BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?

Subject: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 May 11 - 11:31 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.

But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names to qualify.

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: michaelr
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:04 AM

Circumcisiom is a barbaric practice that has no place in modern life. That said, banning it by law is indeed an intolerable intrusion on civil rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 May 11 - 05:10 AM

One of the odder combinations of signboards I've seen was in Kadikoy, which is as near as you get to Turkey's San Francisco. One board was for a campaign opposing circumcision. The one next to it was for the shop upstairs - a body piercing parlour.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:23 AM

I was under the impression that it was fairly often done for medical/hygenic reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,John MacKenzie
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:43 AM

Cutting of their noses to spite their faces?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:01 AM

I think the 7,700 voters that signed the petition are more than welcome NOT to circumcise their children. But I find it hard to believe that this law would be passed. If it did I'm sure it would be struck down by a higher court PDQ.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:15 AM

Well, Muslims and Jews are against it and promise a lawsuit based upon religious discrimination if it passes. Boy, talk about intruding in private lives!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:23 AM

"Boy, talk about intruding in private lives!!"

So, non consensual mutilation of children is an intrusion in private lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: pdq
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:28 AM

Speaking of pdq, I was going to say something like "this is the most un-Constitutional law I have ever heard of", but then I reconsidered.

A law is either Constitutional or it is not.

There is no part of the US Constitution that allows any government entity to tell the citizens what to buy or what to do in our daily lives.

People always bring up mandatory car insurance, but that applies only to cars driven on publically-owned roads. If you never drive off your ranch, you need no drivers lisence and no insurance. In fact, a 14 year old can drive a farm truck if his parents don't say no.

This is another example of Lefties who think they gain the power to tell other people what to do at the ballot box. If they want a new government program, I am in favor of one that distributes free copies of the US Constitution. The clowns who wrote this ballot measure have either not read it or simply do not respect the rights of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:31 AM

You could argue that the practice of circumcision violates the fourth amendment rights of the practicee, PDQ. I think the law is a bad idea, but what part of the Consittution are you actually invoking here? Any in particular?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 11 - 11:51 AM

I'll bet 37¢ that it fails on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 19 May 11 - 12:15 PM

If circumcision of male children is permitted for religious reasons does it violate the rights of a child who may have no desire to adhere to his parents religion when he reaches the age of consent? Do not some factions of some religions practice female circumcision (an abhorrent violation of a child)? Is there a case of sexual discrimination for allowing one and not the other? My own feeling is that it should not be done before a child has the wisdom to make the decision for himself, except for legitimate medical necessity, and certainly not to a newborn infant!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:32 PM

Quite agree Sandy. It's mutilation of a defenceless child, often performed without anaesthetic. The pain must be appalling. I watched a documentary of a Jewish circumcision, and the tiny baby screamed in agony, it was terible. But even with anaesthesia, it's unecessary and barbaric. I refuse to call 'female circumcision' by that name, as it's actually removal of the clitoris and labia, and includes infibulation (sewing up what's left to achieve a tiny aperture). It's Female Genital Mutilation. My African husband's sisters all underwent this atrocity at the age of eight or so. Their screams were heard all over the enclave, and the pain they endured for days was severe. Infection in both sexes can occur, and also deformity of the remaining genitalia. Even in USA. So yes, it should be totally banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:56 PM

If the ban gets passed in San Francisco, there's gonna be a lot more Jewish and Muslim ceremonies performed in Oakland.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:58 PM

Are US posters saying that female genital mutilation (as described above, clitorectomy and worse) is lawful in the USA? Surely that cannot be so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: pdq
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:02 PM

If you carry the concept of body mutillation to an extreme, tatoos, pierced noses, belly button gems, circumcision, "nose jobs", hair transplants and even very conventional earrings qualify.

The story here is not whether these things are good or bad. The important concept is that of freedom. We are allowed to do what we want without tyranny from the government or even from the majority of voters. Debating the merits of circumcision derails the real issue.

Yes, in San Francisco, a law like this might just pass. If it does, it will eventually be thrown out as un-Constitutional, but at a huge waste of time and taxpayer's money in court costs.

As Justice Brandies said, the essential message in our Bill of Rights is that people "have the right to be left alone".

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:17 PM

The issue here, pdq, is consent. Circumcision of an infant is a non-consensual act of mutilation. No one is suggesting making any of the acts you describe illegal for those who are able to give their consent.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: pdq
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:24 PM

Children are the responsibility of parents.

