Most Americans have never seen a foreskin in person, and that's obviously a good thing.
Is there anything quite as worthless -- or dangerous to public health -- as a foreskin? Anti-circ zealots go on and on about the sensitive sexual nerves in a foreskin, trying to make clean-cut males feel like they're missing something. Even though studies have demonstrated that circumcised males have lost nothing, sexually, by discarding this ugly piece of skin, the anti-circs try mighty hard to convince otherwise.
What is really lost in circumcision is a disease-attracting piece of tissue that harbors HIV, HPV, STDs, and all sorts of other diseases. The foreskin is a breeding ground in its moist, warm, smegma-producing skin that hides the penis. Once upon a time, when men ran naked through the jungles, perhaps the foreskin helped protect the penis. But that day is long gone. Today it serves no useful function that isn't outweighed by the danger that lurks within. I can think of no other body part that has outlived its value -- and has now become a contributing factor to so many ailments -- as the foreskin.
Take a good look at this foreskin. Don't you agree it's time to promote universal circumcision to protect every male, his partners, and society as a whole?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi. I'm the owner of the website you've linked to in order to get the image of a foreskin. It is bad form to do that, and is called leeching. It is using my bandwidth, which costs me money. You can save the image to your Blogspot account and host it from there.
ReplyDeleteThere's no issue linking to my webpage - I vehemently disagree with your polemic, but that's OK - it is just that you're stealing my bandwidth.
Thanks.
I disagree with your statement as men should have the choice of whether they want their body to be modified.
ReplyDeleteIntact men enjoy four times more penile sensitivity than circumcised men, according to the "Fine-touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis" article published today in the British Journal of Urology International. The study was conducted to map fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and noncircumcised males to compare the two populations.
Researchers measured fine-touch sensitivity of the penis at 17 specific sites on the intact (non-circumcised) penis and the remaining 9 sites plus two scar sites on the circumcised penis. The results surprised the research team, according to Morris Sorrells, MD, lead researcher, who said, "The most sensitive part of the penis is the preputial opening. The results confirmed that the frenulum and ridged band of the inner foreskin are highly erogenous structures that are routinely removed by circumcision, leaving the penis with one-fourth the fine-touch sensitivity it originally possessed." Five sites on the penis-all regularly removed by circumcision-are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis. Researcher pediatrician and statistician Robert Van Howe said, "Oddly, the most sensitive site on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar itself."
Previous studies documented that circumcised penises are shorter; now researchers have compared and found them lacking in sensitivity, too. From their findings, researchers of this study conclude that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. These findings come several decades after Masters & Johnson said there is no sensitivity difference in a circumcised and a non-circumcised penis. Now their questionable findings have been disproved and the results of this study provide additional evidence about the importance of preserving the protective, sensitive foreskin.
When it comes to STD's it's not the foreskin that causes these diseases it is who you sleep with.
I apologize to Colin, as I did not realize that by linking to his blog I was affecting his bandwidth. I have taken down the picture of the foreskin. Again, my apologies.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. You're welcome to save the picture to your own account and link to it from there - that's the right thing to do. The instructions to do that seem to be here: http://tinyurl.com/chbela
ReplyDeleteI can't promise they're accurate or correct, as I don't use Blogspot.
Never mind, here is a foreskin. Here's another (clue). These have been disgusting people for 400 years. Here are more, with the men they're attached to, including Yul Brynner, Burt Lancaster and Ewan McGregor. Ugly....
ReplyDeleteForeskins are certainly not worthless to the vast majority of the men they're attached to. The trick is to get them off before they learn their value.
Sorry, (clue).
ReplyDeleteYou need to learn to spell circumcision.
ReplyDeleteGood catch, Anon! Wonder why nobody caught it before you! It's been corrected. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteUgliness is in the eyes of the beholder. Provoking has some mighty ugly eyes.
ReplyDeletehi, up to date, austrian police refuses to protect male children fron genital-mutilation, but assures to protect female children and animals from this antihumanistic- anticreatio-, anticreator-activity.
