SAN FRANCISCO FORESKINS IN THE FOG

Yesterday afternoon at the cigar store I got into a conversation about penises.
It had nothing to do with the purported resemblance of smoking equipment to the male organ, however.
The person with whom I was speaking was upset that San Francisco was going to make his pantsnake illegal. Outraged, in fact. The nerve!

This à propos the proposition on the ballot for this coming November to outlaw circumcision in the city.

Yes, you read that right: San Franciscans will be voting about praeputia.
Penises are VERY important to the good people of San Francisco.
It seems we’re passionate about the subject.

My acquaintance at the cigar store was under the misapprehension that if circumcision was made illegal, it would apply to the actual members present.
And he, like most normal people, is a trimmed man.
I endeavored to set his mind at ease. No, a ban on circumcision will not make your Johnson a scoff-law. You will not be forced to wear a little fringe. Nor will you be required to expose yourself to the authorities. It does not apply to you!
Stop shouting.

I should know better than to talk about penises with my fellow San Franciscans.

Did I already indicate that the subject arouses passion?

Not for me, personally – the only masculine gonads that I feel strongly about are my own – but gonads in general are capable of arousing both interest and ire in this town.


JUVENILE SEXUAL ISSUES AND TRAUMA – GET HELP

For most of my life I too have been at least mildly piqued by such things, particularly feminine organs of regeneration.
Fascinating in their own way, and rather attractive. I can understand their appeal. They have a certain fey charm.
But it is only in San Francisco that people are truly obsessed, and cannot stop talking about the naughty bits.
Half the people of this town have pudenda muliebra permanently on the brain.
Or at the tip of their tongues.

San Franciscans are fixated.

Years ago, when I mentioned that I smoked cigars to someone, he informed me in all seriousness that cigars were a phallic symbol, and that men who smoked cigars were obviously still in a juvenile psychological phase, and hadn’t really grown up. It was, he opined, a distinct likelihood that such men had sexual issues, or some deeply hidden sex-related trauma. In any case psychotherapy would be helpful, and if they ever wanted to quit the habit several sessions with a shrink might be essential.

After explaining to him that my cigars (cigarillos) were only three and a quarter inches long, and only a third of an inch thick, he called me a freak and stomped away.
It’s probably a good thing that I didn’t mention the pipes.
I own over a hundred briars. What you might call a veritable harem of smoking equipment.

I suspect that the people who will vote for the proposition to outlaw circumcision this coming November probably have sexual issues, even deep-seated sex-related traumas. Psychotherapy would be helpful, and if they ever want to get over their neuroses, seeing a shrink might be essential. They haven’t really grown up.

And given that a penis is, in more ways than I care to imagine, reminiscent of cigars and other smoking equipment, they could probably get over their feelings of inadequacy and penile resentment by taking up the habit.
Double coronas, perhaps, or panatelas if it’s a length thing.
Churchills are also good.
With sincere application and appreciation, they will eventually be cured of their fixation.

Especially once they learn how to use a cigar-cutter to surgically remove the end cap.
It’s VERY therapeutic.
Trust me.
Snip snip.


==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================

SAN FRANCISCO & CIRCUMCISION - NOT A NORMAL PENIS FIGHT

A number of commenters have already weighed in on San Francisco's ballot proposition to outlaw circumcision till the recipient of that procedure is of age, and to penalize anyone who performs it.

Likewise, the anti-circumcision comic strip, featuring super hero Foreskin Man versus racist stereoptype Monster Mohel, has caught its share of deserved flak.

For an excellent review of why Foreskin Man is both completely loopy as well as anti-Semitic, please read Rabbi Eliyahu Fink's blogpost here:
http://finkorswim.com/2011/06/05/hey-san-francisco-1930s-germany-called-they-want-their-anti-semitic-propaganda-back/

Quote:
"Moving the conversation away from circumcision, the comic book taps into centuries of anti-Semitic propaganda using caricatures that haven’t been used since the Holocaust. Further, the comic book portrays the “good” side as blond, Aryan-looking and white. It looks like a KKK or Aryan Brotherhood comic book. The pictures are obscene and message to me is clear.

This is not about circumcision. This is not even about religion. This is about anti-Semitism.

Those who know me can attest, I am the last person to assert anti-Semitism. I am an optimist and don’t believe that the non-Jewish public hates Jews. But this comic book is anti-Semitic."
End quote.


Before the proposition qualified for the ballot I myself vented a little bit on the issue:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2010/11/keep-your-mind-out-of-my-crotch.html


Mis-guided do-gooders and anti-Semites. Plus a form of penis-envy.


But there's something else that needs to be stressed.


The backers of this proposition are deeply disturbed individuals. They have an unhealthy obsession with penises.

A number of them are seeking to restore their own foreskins, wailing that the removal of that precious wisp of tissue has robbed them of sexual satisfaction, nay, made it impossible to enjoy sex to the fullest extent possible!

