Comments: 22
Category: Blog

My son is not circumcised.  Shortly before he was born the A.M.A. announced they were no longer recommending the procedure.  This has not influenced many parents who continue slicing a small piece of penis off their baby boys for no other reason than, “It’s a tradition in our culture”.  Well, we used to sacrifice virgins too, but we stopped doing that.  After all, once you kill the virgins, all you have left are the whores.

Another rationale you hear is, “His penis should look like his father’s”.  That doesn’t even make sense.  That is admitting that you believe in genital plastic surgery so your kid’s dick looks like Dads.  Why?  I don’t think I ever saw my father’s penis.  Not flaccid, anyway.  (Different Blog).

“But the other boys will tease him if he looks different!”  Yes.  But he can tease them right back for staring at another guy’s junk.  “Fag” is a very powerful comeback for a 9 year old.

A waitress I met in Cleveland said I’d made a big mistake.  She told me she’d been with a guy once who wasn’t ‘regular’ and it was like (and I quote) “Ewww”.  I’m kind of hoping that Skank Bags like her are not part of my son’s future.  The kind of women who will be mad at me for not mutilating my son’s genitals for their sucking pleasure.

And that is what it is, plain and simple, Genital Mutilation.   There are dozen’s of Human Right’s Groups around the world who rightfully campaign to stop that from happening to girls in Africa, but right here it is dismissed as just the way things are done.  Would you slice off a piece of Vagina?  It is sick to even think about.  Of course you wouldn’t, because it is wrong.  I mean, shave off the hair definitely; that stuff is nasty.  But leave the poor vagina alone.

If you are going to chop something off your son, chop off an earlobe.  He’ll look like a badass when he gets older and it’ll give him some character.  And if the other kids are making fun of him because he is different, he can just say, “I lost my earlobe in a knife fight with a Doctor who was trying to hack my schlong.  I see you’ve got your whole ear, so I guess he got yours.”

 

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives


Comments

  • Lynn - May 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM

    Awesome article! I’m so glad to see people use common sense when approaching circumcision. No medical associations recommend circumcising children. The American Academy of Pediatrics hasn’t recommended circumcision in over 40 years! Hopefully, more parents will actually research circumcision and see the dangers and risks do not outweigh the “benefits.”

    Reply
  • Blondie - May 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    That ending is class! Haha love it!

    Reply
  • June Park - May 8, 2012 at 9:49 PM

    Thank you for speaking up.:) All three of our kids, boy and girls alike, are intact as nature intended and will be happy and healthy because of it.

    Reply
  • P.J. - May 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM

    Awesome. Rock on.

    Reply
  • Naji Wench - May 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM

    I don’t think I could love this more!

    Reply
  • Layla - May 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM

    Just wanted to give you two thumbs up for this post.
    It’s refreshing when people get the absurdity of forced infant genital cutting.

    Reply
  • Kohlmann - May 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    I always thought that if my children were boys, I’d circumcise them. It wasn’t until after my daughters were born that I learned more about it. Now I know that if I ever have a son, I will NOT circumcise for exactly the reasons you mention.

    Reply
  • david - May 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    I am in high school and uncircumcised and I can’t tell you how many times I hear girls talks about how “gross” it is. Its obnoxious because it’s something I was born with. You just have to find someone who isn’t a fucking idiot and then it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks about your dick.

    Reply
  • VIctor - May 9, 2012 at 10:58 AM

    Greg, you’re a fellow man after my own heart after this post in favor of foreskin and your FB post of “10 Reasons Why N. Carolina should not ban gay marriage.” Two issues on my lips lately. Thnx on both accounts.

    Reply
  • Heather - May 9, 2012 at 11:05 AM

    I love it! I have European relatives who were very shocked and appalled when they learned how common circumcision still is here in the U.S. They were really confused why anyone would think it is a good idea to remove the “best part” in their opinion. It is time to stop this awful practice!

    Reply
  • AniW - May 9, 2012 at 11:18 AM

    Love it! The ending was great too!

    Reply
  • MrJeff - May 9, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    Circumcision cuts HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent.

    Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the link from Scientific American.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids

    Reply
    • Tony - May 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

      Voluntary, adult male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission in high risk populations. That’s the specific finding from the three studies. It’s more limited than what you wrote.

      In that accurate, complete statement, we can rightly exclude American infants from unnecessary circumcision, as Greg wrote. Circumcising healthy infants violates their bodily autonomy. Non-therapeutic surgery is unethical without their consent. They don’t consent. We can also exclude Americans, generally, because our epidemic involves drug users and male-to-male transmission. Circumcision helps neither. Finally, the 55 to 65 percent reduction is the relative risk of circumcised compared to normal genitals. The absolute risk of HIV infection in America is something around a 1% lifetime risk. A 55 or 65 percent relative reduction is hardly compelling, especially with other, non-invasive methods of prevention easily available. It’s the classic “solution in search of a problem”.

