Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  GETTING SNIPPY

Will Voters Make San Francisco An Uncircumcised Wonderland?

It has been been said that “In America, uncircumcised guys are like unicorns—wonderful and rare.” Well, this November San Francisco voters could decide whether to unleash hoards of unicorns all over The City by the Bay by banning circumcision.

If approved, a city-wide ban on circumcision would almost immediately face court challenges for violating the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, “intactivists” behind the ballot measure call circumcision “male genital mutilation”, decry “circumstitions” calling non-circumcision unhealthier, and say that men should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to snip their bishop’s turtlenecks.

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           May 18, 2011
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 98 Comments
    • Greg
      Greg

      As long as they provide the smegma cleaning stations…could be next to recycling containers or the composting containers? Maybe @ zipcar sites?

      May 18, 2011 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stigma
      Stigma

      Seriously — voters should decide a baby’s circumcision?? How stupid is this? SF may be liberal, but it’s not THAT liberal.

      May 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nat
      Nat

      @Greg:

      You know, I have never encountered another uncut guy with smegma. What I have encountered are cut guys obsessing over it – either out of unwarranted anxiety or out a really gross fetish. For anyone in the developed world, I don’t see how it could be an issue.

      I’m not in favor of this kind of initiative, but I am perpetually fascinated by the resistance to any sort of reconsideration. If circumcision was not a millenia-old rite, it would not spontaneously catch on, even if there was strong evidence of health benefits.

      I can only assume it’s because circumcision generally pre-dates true self-awareness. By the time a boy fully registers that he has a penis, he’s been circumcised, and he cannot imagine not being circumcised.

      May 18, 2011 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kacey
      Kacey

      What about Jewish people? This bill is sick, bigoted, ignorant and a total waste of time and money. I’m so angry.

      May 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      I was circumcised after birth and wish I’d been left intact. My body healed poorly from the procedure and I was left with a skin bridge that made me very self conscious after puberty. Many years later I had surgical correction but I have vowed that I would never put my son through the same ordeal

      May 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      Even the Nutty Ninth would overrule this ban. It violates religious rights.

      May 18, 2011 at 6:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • QJ201
      QJ201

      “Intactivists” are nothing more than cocksuckers and bottoms with a foreskin fetish. Gee makes me feel so wanted that some dude is into me because I have foreskin.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      If the police witnessed a parent pinch a newborn baby boy with the same significance of pain inflicted on a defenseless baby as circumcision causes, that parent would be, rightly, arrested for child abuse.

      Slavery has been around as long as circumcision; just because something has a long history of cultural tradition DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

      And Kacey (@ No. 2), nowhere in the Constitution is there the right of a religious freedom to mutilate a child; and nothing in the proposed law prevents a children, Jewish or not, upon reaching legal adulthood, from choosing to have a circumcision performed for themselves.

      BTW, circumcision as a standard practice in the United States is a 20th century practice — before 1910, it was not the common practice in the US.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ohplease
      ohplease

      Circumcision is genital mutilation, all organized religion is evil, and parents don’t have the right to inflict senseless harm on their children.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Greg:

      Maybe they could have them near the parks you cruise, Greg.

      @Stigma:

      The person to whom the penis is attached, should decide whether or not it should be circumcised. No one else.

      @QJ201:

      I’m fairly certain no one is intersted in you, QJ201–foreskin, or not.

      I don’t support the idea of voters voting on anything a person does with their body. But until people start giving the genitals of newborn males the same respect and protection they give to those of newborn females, I will support any action that gets people seriously thinking about personal freedom, and the right to govern one’s own body, as one sees fit.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Greg:

      Maybe they could have them near the parks you cruise, Greg.

      @Stigma:

      The person to whom the member is attached, should decide whether or not it should be circumcised. No one else.

      @QJ201:

      I’m fairly certain no one is interested in you, QJ201–foreskin, or not.

      I don’t support the idea of voters voting on anything a person does with their body. But until people start giving the genitals of newborn males the same respect and protection they give to those of newborn females, I will support any action that gets people seriously thinking about personal freedom, and the right to govern one’s own body, as one sees fit.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvd
      dvd

      @David: David, that’s your right. But our penises shouldn’t be left up to voters. Dear god.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devington
      Devington

      I know a guy who converted to Judaism in his 20’s, circumcision was part of the deal, and from what he’s told me the only noticeable difference is that it takes less effort to clean.

      All this screeching about mutilation and disfigurement is just a bunch of over-the-top nonsense. San Francisco has become a caricature of itself, and it would take about 5 minutes for this ban to be tossed out by the courts.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kuy
      kuy

      Is freedom of religion considered a good enough reason to allow female genital mutilation? If not, why should circumcision be an exception?

      May 18, 2011 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      @Devington: How often do you talk with your convert friend about sex? Unless you were born intact and chose circumcision after puberty you can’t really compare.

      Giving someone the choice to circumcise once they’re an adult makes it a conscious decision. Once a foreskin has been removed you cannot get back the sensation that is lost even if you spend years stretching and ‘restoring’. Circumcisions should be no more acceptable than performing nose jobs on infants.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • beergoggles
      beergoggles

      Didn’t social services take away the kid from that Botox Mom? Botox injections are more benign than circumcision and yet doing that to a minor is not ok?

