It’s male genital mutilation, whether it’s done in a hospital, by a Jewish weenie-slicing specialist, or by a jungle witch doctor using a shard of glass.

God Damned neo-Victorian circumcisionists.  I want my fucking foreskin back!

Now Christians can know the dangers of an unclean mohel.

But now, with the election over, the city's Health Department, while not banning the procedure, is angering those Hasidic leaders just the same by pushing a public health campaign against the rite, in which the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the circumcision wound to clean it. The department took the action after linking the rite to additional cases of herpes in infants, one of whom suffered brain damage as a result.

I am quite resigned to my holy covenant/ritual mutilation. I experience no loss of sexual function or sensitivity, as far as I'm concerned. As the experience is entirely subjective (despite studies indicating what should the case), men in either camp can't really speak for the other. American hospitals have made the procedure more "optional" than it used to be (which is to say, they're not dunning gentiles into getting it for health or aesthetic reasons). However, most parents--read: fathers--remain prone to sticking with what's familiar; i.e., if they're circumcised, then the male children are likely to be as well. Mohels/moyls do not perform the bris on non-Jewish boys, and I am personally unfamiliar with any blood-sucking action. That would have been an unseemly addition to my own rite, performed April 9, 1971.

On the bright side, I now have a wallet that turns into a briefcase if you rub it.

Maybe I'm just use to what I know but I wouldn't want my kids to have todgers that look like tube worms. The older I get, the more I think I shouldn't have had it done. Who knows.

You want a foreskin so badly? Do it [to] yourself. In the meanwhile, they've got whole forums and even a "Mothers Against" site. I find the latter most irksome. All these years I've spent discouraging men from controlling women's bodies, I find there's a coven of bitches who want to exercise some opinion regarding a part of the male anatomy that has nothing to do with them whatsoever. I bet their husbands put them up to it. It was either that or another Oprah book club. Fail.

Pros: sexual duration increased due to loss sensitivity, less likely to catch VD (hotly debated)
Cons: penis size/squishiness diminished, no place to hide your gum in a sandstorm

pALEPHx wrote:

a "Mothers Against" site. I find the latter most irksome.

I ran into these assholes who were tabling at an antiwar protest.  I had to ask them if intact foreskins would stop the war.  They did give me cool “no circumcision” stickers that I put on paper cutters and pencil sharpeners at work.

As a man who has had the Ginsu treatment, I don't get the "loss of sexual feeling" argument. My willie seems more sensitive than I can usually handle and I don't see how keeping it locked in a warm moist dark cave most of it's natural life is going to help that.

Besides, if I want to keep a collection of lint, that is what Dog invented belly buttons for.

As a female, I am in favor of non circumsized.

However, now that I am dating jewish, I guess that's not an option this time around.

Oh well.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

As a man who has had the Ginsu treatment, I don't get the "loss of sexual feeling" argument. My willie seems more sensitive than I can usually handle and I don't see how keeping it locked in a warm moist dark cave most of it's natural life is going to help that.

That is because, anatomically, you are a fucking idiot.

Callaoused skin is less sensitive than supple skin.  The foreskin keeps the glans soft and highly sensitive like the clitoral hood does for the ladies.  Removing the foreskin allows the glans to keratinize, or the skin becomes thicker and tougher.  This is due to repeated rubbing on the inside of the clothes.

Scotty wrote:

Not necessarily.

There are also "Jews for Jesus." I wouldn't listen to them either.

And Jews for Firearms and this group.

pALEPHx wrote:

when you're finding a "Jews for anything" type group, it's one rabbi and the half-hearted subset of his congregation.

What about Jews for Nazi Porn?

pALEPHx wrote:

I was, however, always curious to know if Muslims circumcised, ritually or otherwise.

The Hindus, with their tiny intact foreskins stinking of curry, love to make fun of the Muslims for their cut penises.  However, it’s not in the Qur’an.  Sheeny, raghead, or crossback, everybody snips in the arid Middle East.  No one wants sand in their prepuce.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs