the current application (although it has nothing to do with foreskin restoration) is U.S. Pat. No. 4,388,923, “External urinary drainage device.” This device does have an inner member which fits over the glans, and an outer member which covers the pulled-up foreskin, which are features of the current application. However, there are many differences, specifically:
1. The “External Urinary Drainage Device” is used to collect urine, not expand foreskin.
2. The inner member is described as a “condom,” or, alternatively, as being semirigid. In my device, the inner member is rigid.
3. The “External Urinary Drainage Device” is intended for use only with uncircumcised penises. My device is used only with circumcised penises.
4. In the “External Urinary Drainage Device,” the outer member is firmly attached to the central drainage tube. In my device, the outer member is completely unattached to the central means for applying tension.
5. In the “External Urinary Drainage Device,” the outer member is
LandOfFree
Foreskin restoration device does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Foreskin restoration device, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Foreskin restoration device will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3134028