San Francisco Circumcision Ban Aims to Spice Up Your Sex Life

By Joe Eskenazi
From http://blogs.sfweekly.com/

Soon to be punishable under modern law?

​
Read full text of proposed circumcision ban at bottom of this article

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.

Coming on the heels of this month's Happy Meal ban, it seems there's nothing this city can't prevent you from putting into or taking off of your body.

Our calls and e-mails to Schofield have not yet been returned. But, based on the material he submitted to the city attorney's office, the foreskin crusader is undertaking his quest to stamp out "genital mutilation" for a number of reasons. One of them is that he wants to spark up your sex life.

See Also: San Francisco Circumcision Ban Unconstitutional, Professor Says

See Also: Meet the Man Behind the S.F. Circumcision Ban

"Genital mutilation constitutes a major yealth risk, violates, human rights and has lifelong physical and psychological effects," he writes in his Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition. "Complications due to male genital mutilation include hemorrhage, infection, excessive skin loss, skin bridges, nerve damage, glans deformation, bowing, meatal stenosis, loss of penis, and death. Long-term complications include sexual dysfunction, decreased sexual sensitivity, increased friction and pain during sexual intercourse, and lifelong psychological trauma." (our emphasis)

Schofield, it seems, is a proponent not only of banning circumcision but of foreskin restoration. Yes, foresin restoration -- a movement in which men undergo long, painful, and outlandish treatments to once again render their genitalia "intact."

Here's the man himself at the Folsom Street Fair expressing hope for "a flood of legislation protecting baby boys from forced genital mutilation."


Of course, if his proposed measure were to be voted into law -- and
survives inevitable lawsuits -- there'd be fewer severed foreskins to
restore. Per Schofield's legislation:

ARTICLE 50, GENITAL CUTTING OF MALE MINORS

Sec. 5001. PROHIBITION OF GENITAL CUTTING OF MALE MINORS.

...It is unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years.

Anyone violating this provision -- say, a mohel taking the law into his own hands -- will be guilty of a misdemeanor and "punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment int he County Jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

You can read the full text of the proposed circumcision ban here: Initiative 10-06 male circumcision-2.pdf

Expect to hear more about this down the road. This is just the tip ... of the iceberg.