If parents think the child should be given a flue shot, the kid will get a flue shot. Neither the goverment nor the tyranny of the majority has the right to interfere.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:38 PM

There are laws against harming children, that is the issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:57 PM

this law pertains to the circumcision of male children .... it's a practice that has been going on for many years especially amongst the Jewish faith .... One may cringe at the thought ... but actual harm, I think not. I don't know of anyone who has been harmed during circumcision or of any after effects.

Probabbly more cases of harm can be found in regards to inoculating children.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 03:08 PM

The proponents of the law have a different opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 19 May 11 - 03:20 PM

The documentary I watched (some years ago) said that in fact there ARE some cases of infection and deformity. One little boy had to have his penis amputated due to infection. And it just isn't necessary. You cannot compare it to tattooing, piercing etc of consenting adults. They can do whatever they like to themselves, but what choice does a baby have? The reason I included FGM is because that too is done for religious and cultural reasons. In the UK it is of course illegal, but eg Somalian girls are spirited away from school and reappear weeks later, having been cut by an 'auntie'. In Africa, local justice is taking steps to eradicate these practices, with quite a lot of success, but circumcision is universally accepted, and I feel it should be reserved only for medical reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:05 PM

More males have probably caused more damage to their wonkers by getting it caught in a zipper ... I think they should outlaw zippers on male trousers and have them replaced with buttons.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:19 PM

An excerpt from an article by Dr. Margaret Somerville, who I had the pleasure of being associated with in a research project back in the eighties. She has a degree in law as well as a medical degree and is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal.

"The medical facts about infant male circumcision have changed as a result of medical research. We now know that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself and has harmful consequences. Circumcision removes healthy, functioning, erogenous tissue that serves important protective, sensory and sexual purposes. The surgery also involves risks of further damage-ranging from minor to serious damage to the penis or even its loss or death. In one recent American case a baby died from the general anesthetic he was given in order to deal with the complications that had resulted from his circumcision. Some physicians who continue to support routine-that is, non-therapeutic-circumcision argue that its potential medical benefits-which research shows do exist-justify carrying it out on infants. But these potential benefits do not outweigh its harms when the procedure is not medically necessary, which in the vast majority of cases it is not. Moreover, when we look to the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision, such as a reduced rate of urinary infections, we can see that medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less traumatic and invasive ways than circumcision."

If you're interested the entire article, which is a chapter in the book The Ethical Canary:Science, Society, and the Human Spirit, it can be found HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:28 PM

I recall that article from the 80's .... anymore descriminating facts regarding circumcision around ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:32 PM

"descriminating facts" ???

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 May 11 - 05:47 PM

My uncle was born with one eyelid. When he was circumcised they grafted that skin over his eye. He's fine now; just a little cockeyed!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 05:59 PM

Does he tend to flutter his eye a lot?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 19 May 11 - 06:47 PM

If circumcision were introduced today in some modern religious cult, they would ban it outright, full stop, as child abuse.

All little boys and all little girls have the right not to be dispossessed of parts of their body that they were born with.
There is no case or cause for the religiously or culturally motivated mutilation or permanent irreversible physical marking of young children, in a supposed civilised society.
We should not be sacrificing our children (or their foreskins or indeed be offering them up in any way) to any group's supposed God these days.
The ways in which so many parents love their children pisses me off.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 06:59 PM

Interesting that most who oppose circumcision here are female. If anyone bothers to read my link above you will see that Dr. Somerville cites examples of support for her position that has come from Muslim and Jewish women.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:07 PM

There are benefits to circumcision ... look them up .... regardless I really don't think there is a law required against cutting .... it's a decision that should be left to the parents.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:26 PM

SIGH!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:28 PM

I know, I know.

just leave it at that.

now .... on to another issue of great importance.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:55 PM

Hmmmm... I shouldn't, but I will.

I was cut. Standard procedure fifty years ago. And I was cut again at 24 years old. The EDUCATED doctor said it was the ONLY way to cure the papyloma which I contracted from "her". Now, that cut was deep and it was nasty and it did nothing to help the genital warts. So, as far as the docs saying that getting cut as a baby is helpful medically... what a load of horseshit! If a problem arises and getting cut is the way to go, fine. But if it ain't... I would certainly enjoy having all that foreskin now (not that... ahhh... nevermind).

Now... that AIDS thing may have some merit but even that is up in the air until more research is done.