ReplyDeletea legal paper against male mutilation has been filed at the state-attorneys office in austria.
see >facebook >amen ronald oberhollenzer >notices ...
see this sick act and learn:
http://www.metacafe.com/w/yt-NVvInYhXBeY/
anyone doing this and anyone that is in favor of this: is psychopatical sick in the head and emotional frozen in the heart.
... to mutilate animals is a punishable act by
>austrian federal animal protection law< and in most european states too.
see the animal-protection-law in the fb-notices.
ALSO !!! ... to mutilate HUMANS is a punishable act by >austrian federal HUMANITY protection law< and in ALL european states and also in the US !!! too.
there is no US-LAW that allows for mutilation of humans. there is a US-LAW that punishes inflicting injury to another human.
the US-LAW is clear about it.
the fact that male-mutilation is accepted by police, does not do away with the reality of the existing US-LAW that punishes genital-mutilation on humans. the US-LAW is clear about discrimination between sexes. ... male and female genital-mutilation is a 100% forbidden by US-Federal Law.
just as it is in austria.
the austrian government is as ignorant to that fact as is the US government.
... with filing the above mentioned legal paper i have sturred up the DIRT, woke up the "dead"[ignorance] and the child-mutilators in every "group" are very mad at me.
... but if you give the time to see!!! what is done to the child HUMANITY ... then you feel too, that a normal human being must do what i do: protect humanity also from this >anti-humanity-aktivity<.
... by the way: it is for certain, that the creator does agree, with the healthy foreskin on his/her child humanity. ... no problem whatsoever with the healthy foreskin. ... it´s waterthight, easy washable and one is enough, two is too much, and to cut it when it´s healthy, is not a healthy common sense to do.
amen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNHj8-bNTpw
see this sick act and learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vTWsIvwlYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4rwD800Pk
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=AwBCElbVkuY
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=F57gvs_Bc5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfVN6vEpKss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-RbKcGKc2Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_be1ENLIqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnrbakoQfFA
... so you are able to file a legal paper at the state-attorneys office where you are.
... it´s ok if you think to do it with me.
Amen Ronald Oberhollenzer, Responsible Co-Scholar in Humanity´s School, Bacheben 1. A-6421 Rietz.
www.menschhait.com , humanity.amenity@gmail.com , menschhait@gmail.com ,
0660-1266656 , 05262-61262
Circumcision should be mandatory. Removal of the useless clitoral hood and redundant labia prevents vulvar cancer. And let's face it: uncircumcised women stink, and all that skin hanging there looks disgusting. There's no medical study proving that uncircumcised women have more sexual sensation. How could removing a little flap of skin affect sensation: sex is all between the ears anyway! Labiaplasty - read female circumcision - is now about the third most popular cosmetic surgery chosen by women in the U.S of A., and for good reason. It should be done during the neonatal period when the pain won't be remembered. It's a parental right to remove sexual tissue from boys or girls. I'm tired of these anti-circ nuts. Every women who approves of male circumcision should be cut too. Preferably with a dull knife.
ReplyDeleteanyone who supports mandatory or infant circumcision needs
ReplyDeletelocking up because there a danger to the public ,no parent has any right to modify by surgery a childs genitals because they belong to the chid.the person who said cut it off before they learn to enjoy it is potraying the sadistic mental attitude well known by people working in mental health freud was aware of this type of illness
Male circumcision should be mandatory, for its medical and cosmetic advantages. But it shouldn’t take place after birth, as babies' penises are too small to be operated accurately enough for maximum benefits and minimum risks, and anaesthetic cannot be applied like when treating grown- ups.
ReplyDeleteBesides, newborn babies and small children have their foreskin normaly iretractable. So, circumcison basically tears foreskin from the glans, which brings no benefits whatsoever.
Circumcision should tak place at the onset of puberty, when, medically speaking males start to reach their virility. Penis gets close to grown-up size, pubic hair grows, and foresking is looser, not bound with glans anymore.
