Sandra's Shocking Favorite Moment With New Baby Louis — You'll Never Believe What It Is!

Wed, April 28, 2010 12:44pm EDT by 84 Comments

042810_PeopleCover051010

As strange it may sound, her favorite expeirence was baby Louis Bardo Bullock’s secret bris, a Jewish circumcision ceremony.

Though Sandra Bullock and her family had to be super secretive about the adoption of baby Louis Bardo Bullock, they did manage to share one special experience together — a private circumcision! “You have never seen adults more panicked about what was about to happen to their son, but the celebration and the amount of love we felt and the pride in the little man whom we love so, so much became the greatest moment I have ever had in my life,” she tells People. Wow… we never thought we’d get all misty-eyed over a circumcision, but Sandra just makes it sound so beautiful.

Of course, there is one curious thing Sandra says about her son’s procedure. It wasn’t just a standard doctor-performed circumcision — it was a full-on Jewish bris!

“A friend of ours helped arrange for a bris at the house, because we couldn’t go [to a hospital for the procedure]” Sandra tells People. “The mohel [a person trained in the practice] came to us.”

It is surprising that Sandra opted to have a bris, considering neither she nor her soon-to-be-ex-husband Jesse James are Jewish (not to mention Jesse’s apparent interest in Nazis, as captured in photographs.) The only Jewish person connected to Jesse, that we know of, is his godfather, who Jesse says gave him the Nazi hat he was photographed wearing.

.

.

Follow HollywoodLife.com on Twitter | Become a Facebook fan

.
.

XX

Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment

Linda

Posted at 2:16 PM on March 7, 2011  

I think I know some of her feelings. When my son was circumcised the day after he was born, I felt as if the birthing was complete. Of course,we all want the best for our children and for boys that means having circumcision.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Loewen

Posted at 11:03 PM on March 16, 2011  

Cutting off part of a child’s genital organ is not part of any “birthing process” it is a social and sexual illness. People who do this to infants and children are acting on autopilot.

What happened to rational thought? What about protecting a child’s inherent right to bodily integrity?

Thankfully people (some) are waking up to this finally.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Joe

Posted at 4:47 PM on December 14, 2010  

All boys should be circumcised! Period! The only ones on here speaking out against it are people who have been made fun of for having a penis that looks like an anteater or have boys who get picked on.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Loewen

Posted at 11:06 PM on March 16, 2011  

Sorry Joe, your assumption is false. People who speak up for the inherent human right of every child to their whole human body are from all aspects of life, some are intact, some have been cut. The one thing we all have in common is that we realize the human genitals just like every other part of the body work best when they are whole and unspoiled.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Davis

Posted at 11:41 AM on November 27, 2010  

I am curious if those of you who believe circumcision is alright for religious (or parental) reasons can agree with female circumcision for the same reasons.

Regardless of the reason, if you circumcise a female minor in America, you go to prison. It is certainly a religious and right of passage procedure in Africa, but here it is considered mutilation and is illegal. I am not talking about excision of any part or all of the clitoris (which is a worse mutilation and also illegal), but simply the analogous removal of the clitoral (foreskin) hood. This is considered mutilation and is illegal.

So please explain why doing something to one gender is alright, but doing the same thing to the other gender is not. Religious tradition does not suffice as the female procedure is tradition in Africa. Or does it mean that the location of the tradition makes it ok?

There is no scientific evidence that there is any reason for circumcision. Most of the world lives fine lives uncircumcised. Why is it that in this country we are condoning the mutilation of helpless children that are unable to decide for themselves?

If you strapped down and performed any other unnecessary cosmetic surgery (without anesthesia no less) to a child you would lose your medical license and your child.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Rod

Posted at 2:09 AM on August 15, 2010  

Why Sandra didn’t volunteered to get her own clitoral foreskin removed at the same time? that would have been a nice “ritual bonding” indeed, although I doubt she would call that operation in herself as “beautiful”… She’s just a selfish diva who thinks of kids like puppies… in this case, a puppy to get over her failed marriage… what will follow? she’ll get a special bag to carry him like Paris Hilton used to wear her dog around? stupid b****

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

rastafari

Posted at 2:03 AM on May 14, 2010  

Having a foreskin on yer winkie is nasty……….

when you have sex with yer woman, smegma comes out of that foreskin fold, causing severe problematic bacterial infiltration of the vagina… The alkaline environment of the vagina has been proven no match for the smegma bacterium.

Many men do not clean their winkie clean, and that smegma just spreads gross puss like fluid all over…. Also this smegma can infect the urethral opening of the penis, causing infections of the bladder and worse…

Men who are cut last longer, have better chances of not catching viruses, the uncut man with foreskin just traps the viruses in their fold, and passes it on.. The langerhan cells of the penis are susceptible to viral penetration, and circumcision helps with the repelling of viruses…

And finally, circumcised men always appear longer than the rest of men with foreskin. Men who have the foreskin only have it because it makes them appear longer….