As far as it being a religious rite or a religious right, fine. Freedom requires that people have the right to be stunned as me arse. There ain't no way a law is gonna overcome religious stupidity although advances are being made.

BTW... at 24, my "roomy" who was about my age had strictures lasered in his dick (his gal was into ROUGH sex) and I would walk, well, hobble, around the ward chatting up the nurses. They would playfully "play along" as they thought it quite comical when the Limpmen were so brave, given the fact that a hardon was excruciatingly painful... the bitches!

Sorry if that is sharing too much. But, it's a human experience. I don't mind sharing my dick.... experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 11 - 09:27 PM

Babies are subjected to many things by adults.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 09:29 PM

There outta be a law!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 09:42 PM

Damned right there outta be a law !!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:51 PM

Gonna have to ban lip and ear stretching, too. And probably should also ban flattening babies heads. All of these have been (and sometimes are) practiced by various American Indian nations, African tribal groups, and so on. Neck stretching, too. And foot binding (although that isn't done much anymore).

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: michaelr
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:18 AM

Yes. The issue is consent. Wait until they're 16, or 18, and LET THEM DECIDE.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: J-boy
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:45 AM

I was born fourty years ago and at that time in America it was standard practice. Why that was I have no idea. But I don't miss my foreskin. I can't miss something I never really had. In a not totally unrelated note several churches claim to possess Christ's foreskin and venerate it as such. I wonder were mine has gone to.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 May 11 - 02:54 AM

"Gonna have to ban lip and ear stretching, too. And probably should also ban flattening babies heads. All of these have been (and sometimes are) practiced by various American Indian nations, African tribal groups, and so on. Neck stretching, too. And foot binding (although that isn't done much anymore)."

My guess is that if you tried flattening your babies head in the US today, or binding your daughter's feet, you would quickly discover that you probably don't need extra laws banning them. As for African practices, FGM is not legal in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 11 - 03:35 AM

I am not going to believe much written by anyone who can say that facts have changed. That is gibberish. A fact cannot change. If an assertion was wrong it was not a fact in the first place. Additional facts may be discovered, or the interpretation of facts may change, but a fact is a fact is a fact. Bah!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 May 11 - 03:47 AM

I was taking a quick look online about this, so evidently circumcision was a routine operation in the US during the fifties (I always assumed it to be an exclusively religious thing). I don't think that's the case anywhere else in the world.

Apparently it initially became popular in the US as a means of inhibiting the corrupting dangers of "self abuse" or masturbation in young boys, but later gained currency as a means to prevent all kinds of supposed health problems from epilepsy to bed-wetting!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 11 - 04:37 AM

It was also the norm in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 May 11 - 04:39 AM

For those who desperately wanted their circumsized foreskin back and have had their eyelids sewn on their penis followed later by transplanting discarded foreskins for an eyelid transplant, perhaps there is a better solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 May 11 - 09:49 AM

Foreskins used to be collected as a way to count enemy dead. The whole penis was also used. I don't know what they did with them after they were counted. Ancient Celts went into battle naked, both men and women, and this is where the phrase "Stand up and be counted!" came from. Sometimes two champions would come forth and settle the matter with a cockfight.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 20 May 11 - 09:53 AM

Geeeeeezuz H. ... whew ... those Celts, what a bunch of barbarians.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 May 11 - 11:27 AM

We need a law against making new laws................


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:05 PM

"It was also the norm in the UK."

It wasn't very common, but I once met someone who'd been circumsized and wasn't called Norm.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 20 May 11 - 01:24 PM

I know a Rabbi who cuts two inches off the tail pipe of every car he buys.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 20 May 11 - 11:35 PM

"those Celts, what a bunch of barbarians"
The Celts were more interested in cutting the balls of the Sasunnach than the foreskin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 21 May 11 - 07:38 AM

I left my foreskin in San Francisco.

There... It's a music thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 May 11 - 09:16 AM

Richard-

"I was under the impression that it was fairly often done for medical/hygenic reasons."

Not since soap and water were invented. I suppose in some third world countries where clean water is not readily available, the operation, if performed by licensed medical practitioners, would be justified.

No, the practice seems more based on traditional religious belief or out-dated medical practice.

