San Francisco Circumcision Ban Aims to Spice Up Your Sex Life (VIDEO)

• Might as well ban 'apendix mutilation'. What kind of idiot actually believes that circumcision causes "loss of penis."

• It's amazing how carnal thinking people like yourself are so concerned about what's in this life that will only last, at the most, 100 years. Did you know that in the life after this, gender will not exist anyway? The sexy parts will not be there, and that's for eternity. Those things are found only in this carnal world God will destroy someday. The Spirit World has no need of it. No one will die there, so no one will have to be replaced there. The angels don't even know what a penis is, much less wondering what an uncircumcised one feels like. They were spoken into existance, not born. And if you were circumcised, it's non of your business what uncircumcision feels like either...THAT'S NOT YOU. So stop worrying about this temporary life and make sure you're not living in sin when you leave this life. Eternity is long, Heaven in beautiful and Hell is hot.  

• What difference does it make? When this life is over someday, there will be no gender. Gender is only found in this carnal world, and God will destroy it for good someday. In the Spirit World, gender and sexual features are nonexistant. Sure, the the angels all have masculine names, but that is because, like male gender, there is also no female gender in the Spirit World. The angels never born to phisical parents. God simply spoke them into existance, and poof!, there they were. I am so sure that I am correct about us having no gender in the life thereafter, I'll say this...If I'm wrong, may God have me be somewhat slow and mentally retarded in the life thereafter.  But that will not be the case.  

• I agree with this.  If you want a generation that can choose, then don't make it law. . .  How could the same group of people, who fight to be able to choose to kill unborn children, possibly want the rest of us to take you seriously when you say you want to "protect" a child's body!

• The rest of us in California are tired of being pulled down into another stupid stunt by San Francisco.  I wonder how much this is going to cost the tax payers, guess the costs can be taken from the education department.  We should put a wall around SF and let them tend to themselves, maybe then the rest of California can get on with life.

• I think there is more than just circumcision that contributed to your f&$(Ed up life.

• there are more important thing in this country that need to get done this is the dumbest thing I have read so far come on people no jobs, illegals at a all time high in this country, killings, kidnappings, crime is way up, people cant pay their bills, people loseing their homes, people homeless and starving, weight problums,  and hundreds of more important things that are way more important then banning circumcision. this is not forced on anyone, and some religions require it, and you dont even remember having it done. if you people have nothing else better to do with your time then to do stupid things like this then go find a hobby, go help the homeless, give time at a shelter, go plant some trees to help the enviroment, clean up trash from the roads and countryside, anything other then worry about the stupid things like banning circumcision      

• Guess again, boy wonder. The constitution says only that the government will not establish an official religion. The Bill of Rights says that everyone will be protected and treated equally before the law. Girls are protected from genital mutilation; it is high time boys got the same protection. If you want to cut off your own dick, then have a good time doing that. But it's your choice. by mutilating children, who by definition cannot consent and cannot protect themselves from having the mutilation performed on them, you rob them of making the choice for themselves as adults. One of the fundamental values of this country is that the rights of one person or group end where the rights of another begin. And that's what this initiative is really about.

• instead of trying to pass laws for people you should ask the ones that have been circumcised what they think about it, and i can garanty you that most iwll tell you they don't want to end it, and that it was more beneficial than not..

• I demand a law that states that no man's penis at maturity should be larger or smaller than any other mans. It's not fair that there are so many men who have bigger dicks than me. It's an outrage, and by God its time for the government to step in and do something about it.

• Sexually, who's to say it doesn't affect one's enjoyment? We're talking severed nerve endings, here. Pardon my frankness, but, having been with both circumcised and un-circumsised men, I very much notice a difference in men's sensitivity. ...I'm pretty sure humans were born with certain things for a reason. As far as health, it sounds like potential risks during surgery outweigh any very minimal chance STD or deformation. It sounds like, in a modern society, phimosis can easily be resolved in ...with a *necessary* surgery. And regarding religion, YES, I'll ignore religious "freedoms" -- when they impinge on other people's safety, comfort, humanity, rights. "Ability to commit any act in the name of religion" is not a right. Human sacrifice, rape, and many human atrocities have been protected under the guise of religion for entirely too long. The fact that one feels guided by personal deities does not make genital mutilation less painful, or more correct. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation -- especially without consent -- and unless there are very specific medical reasons, it seems cruel and unnecessary. We're slicing infant genitalia, while shunning other cultures who do the same, and this sounds very wrong to me.

