There was a recent debate on the Joe Rogan show. The topic of male circumcision came up and Milo Yiannopolous was critical of the foreskin. The reason? He prefers to fellate a circumcised penis.
I’m in favor of it purely on aesthetic grounds. I have to have these things in my mouth, Ok?
Good to know, Milo. I’ll make sure to cut my genitals with a knife in order to accommodate your fellatio preferences. You sick fuck.
Milo is a gay conservative Jew (yes, it’s true). And like many “modern” Jews, he refuses to eschew the practice of dick pruning. It’s like a monkey, clinging tightly to one’s back. Now it’s clear why Milo could never carry the torch of American conservatism in the post-Trump era (despite all of the attempts of Breitbart to hoist him into that position). His lifestyle is in direct opposition to that of traditional America.
So much has been said (and not said) on the topic of circumcision. The Major will defer to the opinion of Italian sociologist Paolo Mantegazzna. His direct statement in The Sexual Relations of Mankind (1935) summarizes my feelings to a tee:
I shout and shall continue to shout at the Hebrews, until my last breath: Cease mutilating yourself; cease imprinting upon your flesh an odious brand to distinguish yourself from other men (p. 99).
Here’s a bit of science for the disbelievers: The foreskin is homologous to the clitoral hood. Not analogous (similar to) but homologous (identical in structure). That’s a critical distinction. Therefore, male circumcision is equivalent to FGM in that they both remove the “clit” : a body part whose sole function is to give sexual pleasure. Or, to put it more plainly, circumcision is a procedure that’s designed to humiliate, denigrate and – ultimately – destroy the passion of an individual.
My son is sleeping sound at the moment. I refused to let some rapist in a white coat have at his genitals with a knife. Sorry, Milo…go look for a blowjob elsewhere!
See Related Article: How I Restored My Foreskin