Now in some cases the size of the foreskin is excessive and an operation might be called for, as documented in this old song about a "jolly tinker" having "forty yards of foreskin hanging down below his knees."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 21 May 11 - 09:48 AM

In the case of paraphimosis (tight foreskin causing erectile problems/infection/inflammation) removal is of course necessary, under anaesthetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 May 11 - 03:20 PM

The wife tells me that Santa Monica, Calif. is considering this ban. Anybody car to invest in my underground clinic venture, catering to male baby circumcision? I plan to offer both religious and secular ceremonies.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 21 May 11 - 06:58 PM

Eliza... "removal is of course necessary, under anaesthetic."

I should hope so.

When I had the second (see above), just as I was being knocked out, I said, "Nothing off the top, just a little trim around the sides." A nurse said, "No, you want it off the top and added to the sides." I knew her voice, but all I could see was her eyes as I went under and I couldn't figure out who she really was. I asked a certain lass later on if it was her and she said she could not say one way or the other due to confidentiallity... but that if I had such a surgery my sex life was gonna be far better.

A medical or "spiritual" opinion?

Or is that too personal or medical?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 May 11 - 07:38 PM

Okay.......Is there anyone out there who feels somehow shorted, to coin a phrase, because you had a trim job as a baby? Do you give a shit? Has it caused you great stress and harm or mental illness due to cliptip?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 21 May 11 - 07:45 PM

Up until I read this thread I didn't give a rat's ass about being cut as a baby ... but now I'm thinking of bringing a lawsuit up against my parents.

biLL   ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 May 11 - 09:03 PM

I'd sue my pediatrician but she died in 1967. She's the one who recommended it be done.

There's also the statute of limitations...

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 21 May 11 - 10:06 PM

Are they really limitations? How can anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 22 May 11 - 09:37 PM

The Four Skins would be a good name for a group.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 May 11 - 10:49 PM

There is already one such. Indeed maybe more than one.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 11 - 06:01 PM

A fellow walking down the street notices that his watch is way off. It's been giving him problems lately, and he intends to take it in for repair, but he keeps forgetting about it. But serendipity seems to be at work. He discovers himself standing in front of a small shop and it has watches and clocks in the show window.

He goes inside. Behind the counter sits an elderly gentleman with glasses and a long beard. The elderly man looks up from his book and says, "Yes?"

The fellow takes off his watch and says, "My watch is not keeping very good time lately. I'd like to have it repaired."

The elderly gentleman says, "I'm sorry, but I don't repair timepieces. I'm a mohel."

"A mohel? I'm sorry, but what is a mohel?"

"A mohel performs circumcisions," says the old gentleman.

"But—   I thought this was a watch repair shop. I mean, if you don't repair watches and clocks, then why do you have all those watches and clocks in your show window?"

"So . . . what would you put in the window?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 11 - 06:18 PM

A man is walking painfully out of a clinic when he meets a friend coming in.

"Good grief, man!" says the friend, "You look like you're in a world of hurt! What, if you don't mind my asking, did you have done here?"

"Well, my wife absolutely insisted, so I had the doctor castrate me."

"My God, man! That's really extreme!"

"Yeah, I thought so too, but—well, my wife did insist, so. . . .   If you don't mind my asking, what are you here for?"

"Similar, I guess. My wife insists that I be circumcised."

"Circumcised!   THAT's the word!!"

Don Firth

(Okay, I'm gone.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 May 11 - 02:58 PM

LOL Don! I translated your two jokes to my hubbie, he roared with laughter!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 11 - 03:13 PM

I love traditional jokes too.

Hey Ms Henry. Assuming you are really Henrietta and not Henry. Who treats the infections women give to men, or does it only take one to tango? Why not offer to wash it for him? I bet he doesn't refuse, and with care (and a second soaping) you might avoid the need for immediate penetration.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 11 - 04:12 PM

GUEST,henryetta has a valid point. I have heard that before, and it's not just someone's cockamamie idea. Unless a guy is fairly scrupulous in his personal hygiene, the uncircumcised penis can be a host for all kinds of infectious horrors.

####

On a lighter note:   two men in a public men's room standing in front of adjacent urinals. One man finishes up, then goes to the wash basin, uses the soap dispenser, then washes his hands. The other man just zips up and heads for the door.

The man at the wash basin says, "At Harvard, they teach us to wash our hands after urinating."

As he goes out the door, the other man responds, "At Yale, they teach us not to urinate on our hands!"

(I'm done. Until next time.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 11 - 04:47 PM

"the uncircumcised penis can be a host for all kinds of infectious horrors."

Okay... I have a question. Does the circumcised dick foreskin separate from the dick ("peel back", so to speak) at an earlier age than the uncircumcised dick foreskin?