• Actually, it has been fairly proven that circumcision reduces sensitivity. A doctor by the name of Morris Sorrels performed a "fine touch test", incidentally the same test that was used to prove that Female Genital Mutilation decreases sexual pleasure, and his results are fairly definitive. There were no surveys or subjective opinions allowed, and people could not see where they were being touched for the test, just as the tests for FGM were conducted. He measured the sensitivity on 19 locations (17 on the intact penis and 11 on the circumcised penis, the structures missing from each were obviously not measured) and compared their sensitivity against each other. He found that not only were intact men more sensitive across the board, but the five most sensitive places on the intact penis were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis, and all of them are commonly removed by circumcision. His study was originally published in the British Journal of Urology in 2007. Take a look: http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

• Fred it seems to me that you're just an internet liar. How exactly did they develop "severe forms of sexual trauma induced delayed PTSD"? Sounds like something wasn't right in the Rhodes house, something that makes me not feel sorry for your fathers Y chromosome not going any further.

• Imagine no circumcision And no FGM,too. Imagine all the people Living life in peace. John Lennon was intact, The man who shot him was suffering from the side effects of being sexually traumatised as a Jewish American infant.

• The Hieroglyph used depicts dark skin Egyptians marking their light skinned Jew slaves with circumcision.

• My 6 brothers and I were circumcised at birth. Only one had complications, he committed suicide at 28 years old so you won't be getting his oppinion. Two developed severe forms of sexual trauma induced delayed PTSD after puberty and are now receiving SSI benifits. They don't have to work for a living and feel society owes them. I developed penis envy and became gay and use foreskin restoration devices to deal with my erectile dysfunction and depression because they took way too much off. My other 2 brothers never had children and only one got married. In the long run infant circumcision caused my dad's Y chromosomes to go extinct. Men who have been fooled into thinking there is never harm done because of their own results are in fact fools. A wicked bitch who promotes MGM is a witch.

• No studies, they say, "prove" circumcision doesn't help .. . well, isn't that special, being able to prove a negative . .. guess my profs were all wrong about that .. .and lookie here at what I found: http://www.circinfo.net/ No benefits, eh?

• Sorry, dudes, but FGM is not at all the same as circumcision. cutting off the penis would be somewhat the same, but there is no male equivalent to infibulation. Males are not killed, or sexually impaired by circumcision, and FGM actually creates a high rate of maternal, fetal, and infant death. Sorry, but it's not at all the same, not in the least. You anticirc nuts make the Phelps family look sane. You're crazier than those "choice for men" jerks who think because women can abort they should be able to choose not to pay child support. Sorry your mothers did such lousy jobs raising you. Get help.

• "The only people who want to ban circumcision are men who aren't circumcised, and women."? SERIOUSLY? Well, I was mutilated at three days old, and I'd REALLY love to know what my penis is supposed to feel like. But I never will, so if I have a chance to stop it happening to other boys, count me in. This is not a matter of religious freedom. Proponents of female genital mutilation claim they have "a religious right", too, but most civilised legal systems agree that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the superstitious. What adult men choose to do with their penises, whether for reasons of medical necessity or religious faith, is entirely their own affair. Cutting bits off children is barbaric.

• I was mutilated without consent. I'm not happy about this. Why would you be? I don't think parents should be allowed to mutilate their children, male or female. If somebody wants to undergo circumcision voluntarily, that's fine by me. But it's an irreversible cosmetic medical procedure with no medical merit, with only the sake of tradition and pseudoscience going for it. It's not okay to do that to a person.

• How is this a good thing? The only people who want to ban circumcision are men who aren't circumcised, and women.

• I think that all the Mohel's should protest. This could potentially put them out of work. Unemployment will sky rocket!

• This guy shouldn't worry so much about others genitals

• You have no problem aborting babies but go ape-shit over foreskin removal. Suck my circumcised penis.

