I think most viewers will be male.

Of course, I did post this http://videosift.com/video/Woman-moves-her-breasts-with-jedi-mind-tricks at the same time you posted yours...so let's see which one men watch more...

I know a guy who was circumcised as an adult. He told me that sex felt just as good after the operation as before. So cheer up, fellas.

UNHOLY!

And how long had he been circumcised when he told you that? The loss of sensitivity doesn't happen over night. It's a process of probably some years.


>> ^wormwood:

I know a guy who was circumcised as an adult. He told me that sex felt just as good after the operation as before. So cheer up, fellas.

i had it done too due to tight skin when i was about 18, and i have no regrets, still sensitive and no issues

Too bad this couldn't be part of the OCD Chef Cutting Board contest.

"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."

Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.

It brings up an interesting point. Recently in the Bay Area, there was an initiative on the next ballot about banning circumcision within city limits, but I think it got removed after multiple religious representatives in partnership with the ALCU threatened to sue the city.

>> ^zombieater:

"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.


Kind of like the appendix? Thinking evolution is this beautiful, perfect thing is no less foolish than the creationist view. (not that I support or disprove cutting...don't really even think about it)

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

wah wah waaaaaaah...

wah wah waaaaaahhhhhh...>> ^snoozedoctor:

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

Fusionaut comment fail

20,000 nerve endings?!?!?! makes me angry every time I learn more about it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm with you there. Also suffering from foreskin envy.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

20,000 nerve endings?!?!?! makes me angry every time I learn more about it.

You might want to read up on that.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^zombieater:
"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.

Kind of like the appendix? Thinking evolution is this beautiful, perfect thing is no less foolish than the creationist view. (not that I support or disprove cutting...don't really even think about it)

Even without considering the pros or cons of having a foreskin, I am simply unable to understand how anyone can condone removing a piece of an infant boy's body before he can consent.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Ornthoron.

great...another reason to hate my parents.

btw, fuck you jews

>> ^dag:

I'm with you there. Also suffering from foreskin envy.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
20,000 nerve endings?!?!?! makes me angry every time I learn more about it.


"Hi, my name is Jon. I don't have a foreskin either and I'm mad as hell at my ancient Egyptian ancestors and the book of Genesis about it."


*crowd* "Hi Jon."

Foreskins are creepy looking.

The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here

Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..

Aww that's cute, it's wearing a turtle neck!

you're never going to convince enough people it's bad to justify a ban.

you can scream mutilation all you want but even if you're right, it's still too much of a victimless crime. Sure there are exceptions, but the general rule is that either people don't even miss the foreskin, or they don't even know what circumcision is until much later in life so they don't even know they were missing anything so it's an "out of sight, out of mind" situation.

Yes, I'm aware that there have been cases of doctors botching the procedure and there are life long complications, but that's an individual screwing up, not a problem inherent with the procedure itself.

Where's the outrage over mutilation due to body piercings? tattoos?

This is something that should be left up to the parents to choose. This is also where separation of church and state kick in.

If there was some worldwide epidemic of complications due to circumcision running rampant then that would be a different issue, but that isn't happening so.... In other words...where's the fire?

In a perfect world, I would agree that it probably shouldn't happen, there shouldn't be any stigma one way or the other about it. But we don't live in a perfect world and you can't work backwards on something like that. People have to choose. It's the same with abortion, it's the same with smoking, etc. If it's ok to choose to have an abortion, then it's ok to choose to have a circumcision done to your kid.

>> ^critical_d:

Too bad this couldn't be part of the OCD Chef Cutting Board contest.


Ouch! Best Comment Ever!

I want one of those! I promise to take care of it!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'foreskin, circumcision, penis, skin, head, intact, unintact' to 'foreskin, circumcision, penis, skin, head, intact, unintact, anteater, helmet' - edited by calvados

>> ^zombieater:

"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.
I wish people would stop doing this. Did we just watch a creationist video? No, serious people use the word 'designed' in relation to evolutionary processes all the time because it's a useful shorthand.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Even without considering the pros or cons of having a foreskin, I am simply unable to understand how anyone can condone removing a piece of an infant boy's body before he can consent.
quality


Exactly. I don't really give a shit about sensitivity or "dryness". Clearly males have been perfectly happy to be circumcised for generations untold. What I car about it the genital mutilation of infants.

>> ^VoodooV:
Where's the outrage over mutilation due to body piercings? tattoos?

I think tattoos for infants should be banned, as well. That's a good comparison. Pierced ears is a bit of a stretch, though -- less of a modification and it heals on its own.

Your hair was designed to keep you warm too. Hope you anti-mutilation people aren't cutting yours to stay consistent in your views.

What's that? you cut your kid's hair without their consent?!?!! you animal!!!

This is where I have to channel QM a bit.

If it's ok to choose to kill your unborn baby without it's consent, it's certainly OK to choose to cut a tiny portion of his wang off without his consent.

I bet you've had years to practice that one

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.>> ^snoozedoctor:

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

>> ^Kalle:

The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..