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:11 AM on May 15, 2010  

Talk about ignorant propaganda!

Apparently this cutting advocate does not realize that women have much more semgma than do men and are much more problematic to clean than are men.

How difficult is it to retract, rinse, and replace–even an idiot can do this–so this pathetic scare tactic is childish.

Also that more cut men suffer from premature ejaculation than normal men…

That the langerhan cells produce langerhin which “kills” bacteria and viruses.
Lastly that cut men are actually shorter than intact men..

In a study investigating the adequacy of condom sizes, Richters, Gerofi, and Donovan noted that circumcised men had significantly shorter erect penises by a mean length of 8mm than genitally intact men (p<.05). The difference in erect penile size was attributed to insufficient skin to accomodate the erection.

Richters J, Gerofi J,Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? A method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995;8:77-81

People promoting circumcision should do a LITTLE actual research and some critical thinking before posting nonsense.

"And finally, circumcised men always appear longer than the rest of men with foreskin. Men who have the foreskin only have it because it makes them appear longer…."

contradict yourself much?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 1:13 PM on May 2, 2010  

Taking a child you just adopted, ripping his foreskin from his glans (akin to tearing off a fingernail), & then crushing and amputating one of the most sensitive parts of his body -forever condemning him to less than full sexual pleasure for his whole life is “wonderful”?

Maybe “wonderful” for her, but certainly not for the victim. It is hard for a rational person to view this with anything but disgust–HOW one can see it as “wonderful” is beyond me. HOW it could ever be considered “wonderful is beyond comprehension!

Perhaps if she had chosen to have this done to HER prepuce and then had her come and tell us how “wonderful” it all was, all of this might not seem so disgusting.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 9:59 AM on May 2, 2010  

I am always amazed that people can joke about the mutilation of infants.

I wonder if those same people find it funny when they find that they have lost the majority of their penile nerves and up to 3/4 of their sensation and sensitivity?

As for rushing through this procedure, there are enough proven risks and harms from the procedure that is sounds terribly irresponsible to rush it considering the smallness of the organ they are damaging.

Perhaps doctors should take a deep hard look at their lack of ethics and morals in even doing a harmful procedure that has no proven benefit rather than making it a speed contest?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

TD

Posted at 11:24 PM on May 1, 2010  

She is utterly repulsive. Why is she getting off on subjecting an innocent child to an unanesthetized genital mutilation ceremony? I used to like her — now I despise her for being a sick pedophile.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

On the River

Posted at 11:59 AM on May 1, 2010  

When I read about this a day ago, maybe two, I wondered why they were performing the Briss ceremomy. I’d never heard a peep about either of them being Jewish. Glad to know I wasn’t missing something (unlike little Louie B). I don’t think it’s barbaric or anything … and it’s certainly not a “Hollywood” thing, except among Jewish parents.

Having never been to such a ceremony, I can’t comment on the festivities. But in nursing school I did some time in the newborn nursery. The docs would race to see who got the circumsicion done fastest. LOL So I can’t imagine it was a looooong party!

Best wishes to Ms Bullock and Baby Louis. I hope they’ll move back to Texas while he’s growing up. Lots of space and all the clean air you wanna breathe.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Pat

Posted at 2:34 PM on April 30, 2010  

Wow. I don’t care what the religion is; it’s just plain disturbing for a parent to take pride in having physical injury inflicted on her child. Then again, Hollywood is known for its disturbed celebrities… I had for some reason hoped Sandra wasn’t one of them.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

ge meaney

Posted at 11:08 AM on April 30, 2010  

I’m guessing that because the child isn’t biologically hers, she needs some way to prove that he is her son,like branding cattle.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 11:12 AM on April 30, 2010  

Sort of like making him her PROPERTY?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

B. Maurene White

Posted at 11:26 PM on April 29, 2010  

I can understand how Sandra might want to welcome Louis Bardo with a naming ritual, but why not choose a peaceful one? Like baptism since she isn Jewish? Or a baby shower if she isn’t Christian. Louis would certainly wish to feel welcomed, but having a scalpel sever 25,000 varied sexual, sensory nerve endings while fully conscious would certainly not be perceived as a welcome by a three month old baby. Who would blame him for desperately wishing for his foster care giver in New Orleans, and he would have been better off left with her than endure a bronze age sacrificial ritual at the hands of a glamorous but cruel and ignorant adoptive mother.

Circumcision began as a mark of enslavement. As a Black child in this era, 100 years after abolition of slavery why should Louis suffer another form of inhumane punishment?

