The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - San Francisco bans Happy Meals...and Circumcisions?

I wrote about San Francisco’s proposed ban on circumcision a few months ago when the petition drive was announced. This is about much more than “foreskin,” this ties in to a very troubling, nationwide liberal agenda. It appears this issue may be on the fall ballot in San Francisco. If passed, the law would carry a $1,000 penalty and year in prison for performing a circumcision on anyone under the age of 18.

Lloyd Schofield, the backer of this drive, has a website, http://www.sfmgmbill.org but was just on the nationally-syndicated Mark Levin show and gave a very guarded , weird interview. He refused to even say what he does for a living.

Mr. Schofield, for the record in an interview in San Francisco, says he is 58 years old, lives with a partner in the city, has no children and used to work for a major hotel chain.

Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm.
Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm.

LadyKate wrote:

Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm.
Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm.

There really aren't any hygiene changes with male circumcision.

Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm.
Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm.

From talking with gay friends years ago I know this was once a big issue in the gay community in SF, because being uncut is supposed to be more pleasurable and theoretically it makes you look bigger. I have no clue how they figured the first part of that out.

Still, making it a law? Practically anti-Semitic.

Well, Aizle, I can't speak on that with any authority since I don't have a penis.
As a mom, I had to clean my son's penis when he was a baby after his circumcision and according to doctor's orders had to gently pull down the skin around his penis every time I changed his diaper to prevent his foreskin from growing back.
Lemme tell ya, *stuff* gets in those folds of skin.
I would think that not having that skin to get stuff in would be one less thing to have to clean?

Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm.

I don't hear about circumcised guys getting head cheese.

The second part here was definitely my first thought. And no practically about it. Does CA have a freedom of religion clause in its Constitution?

It's okay if we cut on the genitals of a male when he's born, but it's not okay to cut on a woman's genitals.

Corolinth wrote:

It's okay if we cut on the genitals of a male when he's born, but it's not okay to cut on a woman's genitals.

You have to take into account the severity of the consequences though. The cuts made to female genitals are much more extensive and much more damaging to their future sexual pleasure. That's not to say male circumcision is perfectly fine; just that there's a notable difference between the two practices beyond the gender of the kids.

Interesting. Can anyone in this thread define what is female circumcision? I'm seeing a lot of hemming and hawwing.

Author:	LadyKate [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:25 am ]
Post subject:	San Francisco bans Happy Meals...and Circumcisions?
I wouldn't have thought that they would have been able to ban happy meals, but they did: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103 And now someone in San Francisco is trying to get a ban on circumcisions for all boys under age 18 because it is considered "genital mutilation?" http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/02/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-ballot-proposal-is-part-of-nationwide-movement/ Quote: I wrote about San Francisco’s proposed ban on circumcision a few months ago when the petition drive was announced. This is about much more than “foreskin,” this ties in to a very troubling, nationwide liberal agenda. It appears this issue may be on the fall ballot in San Francisco. If passed, the law would carry a $1,000 penalty and year in prison for performing a circumcision on anyone under the age of 18. Lloyd Schofield, the backer of this drive, has a website, http://www.sfmgmbill.org but was just on the nationally-syndicated Mark Levin show and gave a very guarded , weird interview. He refused to even say what he does for a living. Mr. Schofield, for the record in an interview in San Francisco, says he is 58 years old, lives with a partner in the city, has no children and used to work for a major hotel chain.

Author:	Corolinth [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
Let me ask a question: Do you consider female circumcision to be genital mutilation?

Author:	LadyKate [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:36 am ]
Post subject:
Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm. Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
LadyKate wrote: Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm. Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm. There really aren't any hygiene changes with male circumcision.

Author:	LadyKate [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:44 am ]
Post subject:
Well, Aizle, I can't speak on that with any authority since I don't have a penis. As a mom, I had to clean my son's penis when he was a baby after his circumcision and according to doctor's orders had to gently pull down the skin around his penis every time I changed his diaper to prevent his foreskin from growing back. Lemme tell ya, stuff gets in those folds of skin. I would think that not having that skin to get stuff in would be one less thing to have to clean?