It's supposed to be far easier to control when it's intact because the foreskin allows you to regulate the amount of friction on the head.

>> ^VoodooV:

This is where I have to channel QM a bit.
If it's ok to choose to kill your unborn baby without it's consent, it's certainly OK to choose to cut a tiny portion of his wang off without his consent.


False equivalency. A baby is a person; a fetus is not.

Wikipedia has a really solid article on the effects and side-effects, both real and mythological, of circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
This is where I have to channel QM a bit.
If it's ok to choose to kill your unborn baby without it's consent, it's certainly OK to choose to cut a tiny portion of his wang off without his consent.

False equivalency. A baby is a person; a fetus is not.


splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.

but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.

You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.

If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.

>> ^VoodooV:

splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.


You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.

Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.

Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.

There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I've honestly never heard of penile cancer. Ball cancer sure.>> ^TangledThorns:

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.
Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.
Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.
There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.


you just demonstrated why a ban is stupid and unnecessary. If circumcision is declining on it's own. Why is it necessary to ban it?

You haven't made ANY case for why gov't should get involved, quite the opposite in fact. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments. It simply not being necessary is not reason enough to ban it. You simply have NOT made your case....at all. This is a perfect example of less is more when it comes to laws.

If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not do it...allow others the same freedom, thank you.

Your hair grows back. Your foreskin doesn't.
>> ^VoodooV:

Your hair was designed to keep you warm too. Hope you anti-mutilation people aren't cutting yours to stay consistent in your views.
What's that? you cut your kid's hair without their consent?!?!! you animal!!!

You are right, there are many decisions parents make that will affect a person for life. Some are good and some are bad. I am for those that are good and against those that are bad. For instance, I am also opposed to parents sending their kids to religious schools that teach the kids only one narrow way to look at the world, because I believe they will suffer for it later in life.

For some decisions it is easy to separate between what's bad for the child long-term and what's good. In other cases it is not so clear cut (no pun intended). It is not easy being a parent, and everyone will make wrong decisions once in a while.

However, when it comes to male (and female) circumcision, where there are miniscule to none positive effects and some very real negative effects, the decision should be easy. We don't allow parents to perform any other type of plastic surgery on infants, so why should this be allowed? Many other religious views can be overruled by the state if it's in the best interest of a person too young to make decisions for themselves.

>> ^VoodooV:
There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.

[citation needed]

>> ^TangledThorns:

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Your hair grows back. Your foreskin doesn't.
>> ^VoodooV:
Your hair was designed to keep you warm too. Hope you anti-mutilation people aren't cutting yours to stay consistent in your views.
What's that? you cut your kid's hair without their consent?!?!! you animal!!!



Oh, you're splitting ball hairs to fit your agenda and you know it!

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, August 12th, 2011 10:03am PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

He's absolutely right in that many studies show that not being circumcised is a risk factor for carcinoma of the penis. They are easy enough to search for but the results do vary aside from the risk factor. And penile cancer is rare, so nobody really makes the argument anymore that circumcision can eliminate it, although they used to. Most of the studies I've seen say that although circumcision is shown to lower the risk factor, the instances of penile cancer in countries with low rates of circumcision remain about the same as the US.

>> ^dag:

I've honestly never heard of penile cancer. Ball cancer sure
>> ^hpqp:

[citation needed]
>> ^TangledThorns:
There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

>> ^VoodooV:

you just demonstrated why a ban is stupid and unnecessary. If circumcision is declining on it's own. Why is it necessary to ban it?
You haven't made ANY case for why gov't should get involved, quite the opposite in fact. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments. It simply not being necessary is not reason enough to ban it. You simply have NOT made your case....at all. This is a perfect example of less is more when it comes to laws.
If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not do it...allow others the same freedom, thank you.


Because I don't want a ban, stupid. You made the assumption from the start that I did when I never said anything of the sort.

>> ^Ornthoron:

You are right, there are many decisions parents make that will affect a person for life. Some are good and some are bad. I am for those that are good and against those that are bad. For instance, I am also opposed to parents sending their kids to religious schools that teach the kids only one narrow way to look at the world, because I believe they will suffer for it later in life.
For some decisions it is easy to separate between what's bad for the child long-term and what's good. In other cases it is not so clear cut (no pun intended). It is not easy being a parent, and everyone will make wrong decisions once in a while.
However, when it comes to male (and female) circumcision, where there are miniscule to none positive effects and some very real negative effects, the decision should be easy. We don't allow parents to perform any other type of plastic surgery on infants, so why should this be allowed? Many other religious views can be overruled by the state if it's in the best interest of a person too young to make decisions for themselves.
>> ^VoodooV:
There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.


Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.

and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.

As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

My comments on this discussion can be found here.

As for what circumcision in the US is about:

Religious tradition
Peer pressure
Making bucks





NOT healthcare or prevention.

Scissors or soap?