      May 18, 2011 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      I was circumcised and I’m glad about that. It’s easier to clean for starters. As far as genital mutilation and religion, I see their argument. If it were something relating to baby girls having a similar procedure in Iran or Pakistan we’d all be furious, judgmental and wanting it to stop. But, we’ve become accustomed to male circumcision here. So, I see the parallel and understand the “mutilation” argument to some degree. Still, I’m glad I was circumcised as a baby. p.s. I don’t remember it happening – which is surely better than getting it done when you’re 20 years old.

      May 18, 2011 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greg60
      greg60

      Miss Bag Jones,
      A little sex negative, aren’t we Aunt Bea?

      May 18, 2011 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @CJ:

      I was circumcised and I’m glad about that. It’s easier to clean for starters…Still, I’m glad I was circumcised as a baby.

      Out of curiosity, CJ, if you’ve been circumcised your whole life, what are you basing your belief on that uncircumcised members are harder to clean that circumcised?

      May 18, 2011 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bri
      Bri

      Smegma is a natural body function. It’s got immunological and antibacterial properties.
      Women produce smegma too. How many men has that stopped from having sex with them?
      Smegma doesn’t build up into a “cheesy” substance unless you don’t shower for a couple months.
      You have to wash your penis regularly either way. Rinsing with plain water in the shower every day or every other day or so keeps you clean and healthy. Just like any other part of your body.

      In a child, the foreskin is FUSED to the glans like your fingernail is fused to your finger. It’s a sterile environment. If you forcibly retract the skin, you are tearing the tissue which will introduce bacteria, may cause bleeding, scar tissue, phimosis, higher risk of infections and UTIs because you have created an open wound like with circumcision.
      Leave it alone, only clean what is seen, wipe it like a finger.
      Most boys no not become naturally retractable until age 11 but it can happen naturally at time from age 2-19.

      If you are cutting off part of your child’s body because you’re too lazy to teach them how to clean it, that says a lot about your parenting.

      May 18, 2011 at 8:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • m
      m

      No one really looks good in a turtle neck! obvs……

      May 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caliban
      Caliban

      No, cutting off part of a child’s genitalia because of your stupid ass religion is what’s WRONG and SICK and BIGOTED here! If YOU want to have YOUR genitals altered as an ADULT, have at it. Cut ‘em off and feed ‘em to to the birds for all I care. But altering someone else’s body without their consent. Uh-uh. NO.

      Every year the sexual functioning of hundreds of boys is ruined, many years before they even know what sex is. How do I know this? Because I’m one of them! Due to an “accident” during my circumcision, significant nerve damage was done to the nerves of my penis. OOPS!!! I’m lucky that I have SOME sensation still left, but my “routine circumcision” has caused me YEARS of pain, anxiety, humiliation, and despair.

      NO ONE has the right to do that to a child for NO other reason than a system of MYTHS, whether those myths are hygienic or religious in origin.

      You think the PARENTS’ rights are the ones being abridged here?! Fuck. You. Schedule an appointment with your doctor to damage the nerves in YOUR sexual organs, as happens to boys hundreds of times each year in the US, and THEN you get back to me! This is about children’s rights to the integrity of their own bodies, not about parents’ right to treat their offspring like chattel!

      May 18, 2011 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caliban
      Caliban

      No, cutting off part of a child’s genitalia because of your stupid ass religion is what’s WRONG and SICK and BIGOTED here! If YOU want to have YOUR genitals altered as an ADULT, have at it. Cut ‘em off and feed ‘em to to the birds for all I care. But altering someone else’s body without their consent. Uh-uh. NO.

      Every year the sexual functioning of hundreds of boys is ruined, many years before they even know what sex is. How do I know this? Because I’m one of them! Due to an “accident” during my circumcision, significant nerve damage was done to the nerves of my penis. OOPS!!! I’m lucky that I have SOME sensation still left, but my “routine circumcision” has caused me YEARS of pain, anxiety, humiliation, and despair.

      NO ONE has the right to do that to a child for NO other reason than a system of MYTHS, whether those myths are hygienic or religious in origin.

      You think the PARENTS’ rights are the ones being abridged here?! Schedule an appointment with your doctor to damage the nerves in YOUR sexual organs, as happens to boys hundreds of times each year in the US, and THEN you get back to me! This is about children’s rights to the integrity of their own bodies, not about parents’ right to treat their offspring like chattel!

      May 18, 2011 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      Does anyone REALLY believe that a parent should have the right to needlessly change their child’s body without question?

      If people want to be cut when they reach adulthood, so be it, otherwise, the procedure is unnecessary.

      Cultural norms (in the USA only, btw) & religious tradition should not decide it. I was given a religion by my parents & as an adult I gave it back.

      This very private & personal decision should be made by the person living with the consequences & no one else.