      It’s also worth noting that scientists don’t know the mechanism involved in this claimed risk from the foreskin. There are theories that may prove to be correct, but for now, it’s a correlation.

      Reply
    • Burt - June 16, 2012 at 11:39 PM

      The African studies are scientifically flawed. Several professional medical journals refused to publish them.

      If circumcision reduces HIV, why does the U.S. have the highest HIV rates in the Western World and the majority of its males were circumcised at birth. The Scandinavian countries have the lowest HIV rates, and almost no one is circumcised.

      Reply
  • Indelibo - May 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    Also, mastectomy cuts the risk of breast cancer by 100 percent.

    Reply
  • Jennifer - May 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

    I’ll just let son decide if he wants to wear a condom or have part of his dick chopped off. Thanks for the common-sense article. Penises are meant ot have foreskin. Intact genitals are natural and normal. Intact genitals are a birthright. Intact genitals are not pathological.
    “Where circumcision does not prevent HIV” http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

    It is also important to note that studies looking at the rates of HIV infection in circumcised vs. uncircumcised males in Africa cannot be extrapolated to “developed” countries, because there are multiple compounding cultural and educational variables involved that also contribute to HIV risk which differ significantly between the developed world and African countries.
    One of the most striking aspects of these trials is that the figures purporting to show that such programs can reduce HIV transmission are those for relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. While a 60% relative risk reduction may sound impressive, a 1.3% absolute risk reduction is not even statistically significant. Why are we being given selective and highly misleading data about circumcision if it is as important an intervention as we are told it is by its proponents?
    The simple answer is that there is no credible evidence in favor of mass male circumcision; it needs to be manufactured. In fact, there is evidence that circumcision substantially increases the risk of transmission of HIV from males to females and more than a hint that men risk being infected with HIV through the circumcision operation itself
    Dr. Bailey is not a medical doctor or even a medical epidemiologist, but rather holds degrees in Anthropology and behavioral epidemiology.
    Does this sound like a guy you want to trust with your health care?
    Dr. David Tomlinson is chief expert to the World Health Organization on circumcision. He invented the “improved” Gomco, the “improved” Plastibell and the “improved” Accu-circ. obviously, it is a conflict of interest for him to hold the position, when he stands to make money from each of these circumcision clamps sold.

    When you are circumcised immunological properties of the penis go out the window…for example the Langerhans cells which have now been shown to prevent HIV/STI’s and also other components are lost with circumcision. http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100157237&wa=wsignin1.0

    Reply
  • Rob, NZ - May 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

    I was circumcised and it still pisses me off to this day. The practice is nothing more than a hangover from stupid religious nonsense of days gone by. I am an atheist and hate the fact that I have been permanently scarred as a result of some prehistoric mumbo jumbo. Boys should be left intact and if they want or need it done later in life then so be it. Great blog Greg. Love your podcast, never miss it.

    Reply
  • scottie - May 9, 2012 at 5:48 PM

    Wait a minute Greg…So your saying is that your kids penis is already bigger than yours! LOL Great Article!!! Tackle Obama Approving Gay Marriage next!!!

    Reply
  • Marya - May 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM

    Love it! This barbaric male mutilation crap has got to stop! It is truly a horror show to watch these infants go through it. Infant torture aka CIRCUMCISION must end! Nice, short and humorous blog. Hopefully all the sheeples will get it! much love to you!

    Reply
  • Hansel - May 11, 2012 at 3:32 AM

    I want my foreskin back.

    Reply
  • Geno - June 16, 2012 at 12:54 AM

    Stolen foreskin can be partially replaced by stretching, and making new skin cells through mitosis.

    Non-circumcised is the norm. Circumcision is a creepy superstition.

    Let kids get good information, and then decide — once they’ve turned 16 or 18 — whether they want to go through with it.

    I was cut at 17, because my parents and I trusted our family doctor, who insisted on it. By that time I had already been sexually active for a couple of years. Believe me … my dick didn’t feel anywhere near as good after circumcision, as it did before. In fact, after the deed was done, any sexual activity at all made me very sore.

    Now, I’ve been restoring for a couple of years. Within weeks of starting my regimen, I was able to stop using lube! And today, I’ve gotten back about one-third of the feeling I lost because of that doctor’s blade.

    The head of a guy’s dick is supposed to stay covered most of the time. It’s not supposed to be exposed to the elements, nor to rubbing on fabric. The skin of the head is supposed to be similar to that inside a person’s lips. Circumcision dries it out through a process called “keratinization” of the skin. When you restore, you get that moisture back, and quite a bit of the sensitivity.

    Cleanliness? Just rinse it with plain water while you’re soaping up the rest of your bod in the shower.

    I wish I’d started restoring my foreskin, 30 years ago. (Of course, while I’m wishing, I guess I’d rather wish that I’d never listened to that asshole doctor!)

    Reply
  • Max - April 21, 2013 at 5:17 AM

    Heard that! I remember getting circumcised when I was born, and I couldn’t walk for a year!

    Reply

  • Leave A Comment