What do you all think about this coming up ban ?

Is it an attack on religious freedom ?

If it wasn't for Scoma's restaurant in Fisherman's Wharf and the best clam chowder ever, I fucking blow up the city.

Maybe now the Jews and Muslims can finally find a common cause to rally behind (lol). I can't wait for the demonstrations in SFO. I'm sure the gay community will have something to say about this.

Why in world would anyone even consider banning circumcision? I'm baffled.

From the fetus to the penis....when will they ever stop meddling in peoples' lives.

I hope it passes. It's about time that we outlaw the mutilation of the genitals of male children. Is this an attack on religious freedom? Who cares? If your delusions dictate that you should hack off bits of your child's cock, then maybe you ought to have your head examined....preferably with a large claw hammer.

What worse, is that female circumcison is still commonly practiced in parts of Africa and Asia. The purpose, of course, is to remove the clit so your little girl won't go up to enjoy sex.

Take note that this happens for purely religious reasons. Medical procedures are being performed on the genitals of infants for religious reasons. You'd think that the parents would have the decency to wait until the kid is old enough to know how they feel about their parent's delusions before they took a scapel to their infant's genitals. I guess not.

don't think it's an attack on religious freedom, but I do see it as an attack on PARENTAL freedoms. This is one of those things that should be left up to the parents, not the state.

Personally, I see no distinction. Anyone that wants to invade what I do in my private life, regardless of the political persuasion, is in violation of the first amendment. Leave me the fuck alone.

But, you do have a point considering the pro-lifers. I am against abortion, except in certain situations, but I also will abide by the law, and not force my views on others. The SOCUS says women have the right to choose, and that is the law that I respect.

You talk about the 'kid being old enough to know how they feel', and in the same sentence, write about before 'taking a scalpel to their infant's genitals'. So, which is it? Do you honestly think an 18 year old is gonna say, "Yeah, go ahead and wack it off. Don't need a foreskin anyway"?

I can't help pointing out that the ones who want to meddle in people's lives regarding the fetus are Republicans.  I wonder what the political affiliation of the "SF Smegma League" is, and would not be surprised if it's Democrats.  Which is worse?  I'd say the so-called Pro-Lifers.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you sometimes agree with him, and that lately he is making sense. Can you make sense of this priceless bit of nonsense?

Maybe you wouldn't mind your clitoral hood being sliced off?

Is it really fair to compare circumcision to clitorectomies?  I know they are physically analagous but there seems to me to be a big difference between a modern cicumcision done in a sanitary facility to a clitorectomy done in unsanitary conditions in a Third World country where the clitoris itself is damaged.  There's also a huge difference in the  purposes of the two proceedures.  A circumcision is done for sanitary reasons and should not damage function at all.  A clitorectomy is done to eliminate the possibility of sexual pleasure, and thus presumably ensure fidelity.  As for trying to criminalize circumcisions, to me it's just one more example of Big Brother.

-- Modified on 5/19/2011 1:13:52 PM

I specifically asked how she would like her clitoral hood removed - which is exactly analagous. This barbaric habit was a victorian attempt to discourage masturbation.

The adult foreskin is about the size of a 3X5 card and contains thousands of erogenous nerve endings.

It is mutilation.

The CDC, WHO, and other health organizations promote circumcision for its health benefits. One example from WHO: "male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%"

I'm glad i don't have to carry the extra weight.

My helmet works just fine TYVM, and I don't really want anymore sensitivity. I like lasting at least as long as the woman I am with.

I don't like religion, or religious pukes anymore than Willy, but for fucks sake, let's pick better fucking battles to fight.

Fair enough, and I don't pretend to be an expert.  But most American males have had circumcisions and are able to function sexually and enjoy the hell out of it.  And, yes, I did understand that removal of the clitoral hood was analagous and specifically said that.  But, then, isn't a complete clitorectomy far beyond that?  If so, and I believe it is, that's my point.  The analogy ends there.  Now, it's perfectly correct to point out that there is a decrease in sensation from even a circumcision, just keep in mind that you can't compare it to a complete clitorectomy (especially one done in a hut in Somalia).  That's all I was trying to point out.

You are the only one who has mentioned a clitorectomy as being comparable. I never did. Not once. I very specifically offered the removal of the clitoral hood as a comparison. Please try to keep up.

"Do you honestly think an 18 year old is gonna say, 'Yeah, go ahead and wack it off. Don't need a foreskin anyway'?"

Precisely.

and keep their opinion to themselves. It is like washing your ass when taking shower. Suppose, some don't do that either. Mostly a religious practice in most countries so, I can see why.  Cavemen did not know  proper hygiene and in the US started around 1900 on the basis of Germ Theory which made people  Take read Germ Phobic. May the reason marketers came up germ killing hand wash which does nothing to germs according to a recent FDA study. Germ Phobics will keep on buying them.

.

and I feel its unnecessary and mutilation. There is no real evidence to prove it does anything beneficial ....it DOES do various other things which inhibit the sexual experience.

Uh, no.  But if you listen to Puck that may be because I am either too stupid or just can't read English.  I am sure he is right.

Oh, sorry, just found and read AF's post and, yes, this one is indeed gibberish.  I cannot make sense of it.  Not remotely.

Pretty crazy.

Are there any studies to prove that guys who have been circumcised are less like to receive and get STDs ?

do you really believe that the foreskin should be removed from an infant and they should have no say, that it should be entirely the parents choice? They dont circumcise abroad....are they all aids infested slobs?

I'm willing to let that be the parents' decision, and there is plenty of evidence that there are health benefits from circumcision. Take it up with the CDC, WHO, and other organizations that promote circumcision for the health benefits. No one is suggesting it become mandatory.

No different from the decision to bottle or breast feed. Infants have no say in that decision either.

Your alternative seems to be that nobody gets a say - the parents or the infant. You apparently want it banned altogether.

And of course they circumcise abroad. It may not be the majority, but it does occur.

BTW, reduction of AIDS transmission is just one of the potential health benefits studies have shown.