      People can mock the ballot initiative, but it creates the discussion & frankly, should be a no-brainer.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      Quite honestly, there is a false equivalence being made between Female Genital Mutilation, often euphemistically called female circumcision, and a male’s circumcision. In circumcising the male, one is not removing all ability to enjoy sex. One is not sewing up the entirety of the male sexual organs. Men’s sexual organs are not removed. The comparison is completely, and totally inapt, and to call it male genital mutilation is to grossly diminish the horror that is female genital mutilation.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve C
      Steve C

      @Greg: Wow, Smegma cleaning stations? You’re joking right?

      They haven’t had any need for those for all the women in the city so far, have they?

      If SF can tolerate your face, I’m sure it can handle the slight smegma increase.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones: What difference does it make? If it’s “mutilation”, then why are there so many of us who are circumcised having great sex and having no problem with the practice?

      It’s a cultural thing. Like it or not, it’s the parent’s decision and that’s the way it should stay. If you don’t like it, work to change the culture. (Which, btw, it is changing. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing to circumcise their children.) Circumcision will likely mostly be gone in the next generation or two.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kuy
      kuy

      @GayGOP: Maybe, but if someone brings up the argument that banning male circumcision interferes with freedom of religion, then female genital mutilation is a legitimate counter-argument.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cyn
      Cyn

      It’s WAY past time something like this was put on the ballot. America needs to outlaw this violation of human rights once and for all. It’s insane that we’ve allowed it to continue for so long.

      =====

      “If it’s “mutilation”, then why are there so many of us who are circumcised having great sex and having no problem with the practice?”

      Because, quite simply, you don’t know what you’re missing.

      “Why Most Circumcised Men Seem Satisfied”
      http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm

      May 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      @GayGOP: Agree. I think this whole conversation seriously diminishes the complete horror show that is female genital mutilation.

      @Pete n SFO: People in many cultures pierce babies’ ears, should we ban that too?

      Show me the data that shows circumcised men enjoy sex less / are affected adversely in a statistically significant way and this conversation will stop being moot.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • QJ201
      QJ201

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones:
      Gee I miss Queerty. Personal attacks are just so…persuasive, although I did make one in GENERAL not to a specific person.

      In all seriousness, circumcision began as a religiously mandated practice because of medical issues. Phimosis, Paraphimosis, Balanitis, infections, etc.

      Additionally even some “intact” men need a knife to their foreskin such as a “german circumcision” in which a small cut is made to ensure the foreskin is retracts completely or to snip a short or rigidly attached frenulum.

      If they are going to pass this law it should also mandate that parents be educated about the health of the foreskin. In fact if they don’t pass it, parents who choose no to have it done should still be educated.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bri
      Bri

      The most common form of female circumcision is the removal of the hood (or foreskin) of the clitoris.

      Regarding the comparison of clitoris and penis:

      They are obviously not totally equal but they are both formed from the SAME tissue in the womb. A genital tubercle, urogenital groove and sinus, and labioscrotal folds. In fact, the genitals look exactly the same until around 11-14 weeks in pregnancy.
      They just separate differently and depending on the size of the clitoris, it CAN be comparable in size to a small intact penis. The foreskin of both are the same in functionality, to cover the extremely sensitive glans of both sexes, both have the same immunological properties present in the smegma that the foreskin produces in both sexes. In both sexes, the foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and separates to become retractable over time.
      Following circumcision in either sex, the glans rubs painfully against underwear and begins the keratinization and de-sensitizing of the glans.
      The foreskin in each gender are so similar, in fact, that they even have matching details such as the placement of the frenulum.
      Yes, women also have a frenulum.

      It is the SAME tissue, the SAME functions, the SAME immunological properties and can in some cases be the same size.

      Female circumcision was outlawed in the US in 1997. Male circumcision is still legal.

      May 18, 2011 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of circumcision, banning it in one city is pointless. All it means is that those parents who want to circumcise their children will do it the next town over… perhaps choosing to have the baby there as well.

      Unless it’s at least statewide, it’s not effective enough to argue over whether it’s right, at least for those in favor of the ban.

      Personally, I think foreskins are ugly, and am glad not to have one. And that it was removed before I’d remember the procedure.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      1. Fact circumcision cuts off as much skin as you have on your tool. Do you think you would feel more with twice the amount of skin?

      2. Fact circumcision cuts off 75% (65%-85%) of the male’s sexual receptors. Do you think you might feel more having 3x more sensors for sex?

      3. Fact tearing of the foreskin away from the glans causes permanent scarring in various degrees. Have you noticed any difference on the tongue amongst the circumcised and between the intact?

      http://www.norm.org/frenular.pdf foremost penis expert Dr. John Taylor’s Frenular Delta
      http://research.cirp.org/ World’s foremost penis expert Dr. John Taylor’s site
      http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html Sorrells et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

      May 18, 2011 at 10:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greg60
      greg60

      StevieC,
      Misogyny & body fascism are serious things, comrade.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Hamburglar:

      Personally, I think foreskins are ugly, and am glad not to have one.

      Personally, I think scars on genitals are ugly, and am glad not to have one.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @QJ201:

      Personal attacks are just so…persuasive, although I did make one in GENERAL not to a specific person.

      No, you just made a broad, sweeping statement. And it’s only a “personal” attack, if you take it personally.

      circumcision began as a religiously mandated practice because of medical issues.