At that age (12-16) all boys should be medically circumcised, as it is easier to accurately operate, affects less trauma, and they can understand the benefits of the process. As it's the age when sexual activity only starts, there's plenty of time to adjust to the new penis look/ feel/ functon.
All the medical benefits of the circmcision still take place, but there is less possibility of an accident than at a newborn circumcson, and less trauma, as foresin is not attached to glans anymore, so operaton just finishes what the nature already does- separation of glans and foreskin.
Ok but without anaesthetics, with celebration of manhood turning and as sooner as puberty signals start to show!
DeleteThis would be a good article, if it had any evidence to back it up. Which it doesn't. A shame, that.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the blogger doesn't know STD's are carried in the bloodstream. Hell, maybe he thinks that not having a foreskin means you can't get AIDS! The blogger should perhaps test this theory out.
Want to promote public health? Great. Feel that a way to do that is to promote circumcision? Fine.
ReplyDeleteWant to FORCE people to have their genitals MUTILATED against their WILL? Not fine.
I'm sorry, but it is MY body, and I should get to decide what I do with it. Not my parents, not my doctor, and most certainly, not you.
The CDC - Centers for Disease Control - are about to make circumcision effectively mandatory in the U.S. This means that doctors will basically have license to cut as they see fit, for the good of the patient. We circumcision lovers know that it's really about the sex - I bet every guy in the CDC is cut - but it's funny that there's now good medical cover for our craft. Finally every baby boy will be cut. Nobody will have a stinking ugly foreskin. Maybe they'll make it a requirment to go to school, just like vaccinations. Go U.S.A.!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's no issue with me as my mother's doctor routinely cut off my foreskin at birth. I do not resent that circumcision was imposed on me "against my will." True I had no participation in the decision and that increases the appeal of circumcision. Our body, someone else's decision! I'm dating a female MD who has circumcised over 700 infant males. Her female colleague is racing her to see who reaches 1,000 circumcisions first! She does them like me,tightly skinned way back with fine scar. No pain relief is provided, nor is it needed, they have no specific recall of the event. Howl like crazy, you bet! Hospital policy is that foreskins harvested from circumcisions are sold to biomedical firms, but she made arrangements for us to take 9 foreskins fishing and used as bait. She grinned at me every time she placed one on a hook and tossed it in. We are discussing marriage and if we have any sons she will circumcise their penises! Snip, snip,screw down the Gomco clamp, then slice off while he shrieks! Marked for life and LOVING it! Circumcise EVERY male & NO female!
ReplyDeleteFucking Uncut Heathen Hippies.
ReplyDeletemy god there are some sick baby hating freaks posting here.its not hard to tell that they get off sexually on the subject of circumcision and babies in particular.
ReplyDeletemore money needs to be provided for mental illness as it appears the mentally sick are at large among the community
doing widespread damage to the innocent
Anonymous, you & I are friends for life. Nobody says it better.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but has everyone here gone mad!?!? Everyone here is psychotic. The USA is all about choice. If you feel that way, ask your doctor to cut you, if you don't remain uncut. There's absolutely NO evidence to prove anyone right. NONE! Lobbyists and advocates have all PAID for someone to research and provide an answer to "This is right, right?". OF COURSE THE STUDIES WILL SUPPORT THE BACKERS OR ELSE THEY WON'T GET FURTHER FUNDING! Until an unbiased person does a study using the scientific method (same process, same exposure, same results, thousands of times) it's impossible to tell. Now, I was cut as a baby and now have a lopsided scar. Not very appealing.
ReplyDeleteLeave the babies alone until they choose to do something about it. That's what I did with my son, that's what my sister did with my nephews, and that's what's in their best interests. Besides, these STD myths are just myths. Medical practitioners grasping at straws for a reason for the AIDs epidemic during the 80s. The medical community has admitted to that much. They needed a reason, so they gave a hypothesis, and the masses too it and ran with it, saying it was fact. No one involved ever said it was a fact. I was there, I remember.