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

San Francisco bans Happy Meals...and Circumcisions? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6028	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Screeling [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Aizle wrote: LadyKate wrote: Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm. Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm. There really aren't any hygiene changes with male circumcision. I don't hear about circumcised guys getting head cheese.

Author:	Micheal [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:00 am ]
Post subject:
This is a ridiculous law. People who want their sons to be circumcised will just take them to a doctor or a rabbi a few miles away. I am, since shortly after birth. I never had a problem with head cheese. I didn't even know what it was until I was in High School and one of the uncut guys was ***** about it. Never had a problem with sex because I was. From talking with gay friends years ago I know this was once a big issue in the gay community in SF, because being uncut is supposed to be more pleasurable and theoretically it makes you look bigger. I have no clue how they figured the first part of that out. Still, making it a law? Practically anti-Semitic.

Author:	TheRiov [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
LadyKate wrote: Yes, I do. Female circumcision, as I understand it, permanently prevents the female from having an orgasm. Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm. It does not prevent orgasm just makes it harder is my understanding. Orgasm can be triggered in many ways.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Micheal wrote: From talking with gay friends years ago I know this was once a big issue in the gay community in SF, because being uncut is supposed to be more pleasurable and theoretically it makes you look bigger. I have no clue how they figured the first part of that out. Still, making it a law? Practically anti-Semitic. The second part here was definitely my first thought. And no practically about it. Does CA have a freedom of religion clause in its Constitution? And along the lines of the first part, when I read the last line of the article LK posted, I did indeed assume the backer is gay. And the fact that this gay man wants to legislate what can and can't be done to young boys... could certainly be viewed in a light that isn't particularly flattering.

Author:	TheRiov [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:23 am ]
Post subject:
There are those who claim female circumcision as part of their religious beliefs. Why is one ok and not the other?

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
LadyKate wrote: Well, Aizle, I can't speak on that with any authority since I don't have a penis. As a mom, I had to clean my son's penis when he was a baby after his circumcision and according to doctor's orders had to gently pull down the skin around his penis every time I changed his diaper to prevent his foreskin from growing back. Lemme tell ya, stuff gets in those folds of skin. I would think that not having that skin to get stuff in would be one less thing to have to clean? Sure, just like stuff gets between your toes, behind your ears, in your crotch or any number of other areas that are easily overlooked for cleaning. My point is that if you are competent at washing yourself, there are no hygiene differences. If you're a horrible slob, then whether you are circumsized or not is probably the least of your issues.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:32 am ]
Post subject:
**** ridiculous. LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE

Author:	RangerDave [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
LadyKate wrote: Male circumcision, as I understand it, improves hygiene and does not hinder the male orgasm. From what I've read, it does reduce pleasure/sensitivity down there, but obviously not enough to prevent orgasm in most cases.

Author:	TheRiov [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:38 am ]
Post subject:
For the record my gut instinct puts me in LK's camp. But I can't logically justify it Which leaves me having to chose logic or gut. Gonna go with logic here, but I'm not up in arms enough about it to crusade for one side or the other. That said, if you twist my arm, I'm going to have to say, in reality it IS genital mutilation. It's only permissible because it's supported by the religious traditions and dogma of the majority. I find this troubling.

Author:	Micheal [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:28 am ]
Post subject:
Circumcision is very much a Jewish thing, for boys. While not exclusively Jewish, it is a religious rite with them. Because of various issues, it became very much a normal thing in America post WWII. In my Catholic High School 1969-1973 it was so common that being uncut was unusual. High school showers being what they are, it was noticed and commented on. As far as the sensitivity issue for guys, is taking a little longer to reach climax necessarily a bad thing? For guys I do not consider a normal bris style cut genital mutilation, though many do - we still have most of the sensitive tissue that makes sex fun. I do consider it rude to not let the guy get to the age of making a knowledge based decision, say 18 or so, Bar Mitzvah being too soon in my opinion, before asking him to have it done. As I understand it, the operation is the equivalent of chopping off the head of the penis for guys. Any female circumcision is going to remove all or most of the equivalent intense pleasure making tissue and is definitely mutilation. Women aren't worthy of enjoying sex in those cultures I guess.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:40 am ]
Post subject:
Ear piercings are mutilation as well, especially the ones that make the big gaps.