      No, circumcision began because desert traveling nomads needed to keep sand out of their foreskins. Later, this was changed to a tribal marking; and later still, used to control all sorts of uncontrollable issues like masturbation.

      Additionally even some “intact” men need a knife to their foreskin

      And what recourse do men who have circs that are much too tight, or “high” on the shaft have? In the case of the poster above–David at comment #4, had to have surgery to repair a skin bridge.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @lemon-lime:

      Show me the data that shows circumcised men enjoy sex less / are affected adversely in a statistically significant way and this conversation will stop being moot.

      I can provide data, of suggest you google a man named Ron Low, for his personal experience with being circumcised from birth.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @lemon-lime:

      then why are there so many of us who are circumcised having great sex

      I think Cyn answered your question.

      It’s a cultural thing.

      So is homophobia, and anti-gay bias. Should we support that?

      Like it or not, it’s the parent’s decision and that’s the way it should stay.

      Like it or not, it’s the parent’s decision to cure their children of their homosexuality and that’s the way it should stay.

      If you don’t like it, work to change the culture.

      Wow–What an epiphany!

      May 18, 2011 at 10:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @GayGOP:

      The comparison is completely, and totally inapt, and to call it male genital mutilation is to grossly diminish the horror that is female genital mutilation.

      A child–in the case of boys, a newborn–is being restrained, and their healthy genitals cut into. There is no such thing as varying degrees of horror, when body modifications are being forced upon them. Culture and religion be damned.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RandWall
      RandWall

      It’s so funny that guys circumcised at birth think that there’s so much smegma. It probably takes a month to get one tiny flake, but how would an intake guy know since he showers daily. And how would a cut guy ever know? The “easier to clean” argument is quite funny and stupid too. It takes as much effort to pull back a foreskin and rinse it off as it does to lift up your lip to see your gums. And who cares what it looks like since it will be up your ass anyway. Grow up helmet heads.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      Well I chose to be cut very young and guess what! I liked it. Did it for the looks. Puberty hit and showed me I would be loosing sensation for years. The Joy of Sex showed me the fun foreplay I can never do. So in case you miss the point – the foreskin is man’s built in vagina. It’s there for pleasure. Getting cut is the biggest mistake of my life.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones: As you like. No skin off my… well…
      @RandWall: SOME guys put them elsewhere, and get *very* close looks at them in the process.

      May 18, 2011 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones: No, he didn’t. And neither did they guy you told me to google. It’s all anecdotes. I want cold hard data. At least show me a study. Something even slightly scientific. None of these sites/publications seem to cite anything at all except their own personal bias towards circumcision.

      May 18, 2011 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @lemon-lime: http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm “A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood”, T. Hammond, BJU 1999

      Moses Maimonides:
      Over 800 years ago Moses Maimonides tells the harms of circumcision, also known as the “Rambam”, was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher. “…the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a stateas possible.” & “The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.”

      Nelson Mandela:
      Nelson Mandela (Xhosa tribe) said his circumcision was blinding white light of electrical fire that burned throughout all his veins.

      May 18, 2011 at 11:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xtincta
      Xtincta

      Foreskin advocates are like Vegetarians. No matter how much passion and inflamed rhetoric they spew they are just gonna have to accept that the vast majority of the Americans aren’t gonna agree with them. Get over it…..

      May 18, 2011 at 11:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @lemon-lime: http://knol.google.com/k/circumcision-and-human-behavior# The Emotional and Behavioral Effects of Circumcision.
      http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/cansever/ Psychological Effects of Circumcision by Gocke Cansever

      May 18, 2011 at 11:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AMB
      AMB

      The great American tip off, is a great American rip off! Boys are born perfect…NO disassembly required, you dumb twits!

      May 18, 2011 at 11:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      @Frank McGinness: How to put this? If circumcision really does mean less sensation, etc., then I’m again glad it was done. I don’t think I could handle more :)

      May 18, 2011 at 11:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      It’s a dilemma for men to acknowledge that circumcision is unnecessary and harmful means that they must also acknowledge a painful personal reality.

      Another sick aspect of circumcision:
      Circumcision Fetish doctor has sex with underage males legal transcripts http://www.davidwilton.com/files/findingsrebrackaunfit.pdf

      And tell me that sucking on a babies newly cut bloody penis isn’t sick! This is a bris orthodox style after they flay the mucosa off with the thumbnail. End result looks lie an eagle clawed at it.

      Take a look at the stitch marks on the first guy at the circumcisioncenter.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Storm
      Storm

      @Mike in Asheville: Ooh, I know! Let’s ban the piercing of baby’s ears, too! The pain! The trauma! The psychological scarring that results from this lobial mutilation!

      What a load of bullshit this amendment is.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      @Xtincta: Thank you. That’s such a perfect comparison. Even if you’re willing to accept that circumcision does adversely affect sexual experience, which I’m not based on all the studies out there, it’s not going to happen. You might as well try banning alcohol and cigarette consumption. It’s just not going to happen. Even if all the evidence conclusively points towards it being bad. Which. It. Doesn’t.

      @Frank McGinness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings
      Without cherry-picking studies, the research is pretty clearly in favour of “it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.” or “what difference it does make isn’t clearly in favour of one over the other.”

