Posted on 02/22/2011 3:07:48 PM PST by Lmo56
San Franciscans want the boys they molest to be “uncut”.
So they do not recommend "routine circumcision", under what circumstances do they recommend it?
Glad Mom and Dad let me go natural. The chicks dig it too. When the hood goes down the girth increases and forms another ridge for her pleasure. The hood also maintains sensitivity and does not let Willy get roughed up. If you have been cut you don’t know what you’re missing.
Once born, they are a legal entity, a U.S. citizen - and the government has ‘a compelling interest’ in prosecuting you for damaging it.
Now I don't think circumcision is damaging, usually people want the kid to be like his father, or have health, aesthetic, or religious reasons for doing so - but I figure that is the argument these wackos are making - that it is akin to female genital mutilation - which is absolute rot.
I say this as someone who is quite happy with being intact.
+1 on that.
People say lots of things,some are true and some are not, and among the things not to be trusted the Vikings listed ‘talk in bed’.
But I have a return rate of well over 50% - gals I have broken up with who come back DTF.
When you have broken up with them, broken their heart, they told you off, cried their tears - and then they decide they should really hit you up for sex again - they dug it.
You are mistaken. I've had both and uncut is no big deal. It's what you do with it that counts.
You are mistaken. I've had both and uncut is no big deal. It's what you do with it that counts.
Maybe you could offer your penthouse forum submissions as an amicus brief.
Circumcision is an open-and-shut First Amendment right (”free exercise”) for observant Jews. “Free exercise” does not protect the right to conduct human sacrifices (or even to deny life-saving treatment to minor children of Christian Scientists), but supposed harm from infant circumcision is conjectural “junk science.”
Some would claim that if the First Amendment protects infant circumcision, it should also protect female genital mutilation (sometimes misleadingly euphemized as “female circumcision”). In answer:
(1) Female genital mutilation causes a lifetime of significant medical harm.
(a) but I wouldn’t object to a reduced procedure that left a small harmless scar.
(2) Female genital mutilation is a folk tradition in some cultures, rather than a requirement of a recognized religion like Islam.
Thank you for sharing that. Are you going to show us pictures next?
/extreme sarcasm
Just bragging.
My dad says “It ain’t bragging if it is true”
But I disagree.
They should just call the procedure "body modification" and they'll make it mandatory.
This should tickle the folks at “nocirc.org.”
I’m surprised they still let male babies be born in SF. That is just so...so..so sexist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.