I don't know what studies you're referring to. But it's hard to objectively measure subjective experiences reliably. I've heard of other studies which have shown that the least sensitive part of an intact penis is more sensitive than the most sensitive part of a circumcised penis.
ReplyDeleteAny intact man with a healthy foreskin knows how fool hardy you sound calling the foreskin "useless". Fortunately for you, you live in a country with boundless ignorance. If you were talking like this in Europe you'd sound like a crack pot saying the world is flat. ;)
Any health risks a foreskin has can easily be remedied by cleaning it daily and by using condoms. Resorting to invasive surgery is so overboard I doubt your reasons truly has anything to do with the health of society but instead for control over men.
As man circumcised as an adult I can assure everyone that the foreskin is useless, best to make it compulsory to remove it and let the male and the community have the health benefits.
ReplyDeleteI agree I was circumcised in my teens and dont miss my foreskin one bit...I prefer it and so do most women..Lets face it guys... ladies like an exposed helmet lol.
DeleteAll of you are disgusting. How completely uneducated and ignorant can you possibly get? This blog makes me embarrassed to live in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI can't masturbate without foreskin! And without foreskin it feels terrible when my glans rubs against my underwear! So FUCK YOU KIKE!!!
ReplyDeleteMay all male logs be sent through the Jewish sawmill! Jewish is a great religion for females. We can order males cut, they can't order US cut! I read about a mohelet who said after she did her first foreskin amputation on a male baby, she said she was "HOOKED ON IT," for certain, great FUN executing foreskins! And guess what! She's also a member of an animal rights group opposing vivisection! But circumcision vivisects the foreskin (dissects it alive)! God DID order all males everywhere to be circumcised, for all time and all eternity!
ReplyDeleteCircumcision is the main reason I like being part Jewish.
Deleteconsidering the data on HIV and HPV transmission by uncircumcised males, I think it reasonable to promote circumcision as a public health measure. Both my husband and son are circumcised.
ReplyDeleteIn appreciation of circumcision
Linda
Why, sure... HIV and HPV are just rampant in Western Europe, where they don't circumcise, unlike here in the greatest country on Earth, where the genetic defects of humans (e.g. males) are properly surgically corrected after birth. What better empiric proof of your wise and intellectual statement could there be, Linda!
DeleteOn to female circumcisions! On to final victory against HIV and HPV! Your husband and son are circumcised, time for you to join them and set a great example!
My OB/GYN who is female is a very ardent supporter of circumcision. According to her staff she has done over a thousand of the procedures. She circumcised my son and my nephew when they were born.
ReplyDeleteThe poster that said the mohelet is "hooked" on doing circumcions is either Majorie Cramer or Julie Kohl both of whom have expressed satisfaction in doing the procedure
Of course gynecologists have always been at the vanguard of the pro-circumcision movement.
DeletePreventing STD and AIDS with circumcision? Why don't you use a condom instead?
ReplyDelete1. Circumcision keeps the hygiene of the penis and reduces the chance of cancer
ReplyDeleteRebuttal: Why not retract the foreskin and wash it every day instead? It takes less than 30 seconds. Are you that lazy!? And if you really want to reduce the chance of cancer, you should castrate the boy as well, in order to prevent testicular cancer? Or cut the girl's breasts off to prevent breast cancer?
2. Circumcision reduces the chance for STD and AIDS by 30%
Rebuttal: So you think wearing a condom which reduces the chance of sexually transmitted disease by at least 95% is not as good as circumcision? Plus, you are not supposed to have sex with anyone but your spouse!
3. The boy needs to be circumcised because his father was and he needs to look like his father.
Rebuttal: How about carve the child's nose into the same shape as his father as well?
Jacking off undermines female sexual power. Therefore the foreskin should be removed. Make male circumcision mandatory!
ReplyDelete1) There are males who have had sex before and after being circumcised, and some have said that there was an increase in pleasure and a decrease in pleasure.