      Response?

      May 19, 2011 at 12:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bri
      Bri

      To circumcised men and their partners:
      Please read this: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

      May 19, 2011 at 12:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @Hamburglar: Right you say. That’s because they taken your Frenulum too. Yours is a classic response. Explanation:

      Dr. John Taylor penile and heart researcher – Sexual Function of the Dartos Muscle (loosely):
      Upon erection the Dartos muscle tenses creating a one-piece solid skin tube, where any action on the penile shaft is transferred to act on the erogenous Taylor’s Ridged Band and through its loop to the Frenulum, this action it transferred to act on the erogenous Frenulum, together the male’s sexual nexus. No action on the shaft is wasted on these sexual structures.
      Circumcision always removes all of the erogenous Taylor’s Ridged Band and part to all of it’s connecting Frenulum. Having this hangman’s noose of the male’s sexual receptors missing no longer keeps the whole of the penile Dartos muscle tense. All action on the erect penile shaft is wasted to act on the Ridged Band and Frenulum. Action must be applied directly to the Frenulum remnant, if any remains.
      Circumcision cuts off 65%-85% of the male’s sexual receptors (85% when the frenulum is cut or scraped off infant). This leaves 15% sexual receptors located in the glans corona where it’s overpowered by the more populous pain/thermal receptors, ratio 5% to 95%. It is this case that men report “If I felt anymore sensitivity, I think I would die of a heart attack!” (Larry David) Circumcision changes the way, means, and type of sensations felt. Circumcision sexually handicaps.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      Interesting. It certainly doesn’t *feel* painful. Or burn-like, for that matter. Oh well.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HAL
      HAL

      Honestly. I think the argument here is moot. It shouldn’t be up to the voters, it should be up to the AMA. ’cause, yanno… they’re kinda the ones who should make decisions on medical procedures.

      And yes, it’s a medical procedure.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @lemon-lime: Yeah, wikipedia topic on circumcision, penile function, and its psych effects and harms are controlled and censored towards pro-circ. Not to popoo what is there. Example many people tried, even I, to update wikipedia’s circumcision page with the national circ. rate of 32.5% just to have it deleted. This figure is fact from the AIDS cionference but aparently that wasn’t enough, then the NYTimers posted this new 2009 circ figure, and that too was deleted off wikipedia. I suggest you step away from USA studies and journals. Go international and experience better reading that isn’t so biased. Meanwhile here’s what is really the best info on the penis.
      http://www.norm.org/frenular.pdf foremost penis expert Dr. John Taylor’s Frenular Delta and:
      http://research.cirp.org/ Dr. John Taylor’s site pay attention to October 2009 newsletter about how circumcision negatively affects the heart.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Onyx
      Onyx

      Is it just me or is it only uncircumcised people who give a flying f&#k… I’m cut, I enjoy sex. I know people who are uncut who also enjoy sex. It doesn’t matter… and it should be up to parents.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @Hamburglar: But it doesn’t feel great like a drug. No full body orgasms that radiants throughout your whole body. Toe curling. Exhausted. heat poring throughout the body. Supremely satisfied it makes you smile perhaps laugh. Naw it mostly just a local penile area feel. And how is your sexual response displayed by pre-cum. Intact men get so turned on they pre-cum all over the place, drooling as they walk around hard. Hey I’m 54 gay and no circumcised man has EVER shown this display. It is So obvious intact men have a much better sexual response. Hands down. Sex workers will tell you the same. They’ll also tell you they see a high % of botched circumcisions. Wonder why…

      May 19, 2011 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      @Frank McGinness: I don’t do drugs, so I wouldn’t know about that. And the “drooling” sounds like a down side. But other than that, well, no, not all the time by any means, but sometimes, yes.

      Anyway, I’m glad that I’m happy as I am, since it’s not really possible to go the other way.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bri
      Bri

      @Onyx -It’s just you.
      Here are some thousands of personal accounts from cut men:
      http://www.sueeasy.com/class_action_detail.php?case_id=258
      http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=61

      And a graphic picture of a cut penis and a whole penis to compare:
      http://www.cutedaveyboy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1240942124311.jpg

      May 19, 2011 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      @Frank McGinness: You are as bad as the people who claim they can cure us. You claim to know our sexual experiences better than we do even though you’ve never experienced sex as a circumcised man. You cling to anecdotal evidence even though the science clearly refutes what you say. Even my own experiences (anecdotal, though they may be) directly contradict every statement you made in your previous post about pre-cum and orgasms. But it doesn’t matter because you’ve already made up your mind. You’re just like them.

      I honestly haven’t made up my mind about what I want to do with my own children, but I think I’ll go with what the data shows and what seems prudent, culturally, at the time I have to make the choice.

      May 19, 2011 at 1:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Restoring Tally
      Restoring Tally

      I was circumcised as a baby and I wish I had not been. I am also restoring my foreskin, so I have an idea of what I am missing. As my foreskin slowly restores, I am amazed at the difference. Not only have I regained my lost sensitivity from years of exposing my glans to my underwear, but I also have the gliding action, which is something I never knew existed as a circumcised man.

      We should be protecting children, not cutting off part of their sex organs.