They are adamant that but for their lack, they wouldn't have sexual issues.
It was their parents that caused them this grief. That they are dysfunctional is purely the fault of the adults who authorized the removal of the prepuce, scarring them for life, making them incomplete, destroying their future sexual self-image, encouraged potential sexual partners to loathe and avoid them, etcetera.


Boys, get over it.


You'd be lousy at sex anyhow. Your absent foreskin is not the reason.
Your penises just aren't very good.
Yes, your sexual inadequacy probably was caused by your parents - they didn't recognize soon enough what a bunch of total freaks you are, and denied you the therapy which you clearly desperately need.
Perhaps they loved you too much.
No one wants to admit that their precious little potato, that sprung from their own loins and lovemaking, is a deeply twisted little crud.
But it was because they still had hopes that you'd turn out halfway functional that they put off signing you up for psychiatric help.
How were they to know that you had an unhealthy obsession with your penis?

Just let it go. You'll never be adequate. There's just far too much scrambled about your sexuality for you to ever get better.
Your penis is ugly because you think it's ugly. That you cannot stand the sight of it, well, sorry, but that's your own problem.
We aren't interested. Not in your penis, not in you.
If you want to have friends who aren't as disturbed as you, you should stop waving your wangle around.

It's not just your penis.

It's you.

You're the problem.



NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, the author of this blog is a circumcised man.
My penis and I have no issues, and are perfectly happy with each other.
In fact, I don't think we've EVER disagreed.
Well, not about anything major.


==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================

KEEP YOUR MIND OUT OF MY CROTCH!

It isn't often that I get to start a blogpost by talking about my penis.
But, this being San Francisco, it was bound to come up.
[Please excuse the startling images conveyed by that sentence.]

Well, actually, this isn't so much about MY penis, as about the penises of little children.
Many penises, many little children, all colours and creeds of penis.
Lots of infant wangly-dangly.

It turns out that the citizens of the City by the Bay may be thinking about foreskins next year.

"If a San Francisco man named Lloyd Schofield gathers a shade over 7,000 signatures, San Franciscans will actually get the chance to vote on whether or not to ban the practice of circumcision."
[From 'San Francisco Circumcision Ban Aims to Spice Up Your Sex Life' by Joe Eskenazi, in SF Weekly blogs.]


Given what else we've banned in this city recently, I have to conclude that foreskins are the moral equivalent of a happy meal. Or smoking.

Or perhaps the opposite. I'm not sure.

Either way, no littering is involved, and that's a good thing.


PREEPOOZ

Personally I would be just as happy if Lloyd Schofield kept his attention off of the end of my penis, and everybody else's. How our members terminate is, strictly speaking, not any of his beeswax.
I've always been mighty pleased with my penis ("hi there, you handsome fellow!"), and have never lamented the removal of my praepuce.
I don't miss it, and wouldn't wish it on anyone else.
But Lloyd Schofield has 'aesthetic' issues about it.

I can understand that our early hominid ancestors probably benefitted from having that little roll of skin protecting their glans as they ran through the savannas of Africa trying to get away from sabretooths - waisthigh thorny spiky shrubby things and all that in the undergrowth - but in the modern world, that extra baggage just isn't very useful. Besides looking rather ugly.
Lloyd Schofield would disagree.

In the locker room at school, I was always amazed at how animalistic many of the natives looked, and how ridiculous and impractical foreskins really were. Do I need to mention that little boys are not very fastidious even at the best of times? A foreskin does not add to their cleanliness, and argues very much against employing Italian plaster statuary to decorate your apartment.
Lloyd Schofield would disagree.

I would actually quote him on this issue, but I can't be bothered to ask him for a statement. It's doubtful whether someone so obsessed with the final few inches of a penis can actually say anything I want to put on my blog in any case, and hell will freeze over before I allow some loony to go on and on about the appearance and sensitivities of the male regenerative organ in this space.
Lloyd Schofield would disagree.

“Men who are uncircumcised are more likely to have a variety of infections under the foreskin, and the inflammation from those infections could increase the risk of ulcerations, which could also increase the risk of infection”
[From Circumcision Ban Could Make Ballot in San Francisco, by Althea Fung in the National Journal.]


Prickly burs, mister Schofield, prickly burs.
Don't ever go camping.

If Lloyd Schofield's foreskin-loving proposition passes, there will be illegal circumcision parlous springing up all over the city, you can be sure of that. Not only will the Muslims and Jews see eye to eye (or external urethral orifice to external urethral orifice), but many others will spontaneously decide that, like tattoos and body-piercings, circumcision is a delicious exhibition of rebellion against the squares, and a cut penis visibly proves the unique individuality and independent-mindedness of the bearer.
Why, it's positively Bohemian!

Lord knows, I don't want that.
I'm perfectly happy keeping my penis in my pants in public.
Really, no one should be encouraged to flaunt their penis as a statement.
Not even Lloyd Schofield.


==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================