And, is the uncircumcised dick foreskin never able to be peeled back to allow male hygiene? Can't an uncircumsized dick be washed? I wash my dick every day. Sometimes twice a day as the little guy seems to like it. At least, that's what he tells me... in his own way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 11 - 05:13 PM

??? Circumcision = no foreskin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 11 - 05:28 PM

NO 4skin Dick? Where did you hear that? As I said earlier, I am a twice decorated (undecorated) veteran and I still got me some.

Or, was I just lucky? Blessed with WAY too much?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 May 11 - 05:29 PM

Richard, hope this isn't classed as 'too much information', but there are many different types of circumcision. One type is merely a 'trim', and there is still enough skin left to retract and wash. A quite radical circumcision is often performed in Africa, which involves complete removal of ALL the foreskin and a razor removal even of the ring of tissue which is left, (rather like sharpening a pencil with a knife). This is often done at age ten, without aneasthetic and is incredibly painful for days. Another type (eg Masai) leaves a long 'tag' of the foreskin hanging on a thin strip of skin. This is supposed to give much pleasure to women. There is some limited evidence that circumcision reduces the transference of the HIV virus, but this information is dangerous, as it encourages people not to bother with a condom. Also, Jewish women do not often contract cervical cancer, as a circumcised penis does not induce this condition. Nuns never get cervical cancer! But I still think the operation should only be performed on consenting adults.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 11 - 05:41 PM

Hate to break it to you anonymous troll "henryetta" but you'll find a hell of a lot more "nasties" in the average vaginal skoosh than under the average penile foreskin. Infection transmission is a two way street.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 11 - 06:44 PM

Okay, Sex-Ed 101.

Circumcised compared to uncircumcised.

With the uncircumcised penis, the head of the penis (glans) is generally completely covered. With the circumcised penis, the glans is exposed, but it's wearing a little turtleneck.

In ALL cases, scrupulous personal hygiene is highly recommended. For BOTH genders. [Should go without saying.]

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, so-called "female circumcision" (removal of the clitoris) is a totally different horror show!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 11 - 06:50 PM

"female circumcision"

Unaccepatable. Maybe I don't understand it but I just don't understand it... ya know... eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 11 - 06:52 PM

Don... I been cut twice and those pics don't apply. Am I Superdick?

I mean, in the genital sense, of course. Most people know I am a big dick but few know... ahhh... nevermind.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 May 11 - 10:21 PM

Gnu, are you sure you weren't just criticized twice, and you're a little dislexic?

While I don't disbelieve you, I flat out don't understand; I've never heard of anyone being circumcised who didn't come out pretty much like the "after" picture, and I bet not much of anyone else here has, let alone why anyone would cut off some, cut off a little more, and still not arrive at the "after" picture. Whatever the actual reasons, bro, yours is a very unusual if not unique case.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 11 - 10:34 PM

What DonF said.

What Froggy said.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: frogprince
Date: 25 May 11 - 10:13 AM

circumlocution: talking one's foreskin off.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,mark-s(on the road)
Date: 25 May 11 - 10:08 PM

This would be a financial horror for the mohels. I hear they work mostly for tips anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 25 May 11 - 10:16 PM

froggy.... you callin my dyslexic little? That's a low blow.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 11 - 12:01 AM

FYI:

Foreskin can contain the human papillomavirus -- a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer in women and can lead to genital warts in both sexes -- according to a small Austrian study that is scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association in Washington, D.C., HealthDay/USA Today reports.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 27 May 11 - 04:08 PM

It should be up to the parents to decide at the time of birth. The only thing that should be legislated and that MUST be mandatory regardless of what religion and ceremonial religious tradition is wrapped around it, is that it be performed by a medical doctor, and with a local anesthetic administered prior (and given time to work) so that it is absolutely pain free for the baby. To do it any other way and without a local is simply barbaric - and if done THAT way, it SHOULD be illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 May 11 - 04:55 PM

I heard that all moyhls (spelling?) carry a Bris-kit with them. (In case they get hungry.)--- And a kishka on a stick!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 11 - 05:23 PM

Correct spelling, mohel. Pronounce, MOY-el.

According to an old friend of mine who is of the Jewish persuasion.

(Beats me. . . .)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 27 May 11 - 06:50 PM

froggy..."Whatever the actual reasons, bro, yours is a very unusual if not unique case."

At least I am not a eunuch case.