>> ^Ornthoron:

Even without considering the pros or cons of having a foreskin, I am simply unable to understand how anyone can condone removing a piece of an infant boy's body before he can consent.
quality


I had mine removed when I was about 6 for medical reasons. Never missed it. However, if it were removed for anything other than valid medical reasons that would be wrong. I can't stand parents who have their young child's ears pierced either. Mutilation is mutilation.

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

You say Tomato, I say anti-semitism.

http://www.foreskinman.com/no2panel20.htm

>> ^Kalle:

The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..


Exactly. Living in the US and having traditionalist parents (Christian), I can say that I'm happy with their choice. Sensitivity can be great but being able to last is more important to get a girl off. Besides, I'd prefer to look like a porn star than sea tube worm.

I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years, is flawed.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I think it could be that STDs have evolved quicker than us. Therefore we use culture as a way to beat their faster microbial evolution. The same goes for dietary laws. There were probably pretty good reasons for not eating shellfish, if you lived in the desert without refrigeration. >> ^notarobot:

I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years is flawed.

8===)

No vote from me because rather than just being informative, the video strongly pushes an anti-circumcision agenda, spouts lies about how wonderfully more sensitive the foreskin is intact, and ignores all the common complications of non-circumcision.

I've heard from countless people like a few members above who had sex before and (long) after having an adult circumcision who almost 100% of the time state there's no discernible difference in sensation whatsoever.

Furthermore, most of the time adult circumcision performed due to a lot of common complications of the foreskin. E.g., the foreskin doesn't stretch upon erection so it feels like it's tearing, the foreskin dries and attaches itself to the head of the penis, etc.

What's more is there are a lot of recent studies indicating that the transmission of HIV and the proliferation of HPV into penile cancer are vastly more likely in an uncircumcised man.

>> ^hpqp:

Yes, because parents should make irretrievable decisions about their child's future sex life and "porn star" qualities.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:
>> ^Kalle:
The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..

Exactly. Living in the US and having traditionalist parents (Christian), I can say that I'm happy with their choice. Sensitivity can be great but being able to last is more important to get a girl off. Besides, I'd prefer to look like a porn star than sea tube worm.


Way to go on reading what you were thinking into what I said. Quit projecting. I didn't make any comment about what parents should or shouldn't do.

@dag and @lucky760

Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).

Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.

But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I don't think it's the right thing to do now - but maybe in biblical times when hygiene was a real issue, it was a way to give a male offspring a head start against the many ailments that were around at the time. I don't think it's a practice that was just pulled out of a hat- it has some practical background, just like dietary laws. >> ^hpqp:

@dag and @lucky760
Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).
Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.
But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.

@dag I totally agree that it came from somewhere, i.e. being in the desert with no running water, getting sand and whatnot all up in one's junk- There's just no excuse for it anymore... since a loooooong time.

I dont buy the argument that it had any practical health benefits in the bronze age or anywhen else. It was a massive way to show god whose side you were on by cutting a lump of your(or someone elses) penis off. Performing surgery circa 6,000BC on a newborn (or adult) with a sharpened stone is not going to increase anyones chances of survival. Look at the African tribes that carry out the same ritual today, the families have to wait to see which of the young men even survived the surgery, nevermind the ensuing infections.

If it was a detriment to survival we wouldnt have one, other mammals wouldnt have them, they are there for a reason and has been said for decades about circumcision "Its a cure searching for a disease". The latest attempt to find a disease is the AIDS/STD studies in Africa, none of the findings of which have been borne out in further studies.

I have yet to hear of a boy dying because he didnt have a circumcision, but I have heard (locally) of a baby boy who died as a result of a circumcision, an african immigrant whose mother was following her religious/tribal custom while living in Ireland for example.

I was loling when I first did some reading about this stuff online, so much hysteria about foreskins from people who dont even know what a normal penis looks like flaccid or erect, about how much special maintenance they require etc. (none), propaganda as far as I'm concerned.

My 2 cents

Agreed. Culture adapts more quickly than evolution.

Now the deserts are paved and irrigated, and little boxes made of ticky-tacky dot the hillside. All with AC and all just the same. Culture can adapt again.

>> ^dag:

I think it could be that STDs have evolved quicker than us. Therefore we use culture as a way to beat their faster microbial evolution. The same goes for dietary laws. There were probably pretty good reasons for not eating shellfish, if you lived in the desert without refrigeration. >> ^notarobot:
I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years is flawed.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^zombieater:
"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.
I wish people would stop doing this. Did we just watch a creationist video? No, serious people use the word 'designed' in relation to evolutionary processes all the time because it's a useful shorthand.


Yeah, I know it's not a creationist video. It's just annoying for me. As a teacher and biologist, it's more than just a common shorthand, it implies a misunderstanding of biology and I feel that this misunderstanding by anthropomorphizing evolution can lead to problems in comprehension of the concept.



Perhaps I should just bite my tongue and fight the good fight when it counts, eh?

http://www.cynical-c.com/2011/08/25/how-much-does-a-circumcision-cost-at-mass-general/

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.

Fixed.