Circumcision...ballot issue in next San Francisco election! Unkindest cut of all?

A couple of weeks ago, I penned a post on the controversy over circumcision raging in ballsy San Francisco (and the bold-faced effort to out-law the practice).

On that occasion, I focused on a handful of the issues from an uncircumcised man's point of view.

Post: 06/20/2011
http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcisionflap-over-unkindest-cut-in.html

Over the past twenty-four hours major news outlets have been reporting that supporters (who refer to themselves as "intactivists") have rustled up enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot in the upcoming election in November.

The American Academy of Pediatrics - who have not taken sides in the heated debate - have issued a press release in which they underscored that circumcision has both risks and benefits and that parents should be given all the information available to make an informed educated decision about - what I refer to as - the "unkindest cut" of all.

A spokesperson for "Intact America" asserts that the issue is a human rights one.

"All people, male and female, are entitled to body integrity and nobody - for any reason - has the right to cut off part of another person's body when that person is too young to understand and to consent," Georganne Chapin noted for the record from their offices in recent days.

The group has argued - in a nutshell - that under bioethical principles, parental consent for medical treatment should only be permitted if the treatment being considered will save the life or health of the child. Circumcision is not medically necessary, according to "Intact America", and therefore violates those principles.

The risks involved with circumcision include loss of protective function of the foreskin, a bent penis, sexual dysfunction, and loss of sexual satisfaction.

In contrast, a lecturer at Harvard School of Public Health argues that circumcision is good for health reasons.

"Circumcision prevents HIV and penile cancer in men. It also reduces the risk of several sexually transmitted diseases in both men and women (including syphilis and herpes and cervical cancer in women)," according to Daniel Halperin at the Harvard International Health Department.

"Urinary tract infections in infants are about ten times less likely if the boy has been circumcised," he also asserted.

So, I rest the case.

Voters will decide in November if the foreskin should be "left alone" or tossed out with the umbilical cord.

God Bless the child that doesn't make the cut!

http://www.thetattler.biz



 
 

Jay Leno...quote on Russell Crowe's stance on circumcision!

Gladiator prepares to circumcise Caesar's Warrior!

(and toss the foreskin to the dogs)

 

On the tonight show last night, Jay Leno joked that hunky Aussie Actor - Russell Crowe - confided in an interview that he is opposed to "circumcision".

"Well, he's an actor. They're against any "cuts" in the editing room," Leno chortled.

The audience roared from below the footlights!

My thoughts on the subject were posted a couple of days ago in response to a measure to be placed on a San Francisco Ballot in November which seeks to ban "circumcision" in the picturesque Bay by the sea.

Post:  06/23/2011

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcisionflap-over-unkindest-cut-in.html

http://www.thetattler.biz

Leno "cut" or "uncut"?

Circumcision...flap over "unkindest cut" in San Francisco! For pleasuring foreskin best!

A big flap over "to cut" or "not to cut" has caused erupted into a huge uproar in San Francisco in recent days.

Of course, I am referring to the unkindest cut of all, circumcision!

The controversy arose when a posse of well-meaning self-styled sex-perts launched an initiative on the November ballot in the upcoming election to ban the procedure (often conducted within hours of the screaming baby's birth).

In a knee-jerk reaction, opponents filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the measure is anti-Semitic, a threat to the religious freedom of Jews and Muslims, and an infringement on parental and medical rights.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also argue that current law prohibits local Government from restricting medical procedures.

Hogwash!

The SFMGM bill  is necessary to "protect all infants and children in San Francisco from pain and harm caused by forced genital cutting (and damage ranging from excruciating pain, nerve destruction, loss of normal, natural, and functional tissue, infection, disfigurement, and sometimes death," according to supporters.

I agree!

After all, I have first-hand knowledge when it comes to the issue of circumcision.

Because I was born in Canada in the fifties, I was not circumcised.

In retrospect, I count by blessings!

Frankly, I feel sorry for males who were forced to go under the knife without their permission.

In fact, a handful of male friends who were circumcised as children, have confided that they feel they have suffered a loss of sexual satisfaction in their adult life because of the barbaric practice routinely performed in North America.

Personally, I can't imagine how dudes "get off" without a foreskin!

When uncircumcised males manipulate their skin up-and-down over the head of the penis - the sensual pleasure is so great - that they just about go through the roof in a moment of sheer ecstasy.

In contrast, male buddies have moaned that if they don't use a little lube - not only will they chaff the skin on the end of their precious cock - but it is doubtful they will be able to blow their load!

Uncircumcised guys are lucky a hatchet man didn't snip their foreskin off at birth!

Just think about it.

It should be obvious to any fool - that if a male trots around all day with the "bare" head of his penis rubbing against his underwear or slacks - that it's bound to get "desensitized".

In contrast, an "uncut" dude's cock remains protected 24/7 to his erotic advantage.

For example, once the skin rolls back, the head of the penis is so sensitive to touch that it quivers with excitement.

Blow-jobs are phenomenal, believe me!

Years ago, I was strolling down a street in West Hollywood, when a rep for a local talk show invited me to be a part of the televsion audience.

As it turned out, circumcision was the topic of discussion.

A couple of guests on the panel swore up-and-down - that because they were circumcised at birth - they weren't experiencing all the sexual pleasure their uncut counterparts were.

"I was butchered," one lamented to all within earshot.

Understandably, when I stood up and gushed about how sexually satisfying my life was with foreskin, the audience was "sold".

The general consensus in the studio that day?

"Leave a kid's damn penis alone!"

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Prince William...naked manhood gets nod! Prefer un-cut version?

A couple of days ago, I was cruising the net when I spied a link screaming about risque nude shots of the "Royal" phallus.

Apparently, due to an overzealous photographer, Will's willy was caught on film - in all its delicious bang-on glory - when the Princely stud was taking an innocent whiz out-of-doors.

Like thousands of other frenzied bloodhounds online, I scrambled to get a glimpse of the future King's manhood.

But, my hopes were quickly dashed.

Every link I excitedly pounced on didn't pan out.

For example, video clips that signaled the way, faded to black when I hit the play button.

On at least two occasions, the computer screen simply went kaput when I clicked on a link.

The scrumptious shots were either a complete fallacy - or - the Royals simply got to the naughty snaps first and snatched 'em up from public view.

Or, so I thought.

Sources informed me last night that the nude stills of the Prince's "Johnson" are available on pay-per-view web sites.

That's right, if you're prepared to cough up a few coins of the realm, you'll be able to get up-close and personal with the Royal Jewels.

One spy gushed that the handsome young stud's pen** is graced with a large mushroom head.

Another, uttered in astonishment, that the handsome bachelor was circumcised!

Apparently, Lady Di spared the lads the unkindest cut of all, when the boys were babes in arms.

However, after the Princess of Wales passed away, William allegedly succumbed to the knife.

The heart-throb underwent a delicate operation to snip the outer skin from his - um - blue blood member.

At the urging of the Queen, I expect.

No, silly.

Elizabeth the 2nd!

Since he was a teen at the time of the ritual (I say, ordeal!) I can only utter up one insightful comment.

Ouch!

I trust that after the Doc performed the nasty deed, young William avoided young ladies (or dudes) with buck teeth - or braces on 'em - at least!

I wonder, is it easier slipping on a condom now?