• Frank McGinness is correct about the introduction of circumcision to the modern world in the Victorian Age. The reason it is only used (currently) as a religious practice is to limit the sexual gratification one can derive from sex. The same is the reason female circumcision was once practiced; to curb sexual desire. It's what the world religions that uphold this barbaric practice all advocate. It comes down to personal experience: I know the benefits I have from my foreskin. I can only imagine not having it would be less satisfying. My girlfriend will say the same thing. Let's face the facts: (1) In a modern society such as ours, we value a man's sexual body less than any woman's, so we see nothing of cutting a part off it. (2) Extensive research has been done to debunk the "foreskin spreads disease" belief, and "dick cheese" is no worse than a vagina after a long workout. Women have figured out the cure. Soap. (3) The only people whom have ever regretted not getting circumcised once given the choice, have also regretted getting circumcised after they made their choice. The same people who are circumcising all those Africans are also handing out and educating the use of condoms as apart of the requirement for the funding (did you not read that part?). Condom use and fidelity are "essential" to the success of this campaign. How could a piece of protective skin be worse than a bare tip? Phimosis?!! Really?!! That's such an incredibly rare condition. Not nearly common enough to warrant a worldwide custom. And, by the way, simple surgery can cure it. It may seem unconstitutional, but don't let your petty personal hang-ups and sophomoric jokes keep you from understanding how archaic customs became our generation's. There's already a lot in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an that you can't do anymore. For a reason! Give a generation the chance to choose and see what the results are.

• Yes, ban it. Religious retards have to learn to use soap.

• @boredstiff You are an idiot. How is it not genital mutilation? How is removing a piece of a persons penis not genital mutilation? Dick cheese epidemic? My god, you are stupid.

• Definitely unconstitutional: First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Male circumcision is a part of some religions, so you can't ban it unless it survives strict scrutiny (I believe). Almost all laws subject to strict scrutiny fail Not saying I don't agree with this guy. But it's still unconstitutional

• Holy Dog S**t, are you all serious? It's come to that where moral crusaders are trying to stop the evil of male circumcision...wow. I love that of all things, of all double standards, this is the one that you post up on. All of you realize that this is going to be absolutely ridiculed by every stand-up comedian out there. Why? Because it makes no sense - None. Lemme break down the facts for you gents. - THERE ARE NO FACTS Any death or "mutilation" from getting the snip is a fluke. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning, or having your scrote chewed off by the neighborhood rottweiler. More people die from eating Chinese food. What it DOES do is make your wang look bigger, dick cheese epidemics are at an all-time low, and Jesus Christ don't even compare it to genital mutilation. Least of all to Female genital mutilation. You want to ban it for a retarded health and psychological risk that doesn't exist. Female mutilation was, and is, used as a sexual weapon that violates any and all meaning of human rights, because it is usually done when women are of sexual maturity. And it hurts a s**tload more for them, roughly four times as much as getting your tip cut in two. And if you even want to get into a psychological argument, I dare you to pull the numbers. You couldn't find a difference if you tried. Ask a guy on the street if he felt slighted somehow by having his d snipped and you'd either get slapped or laughed at. Because the entire argument against circumcision has as much merit as a screen-door submarine. WOW, find a hobby. Stink!!!

• Anonymous: In those trials, a total of 5,400 men were circumcised and another 5,400 left alone. After less than two years, 64 of the first group had HIV and 137 of the second, and the difference, 73 circumcised men who didn't get HIV is the WHOLE basis of the claim. But 327 circumcised men dropped out of the trials, their HIV status unknown, quite enough to overthrow that result. Another trial started to show that circumcised men were more likely to give HIV to women, but it was cut short before it could be statistically significant. Many studies have found no protection to gay men. The upshot is that even if the trials were applicable in the US, it would take something over 1000 circumcisions to prevent one transmission, while those doctors could save many more lives by doing surgery on sick people, and that one transmission could be prevented more directly by safe sex. It is as human rights abuses that FGC and MGC are comparable, and one's religious freedom ends where another's body begins, otherwise I could walk up to you in the street and cut off your ears if my religion demanded it. The STD claim is bogus, the UTI claim exaggerated and the claim that phimosis could be life-threatening, laughable. Of course there can be medical necessity to perform this or any operation, and of course the proposed law allows for that.