      May 19, 2011 at 1:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caliban
      Caliban

      My previous comment on this issue is “awaiting moderation,” probably because I was angry when I wrote it. After you read this maybe you’ll understand why I get angry sometimes.

      So let me try again.

      Every year in the US, hundreds of boys (if not more) have their genital sensitivity effected for the rest of their lives due to simple mistakes made during circumcision.

      Why does that small percentage out of all the circumcisions performed matter? Why do I care? Because I am one of them. Nerves were damaged during my circumcision, something my parents didn’t know at the time. I don’t even know if the doctor knew because by the time I realized what the problem was he was already dead. It only two decades later when, after years of shame, embarrassment, anxiety, and mental pain, I finally spoke to a doctor about issues I’d been having sexually that I knew that my problem had to do with damaged nerves in my penis. That’s why part of it was numb. I’m told that I’m actually quite “lucky” because I do have some sensation left, there have been others whose penises were left entirely without sensation and even worse. Some man I don’t even remember damaged my genitals, permanently affecting my sex life, thereby negatively effecting my entire life, probably before I was even an hour old.

      And why did my parents tell a doctor to perform this procedure, to cut off part of my penis in the first place? Believe me, after I finally realized the reason why sex was so awkward and unsatisfying for me was because my genitals had been damaged during a completely optional and pointless (in that there no medical point to it) procedure, I did ask them. Loudly. They didn’t even know why they had me circumcised. “That’s just what doctors did then!” We’re not Jewish, though I wouldn’t have accepted religion as an excuse anyway. Did they think ‘cut’ penises looked better? Was it supposed to be easier to clean or prevent masturbation? No, not really any of those reasons, “that’s just what people did.” Well, thanks to some stupid cultural ritual my parents didn’t even question, I don’t have sensation underneath or on one side of my penis. But hey, at least that explains why sex was never for me how it seemed to be for other people in movies and on TV, even my own friends and sex partners. How comforting.

      But understandably, I think, “because that’s just what people did” is not a real comfort to me as why they allowed someone to cut part of my penis off, in the process permanently damaging nerves and effecting my sexual function for the rest of my life.

      If you are an adult of sound mind, you can do whatever you like to your genitals. You can take a chainsaw to your crotch for all I care. But you don’t OWN your children’s bodies. You do not have the right to impose upon the integrity of their bodies to satisfy some cultural or religious ritual or tradition. It is not YOUR body to alter except in instances of clear medical necessity. It’s amazing to me that this even needs to be said, but apparently it does. You don’t get to cut off their fingers, cut off part of their ears (as people do with some dogs), or anything else, including cutting off part of their sexual organs. It is not your body.

      May 19, 2011 at 1:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      @Caliban: I’m truly sorry to hear about your troubles, mate, but the truth of the matter is that it’s not a matter people should be voting over. You clearly have a strong view about the subject and will not be circumcising your kids. That is your right. It is not your right to vote to limit my ability to chose whether or not to circumcise my kids. The AMA has that right. This is a medical question, not a political one. End of story.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones: Right who wants to suck on a 30 year old scar.

      May 19, 2011 at 3:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @Hamburglar: Even though I chose circumcision. I now choose restoration. YES I’m growing a foreskin not all of the real thing but some benefits are better than none. When it gets cold my foreskin closes like a clam. Being covered I dont’ feel naked when nude.

      May 19, 2011 at 3:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @lemon-lime: I’m as bad as those that try to cure gays? I’m not using nor advocating aversions therapy. I gave you scientific studies, llok back for these as they had to be moderated. I sensed you’re seeking info. I read studies for 6 months 8-12 days about circumcision online. ALL the info is out there for you too. Hint: another way to search medical studies is to look under Penile Reduction and Posthetomy. I’ve said I’m 54, I’ve so easily have had sex with over 1,000 guys. Circumcised 20-30% looked uncomfortably tight, at least 4 were grossly damaged. 3 long term relationships 2 intact, 1 cut. And most all those guys I’ve asked their opinion and experiences with intact/cut men. The difference is apparent. One man chose circ at 21 and was happy about it at 24. Two guys were forced by there dad to e cut. They hate their father wishing he was dead. One was an ex priest who had the smoothest glans, just like the two hating father. Really smooth glans, in my experience are either intact or circumcised later. I’ve had really nice looking ones turning to be real disappointments orally because their glans were so rough like the palms. I cut guy was hard but no one cold get him off orally. One of the circ botched men was told by his father he got burned there as a child because he grabbed for the pot of hot water. Sure he had burns…on his one back shoulder. It great you precum and orgasm compared to intact guys I’ve had. I do speak broadly not meaning absolute. I think Hitchens put it best when told the “medical benefits” of Circumcision: “If you want to saw off the end of your? penis, you’re welcome. You’re not to do it to a child who hasn’t asked for it. Same with the genitals of a little girl. If she thinks later on she would be better off without them, let her take or have taken to her a sharp instrument… It is not right, it is not moral, it is in fact wicked to submit children to mutilation of their genitalia, or to anyone without their consent. British child health expert N.R.C. Roberton points out “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” Oh, I said chose circumcision so I’m cut – but restoring now at CI 4 Coverage Index.