ReplyDelete2) There are circumcised males who choose to restore their foreskin.
3) There are females whom have had more than one sex partner that consisted of both being circumcised and uncircumcised. Some of these females preferred circumcised males and some preferred uncircumcised males.
4) The foreskin may raise the risk of HIV/AIDS, STDs, and UTIs, but that does not mean we should cut it. People should properly take care of their foreskins in the first place. If you're going to remove peoples' foreskins because you're afraid of diseases, then you may as well remove SOME parts of a woman's breast or ONE testicle from a male because those two organs are potential risk for cancer. But no, people are advised to try and live healthy habits to prevent cancer, not just by preemptively removing the body parts that are at risk for disease.
Because there are people both male and female who prefer having foreskins, your claim to the foreskin as being "anything quite as worthless" is just absurd, as there are people who see worth and value in it.
All this garbage, evil scum for me to hunt down, torture, and burn like the filthy, stinking animals that they are. Mmmhh, makes a God happy that there is such wickedness in His world, because there won't be for long!
ReplyDeleteFucking burn, all of you are going to fucking BURN for wanting to hurt innocent people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWomen prefer circumcised men for sex, so mandatory circumcision for adult males is necessary. And the circumcision should be without anesthesia, because it can educate men to be fearless and brave. Yes, circumcision reduces the male pleasure, but a male is not a woman, so his pleasure is not so important.
ReplyDeleteWHOA! A males sexual pleasure isn't important because he's a male? Go crawl back under your rock you slimy misandry.
DeleteYes, male circumcision should be mandatory. But anesthesia can be used. The end result is what matters.
ReplyDeleteCould all those Anonymouses in favor of circumcision mail to tegenhuid(at)yahoo(dot)com
ReplyDeleteMandatory circumcision is a good idea, but I would go one step further. Along with the foreskin the entire glans should also be removed from the penis at birth. Sexual "pleasure" leads to rape and prostitution; in effect, making mandatory the removal of the glans would ensure significantly higher levels of civil peace in society.
ReplyDeleteCivilized societies do not permit males to retain their foreskins. They surgically amputate the offensive structure immediately after birth, cutting it off all the way back to the sulcus, normalizing his genitalia (full radical circumcision of the male sex organ, with excision scar/crush line visible). As tax revenues are strained, I suggest a circumcision channel, as a premium pay service, be established, telecasting infant male circumcisions, audio included. Yes, the channel would raise meaningful money for taxing authorities. Lots of You Tube circumcision videos are woefully lacking in well lit conditions. We should be able to clearly view the skin removal procedure performed by zealous professional circumcisers with complete contempt for the male's foreskin, in well illuminated close up zoom views. A red "C" is usually marked on an infant male's maternity ward chart, indicating he is due to be skinned back (circumcised). Males should not be permitted to have driver's licenses without proof of circumcised status, as indicated on their new driver's licenses featuring a large "C" in bold red next to their facial photo.
ReplyDeleteCutting back to the sulcus, that is low and tight, does look right, and is optimal for staying power.
DeleteWilly's post of August 13,2009 makes a very good point.I agree with him that boys between ages 12-16 should be medically circumcised with proper,sanitary techniques.I'm not opposed to infant circumcision;properly done; however,circumcision at puberty allows for appropriate pain relief, and the boy can choose the style of circumcision that is best for him; after all, it's his penis.Boys in the Phillipines have been circumcised at puberty for generations, and the circumcision rate there is virtually 100%. It's time for the USA to do the same thing. Circumcision shouls be fully covered by all private health insurance and Medicaid programs. It's about disease prevention and the sexual health of all males and their partners.
ReplyDeleteIf phimosis runs in the family, infant circumcision would be necessary to prevent problems.
DeleteYou realize there's less extreme procedures to correct that right?
DeleteLike teaching your toddler how to masturbate?!
DeleteBe realistic.
I totally agree. The foreskin is totally useless and should be removed form every baby before they leave the hospital
ReplyDelete