Author:	TheRiov [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:45 am ]
Post subject:
I think we are all in agreement that I'd you wanna do that as an adult it's perfectly ok. At issue is children. I am not a proponent of getting children's ears pierced early. (my ex did it to my daughter when she was 18 months against my explicit instructions)

Author:	Corolinth [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Every time male circumcision comes up, people justify it by saying it improves hygiene. This has no bearing on whether it is or is not a form of genital mutilation. Moreover, given the number of times a male handles his penis over the course of any particular day, it's a shaky argument in support of male circumcision. To whit: Screeling wrote: I don't hear about circumcised guys getting head cheese. You can get * cheese, too, not to mention dingleberries. That's why you wipe your . Nobody advocates having your butt cheeks surgically removed at birth. Just like you clean your ** after taking a dump, you can clean your dick after you take a leak. Kaffis Mark V wrote: The second part here was definitely my first thought. And no practically about it. Does CA have a freedom of religion clause in its Constitution? There are cultures that practice female circumcision as part of their tradition. Is their tradition less valid because it is not dictated by an invisible man in the sky? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision You can see the link, so it shows what I typed into the search bar. Look at the page that shows up, and pay particular attention to the topic sidebar on the right. Female circumcision is part of a series on violence against women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_circumcision You will note that the article on male circumcision is not part of a series on violence against men. If you peruse the article further, you will also note that both male and female circumcision have their origins in the same culture. Moreover, they both have their origins in very early African cultures, making the practice of both forms of circumcision nearly as old as recorded human civilization. This is not an issue of religious freedom. Circumcision is not exclusively "a Jew thing," and is in all likelihood something they picked up during their time as slaves in Egypt. One form of genital cutting is considered violence against women, while the other (which is performed on infant men) is considered to be essential. It's okay if we cut on the genitals of a male when he's born, but it's not okay to cut on a woman's genitals.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:58 am ]
Post subject:
I agree that they are both equivalent mutilation, and that there is a double standard. I don't think either should be banned. If you make a kid from nothing, you should be able to cosmetically alter its skin a bit after birth. Just a month earlier you could have aborted it.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:01 am ]
Post subject:
I never claimed it was exclusively "a Jew thing." And I'm not well-read on female circumcision. Is it illegal?

Author:	RangerDave [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Corolinth wrote: It's okay if we cut on the genitals of a male when he's born, but it's not okay to cut on a woman's genitals. You have to take into account the severity of the consequences though. My understanding is that the cuts made to female genitals are much more extensive and much more damaging to their future sexual pleasure. That's not to say male circumcision is perfectly fine; just that there's a notable difference between the two practices beyond the gender of the kids.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
RangerDave wrote: Corolinth wrote: It's okay if we cut on the genitals of a male when he's born, but it's not okay to cut on a woman's genitals. You have to take into account the severity of the consequences though. The cuts made to female genitals are much more extensive and much more damaging to their future sexual pleasure. That's not to say male circumcision is perfectly fine; just that there's a notable difference between the two practices beyond the gender of the kids. I doubt it, you don't have any evidence for this.

Author:	Hopwin [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:18 am ]
Post subject:
Interesting. Can anyone in this thread define what is female circumcision? I'm seeing a lot of hemming and hawwing.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Hopwin wrote: Interesting. Can anyone in this thread define what is female circumcision? I'm seeing a lot of hemming and hawwing. In a nutshell, they remove the clitorus and the clitoral hood. It basically makes sex very painful for most women, and removes their ability to have an orgasm.