      May 19, 2011 at 4:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteveC
      SteveC

      I’ve never heard a persuasive arguement in favour of circumcision (excluding medical reasons obviously). Why do we Americans do this to our boys? (in Europe circumcision is very rare). A religious or cultural justification for getting cut, is simply absurd. I’m not circumcised – my parents decided that there was no need for me to be circumcised. I would hazard a guess that if the choice to be cut was postponed until the boy could make an informed choice, then the vast majority of American men would not be cut.

      Apparently circumcision is already fading as a cultural norm in the US. That is no bad thing.

      May 19, 2011 at 9:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      @ohplease: well I’m glad my parents too the time and thought to give me an attractive penis. Uncut penis is rarely attractive and I wouldn’t ever put my child through such things in school….

      May 19, 2011 at 9:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      @Frank McGinness: Enjoy your Ugly Penis

      May 19, 2011 at 9:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      @Caliban: Parents have enough to deal with feeding the baby taking care of the baby, cleaning the babe and loving the baby. Why should they have to deal with the extra cleaning and caring of useless skin. Just because in the future an ungrateful little brat might start whining about some damn skin he lost when he was a baby. I mean really get over it.

      May 19, 2011 at 9:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteveC
      SteveC

      But Eric, why do parents bother cutting their son’s foreskin off in the 1st place?

      The arguements I’ve heard in favour of circumcision don’t hold up. In Europe, Canada, Mexico and South America, it is not the norm at all.

      There’s really no need to circumcise a child. And seriously – if you’re trying to argue that circumcision with make their child’s hygiene easier for parents, is a very weak arguement.

      May 19, 2011 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @GayGOP: said…

      “Even the Nutty Ninth would overrule this ban. It violates religious rights.”
      ______________________________

      Mesculin and Peyote are banned, those are used in religions, Pot is banned, Women in Florida are not allowed to wear their Bhurka’s in official photos for Drivers permits. Female circumcisn is banned. Christian Scientists have been sent to jail by denying medical treatment to their children, Sihk’s are not allowed to carry long daggers in public, etc…

      So I don’t know WHERE this idea sprang up among conservatives that the law has no power ever against religions.

      I’ve been with both, never really noticed a huge difference, except I’m assuming the uncircumcised guys had an easier time as teenagers surrepticiously masterbating, not having to sneak off to find something to use as lube.

      May 19, 2011 at 10:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @Eric: Extra cleaning? no you just clean what is seen. The foreskin is fused to the glans, like the nail to the finger. Just wipe and done. But cut penis do need extra care in cleaning. Putting Vaseline on the wound for weeks or in this mother’s case a year:
      http://bit.ly/ZDEfA Imagine having penile wounding that must be torn apart everyday for a year.

      May 19, 2011 at 10:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      It’s please pass the salt this foreskin lacks flava. (Muslim) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJnZ8YuHkk

      AND You can’t stop me from sucking on this baby’s penis. I’ve been hired! (Jewish)
      http://uncle-semite.com/menschhealth/

      Living in America ah, ah!

      May 19, 2011 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteveC
      SteveC

      @Cam: Do you need to use lube to masturbate, if you’re cut?

      May 19, 2011 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kat
      kat

      My son is intact (not circumcised) because his foreskin has several functions and a rightful owner. I support a ban on non therapeutic circumcision of minors. It’s not about taking religious or parental rights away from parents, it’s about …protecting a childs right to bodily integrity. Doctors should First Do No Harm and not be soliciting circumcision to parents of healthy children, instead parents should be taught the functions and purpose of the foreskin and how to care properly for their intact sons, which is really very simple. Many myths myths perpetuate this archaic practice of cutting childrens genitals. The FGM law protects female childrens genital integrity, why are males being denied equal protection of the law?

      May 19, 2011 at 10:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @SteveC:

      Some do, Some don’t, don’t you ever talk to your boyfriends? lol

      May 19, 2011 at 10:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      No need to go to any special trouble, though. Spit works, especially if you draw a bit of snot into it.

      It’s not the BEST solution, but it’s free and always at hand.

      May 19, 2011 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikey
      mikey

      @Kacey: Sorry dude, seems you’re angry and stupid.

      No parent should the right to chop off a piece of their kid’s genitalia, except for urgent medical reasons like testicular cancer.

      May 19, 2011 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      “The Double Standard in the United States that says it’s ok to Sexually Mutilate(circumcise) one sex but not the other is Complete Hypocrisy and Sexism…..Disgusting that these people want this Cycle of Abuse, Ignorance, Denial, etc.. to continue and not research or educate themselves because of their own Ignorance and Denial… Unbelievable in this day of age we even have to debate this and try to get through to people that mutilating a boys genitals is wrong…I hope in the future that this very damaging and barbaric procedure will cease to exist. I think it is important for parents to not blindly circumcise their sons due to custom,or religion,but to research the subject,and make an intelligent decision that is best for the child, not what make the parents feel good, REMEMBER THIS IS NOT A HARMLESS LITTLE SNIP!! IT IS PAINFUL AND DAMAGING.OUR SONS DESERVE MUCH BETTER

      May 19, 2011 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh
      Josh

      I’d like to add my perspective as someone of Jewish descent. I’m fully in favor of freedom of religion, but your religious freedom does not give you the right to amputate or otherwise modify any perfectly normal and healthy part of SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY.