• Should be noted that PB is predisposed by religion 2 compulsively cut off other people's private parts! Hence the promotion of it....

• You people all scare me with your short-sided views. There is evidence that circumcision lowers the risk of HIV infection. This AP article speaks of a program in South Africa that saw infection rates drop 60% after a circumcision campaign: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/14/international/i083640S48.DTL (It was on the front page of sfgate.com yesterday..) There is also evidence that it reduces the risks of other STDs and of UTIs. I'm going to assume also that you'll ignore the religious freedoms that people have to practise their faiths which involve male circumcision. Arguments that it is on par with female "circumcision" are wholly bogus. Male circumcision does not directly affect one's ability to enjoy sex, and any evidence to the contrary is anecdotal. And I say that with confidence, as I was circumcised as a teenager. And lastly, the law is dangerously short-sided. At an absolute minimum, even the most ardent opponents of male circumcision would have to accept that there is genuine medical necessity to perform the operation. The condition is called phimosis, can potentially be life threatening. It is by no means rare, with estimates that it affects 1% to 3% of men, although rarely in a form that is life threatening. You can read all about this chronic condition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis And I'm no doctor. I imagine a very brief discussion with a urologist would come up with numerous other medical situations when circumcision is a medical necessity.

• What do doctors from a largely intact society have to say? The Royal Dutch Medical Association (46,000 members) have touched on ALL points of male circumcision, unlike all the medical associations in the US. http://tinyurl.com/254kvyp "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene." "risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant" "Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications." "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child�s right to autonomy and physical integrity." "(concerning religious circumcision) restrict it as much as possible." "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation." CIRCUMCISION LOWERS MALE FERTILITY: http://healthvene.com/factors-affecting-male-fertility/Circumcision Contrary to Joe's attempt to ridicule and redirect peppered with falsehoods, anyone knows that restoration is painless and can takes 1-5 years. Pain/inflammation will stop the new foreskin from growing turning its energies to healing instead. Those that doubt the benefits of restoration can realize some of the benefits in a short month by using the SenSlip. An UK manufactured foreskin. Those that want to know everything about Jewish circumcision, past to present, I recommend Glick's book "Marked in Your Flesh".

• Are you kidding Joe Eske nazi? "there's nothing this city can't prevent you from putting into or taking off of your body." Why do you resist the truth? This has nothing to do with limiting what one does with ones body. It has to do with what one does with ANOTHER'S body. A simple concept that America has forgotten after its derailment, that individual rights reign supreme. Trumping social, religious, and family desires. We have no more of a right to permanently mark in the flesh of a child our need to show we care, to show off our values and faiths, than we do by tattooing or branding by circumcision. Non therapeutic surgery done to children is unethical by medical standards in all things, except for circumcision. First done in this country to mark its slaves, then city Jews who might have access to a Mohel, then Victorian culture hits with its desire to limit masturbation. Today we are still vilifying and attacking the phallus, the whole of man, man's innate sexual identity of self. As reported in the NY Times, circumcision has suddenly dropped to 32.5% nationally. We in the bay area are below 10%. People are educating themselves and see the inherent sexism and damage in circumcision. All should be protected from any genital cutting or even threat of genital cutting by others. "iceberg"? is that Jewish? As one who chose circumcision and know it to be the worst mistake of my life, I can only hope to educate to prevent others from making the same mistake else wise do foreskin restoration education. Sign me as another restorer who'll be helping collect signatures.

• It is about time someone has stood up to this. Genital mutilation is stupid no matter what gender you are and no one should have the right (especially parents) to take away a part of a human's body especially a newborn baby who came into this world perfect with a foreskin intact without the permission of the one getting it done.

• You realise that this Bill exactly mirrors existing law protecting girls? And we're not talking about Africa here. Female circumcision was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977, and in 1959, a doctor called Rathman invented a device to do it (based on a vicegrip pliers (http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#rathman NSFW) that included a shield to protect the clitoris. It was outlawed in 1996. Earlier this year the AAP flirted with allowing a token pinprick "less extensive than male genital cutting" but the uproar made them drop the idea. Time to end the double standard.

TotalComments: 36