      The child’s body is not property of his/her parents or their culture or religion.

      If a religion called for the tattooing or branding of an infant or child, that wouldn’t make ok. If a religion called for any other part of the human body, for example an earlobe (you don’t really need that, right?…), to be cut off of a baby or child, that wouldn’t make it ok. And of course when religion calls for any cutting of the female genitals – no matter how minor – that doesn’t make it ok.

      So why then is the penis different than every other body part in this regard? What gives parents the right to cut part of it off and deprive the child of the right to choose for the rest of his life?

      I know infant male genital cutting (“circumcision”) is widely accepted in our culture, but that in and of itself doesn’t make it ok, so I urge folks to really think critically about this!

      May 19, 2011 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh
      Josh

      One more thing to consider: Just about everyone would consider it wrong if the parents were to have their 18 year old son (who wasn’t circumcised) forcibly held down and circumcised against his will. Everyone would say that as an adult it’s his decision.

      But when you circumcise a baby, you’re also taking that choice away from the adult he will become. For every day of my adult life, I have been, and will continue to be, denied the right to choose for myself as a result of what was done to me as an infant.

      Of course what happened to me can’t be undone, but as a society we CAN decide that this won’t happen to anyone else. That it’s not acceptable to take away someone’s right to choose about THEIR OWN genitals.

      May 19, 2011 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomMc
      TomMc

      Circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection.

      http://tinyurl.com/3nvrk5p

      May 19, 2011 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hamburglar
      Hamburglar

      @TomMc: Possibly, but more studies would have to be done to be conclusive. And it’s not by any huge amount; certainly far less of an affect than, say, having sex with fewer people (as often as you like, just fewer different people.)

      May 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike
      mike

      @Storm: Pierced ears can heal over, foreskins don’t grow back. Use your brain and you’ll see the difference.

      May 19, 2011 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ruhlmann
      Ruhlmann

      @Frank McGinness: Wow I thought I couldn’t be more grossed out by the first video of grampa EATING the fucken thing but I could not watch the video in the second link.

      I am from a French Canadian family of six boys who are all intact. My mother told me that the English Canadian doctor who delivered her first two got real snarky when she refused to have us circumsised. The inclusion of Canada in a list of nations who do not do this in someone’s post is incorrect. It was widely recommended right into the seventies although I have never seen a French Canadian circumsised….and I’ve been around. As well I have a penchant for First Nations men and I have never met a circumsised one…or Maori.

      Ultimately I am glad I was not “cut” and although I am not particularly turned off by circumsised men, I find natural men attractive and sensual in a way I can’t explain. I believe that the cleanliness argument is not justification for what is essentially mutilation.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @TomMc: said…

      “Circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection.”
      ________________________

      Well so would cutting off their penis, or sewing up a woman’s vagina.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomMc
      TomMc

      @Hamburglar: True, that assertion about circumcision should be studied more.

      However, given the possibility that circumcision might cut the risk of infection, is it not worth continuing to circumcize until more studies have been completed?

      May 19, 2011 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomMc
      TomMc

      @Cam: But that would require two ballot questions.

      May 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @TomMc:

      And a lot of thread!

      May 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @TomMc: Condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission far better than circumcision. No surgury required, (unless you try supergluing the dang thing on permanently!)

      The study cited above cannot be considered conclusive: It also did not weigh the HIV risk reduction against the risks of circumcision.

      —- —- —- —-
      The A.M.A. should really weigh in on this subject. Some OBs and pediatricians have spoken about the risks of circumcision but I don’t think their organizations are actively working nationally to prohibit infant circumcision.

      May 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      @SteveC: well they don’t hold up but my sister is a pediatrician and when I asked her her statements and reasoning do hold up. Hell she said she thinks they should do them for free.

      May 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomMc
      TomMc

      @Jeffree: @Cam: Indeed.

      May 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank McGinness
      Frank McGinness

      @Jeffree: ACOG the “union” of OBGYNs always says it will not allow NOCIRC or Intact America into their conventions to booth about circumcision because, get this, they are not about male physiology. Well that’s right the one doing the cutting have no formal training on the penis.
      http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about1334884.html

      May 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Frank McGinness: That is truly horrifying about OB/GYN’s lack of training (& interest!) in the subject.

      I spoke briefly w/ a friend’s mom who is a certified midwife in a rural area, and at least her group strongly discourages male infant circumcision.

      Thank you for the info.

      May 20, 2011 at 5:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike128
      mike128

      I’m blown away here by some of the arguments for circumcision. I’m cut – but I believe that the child should have the opportunity to make the decision for himself. Why do we give parents the right to cut their child? Because some people think it looks better? And it’s supposedly “easier to clean”? Is it really such a big deal to wash your dick? Is pulling back your foreskin to wash something that’s so burdensome that we should cut it off? Wow. I can’t believe that these arguments are put forward as the sensible point of view.

      May 20, 2011 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.