The foreskin is an organ, a nerve plexus, serves to maintain and promote health and happiness throughout life. Cutting or molesting it in any way is extremely painful, harmful, and causes traumatic reactions that last throughout life. Now Louis has had his arrogantly and without respect for his comfort or his wishes been deprived of his, has a life sentence of the sensory deprivation it was his right to enjoy.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Bluette

Posted at 10:10 PM on April 29, 2010  

Yeah, it IS really hard to believe that a mother’s favorite moment with her son is when he is having part of his penis scalpelled off. This just shows you how completely irrational, sick and disturbing infant circumcision is. It’s shocking to see the total callousness that Sandra has toward her son’s right to make his own decision about whether HE wants to be circumcised. No respect at all. It’s just incredibly selfish of her, and I feel sorry for her little boy.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Molly

Posted at 9:11 PM on April 29, 2010  

Oh and by the way….my son wished that he had been circumcised at birth rather than go through the procedure at 5 so…that should answer some question’s that have been posted. It is not at all to be compared to female genital mutilation….

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:07 PM on April 29, 2010  

Whenever I hear that someone was circumcised at 5, I have to ask WHY?

There is no legitimate medical reason for a child to have this done…this nonsense only occurs in America..

First of all, for a man who was not circumcised as an infant the chances of him having to get circumcised as a adult are extremely rare. In fact it’s only 6 in 100,000. (0.006%)

Health officials of each Scandanavian country were queried about adult circumcision.. None of the health officials could provide precise data, because the numbers were so small that they weren’t worth compiling. Each official stressed that foreskin problems were present but said they were largely treated medically-surgical solutions were extremly rare.

“in Oslo, Norway, over a 26-year period in which 20,000 male babies were cared for, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency rate of 0.02%.

In Denmark. 1968 children up to the age of 17 were examined over a period of several years. In this group, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency of 0.15%. In this study, in retrospect, the physicians believed that all three operations might have been avoided. Both of these studies related to the infrequency of circumcision and puberty, they did not deal with the issue in adulthood.

Wallerstein, Edward, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. pg 128

In Finland — a non-circumcising country — the operative rate is only a tiny fraction of this percentage. A male’s risk of being circumcised for any reason during his entire lifespan is less than one in 16,000.

The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only
2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery– a number too small to reliably estimate.
Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY p.128

And sorry, but this denial of MGM being totally unlike FGM is nonsense–it is a senseless, unnecessary, harmful procedure for both males and females..

and Sandra Bullock is either ignorant of the harm she has done to someone she adopted or is simply not very bright,and frankly she should be ashamed–as I am for her.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

captainbryce

Posted at 5:08 PM on May 2, 2010  

Circumcision on an infant for no medical reason is pretty ignorant and superficial. Your case (a 5 year old needing to be circumcised for any reason) is extremely rare. That is unless you just forced it on him. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (especially when it’s not yours). Male circumcision = painful, unnecessary, genital mutilation done without consent which is popular in the US due to cultural reasons. Female circumcision = painful, unnecessary, genital mutilation done without consent which is popular in Africa due to cultural reasons. Sound pretty comparable to me!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Dan Strandjord

Posted at 12:45 PM on April 29, 2010  

Gee, I wonder how Sandra would react if a little white girl in American was adopted by a couple in Somalia and then circumcised? Wake up! Circumcision is Genital Mutilation
no matter which sex is being cut.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Molly

Posted at 9:08 PM on April 29, 2010  

I had neither of my two son’s circumcised because I had some of the same reasoning of the people that are commenting on this…Then at 5 year’s old my son’s foreskin was too tight and he had to go through that extremely painful procedure as an outpatient surgery. Then, his little brother had the same problem and as an infant was getting UTI’s so, he had to be circumcised at a year old. Sometime’s you have to do what’s best for your child..YOUR CHILD not anyone else’s…geez people GET EDUCATED before you decice to pass judgement. It’s a personal choice and not one of you has any right to tell Sandra how to raise her child….get a life people.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:17 PM on April 29, 2010  

Another phony diagnosis from ignorant American doctors–it is IMPOSSIBLE to diagnose phimosis in a male before puberty..as for UTI’s, I would bet a dollar to a dime some quack told you to retract the foreskin and clean under it–and THIS caused the infections.

Speaking of “getting educated”, you might wish to read what the AAP says about this and not just accept harmful advice from ignorant doctors before you try using this phony excuse to promote circumcision.

And you might consider getting a qualified pediatrician.

P.S. a PERSONAL choice for a procedure forced onto an infant is an oxymoron–a REAL personal choice is the one made by the PERSON who has the penis, not some ignorant parent.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jess

Posted at 6:19 PM on May 1, 2010  

You’re are the dumbest thing on the internet.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:02 AM on May 2, 2010  

How so? By being educated on a subject of which I speak?

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Nathalie

Posted at 4:45 AM on May 2, 2010  

Your doctor misdiagnosed your 5 year old, since at that age most boys have the foreskin still attached (tightly fused) to the glans. It usually releases fully by puberty. He was most likely circumcised for nothing.

As for the other child, same issue, and UTIs are treatable with antibiotics…same stuff we treat girls with.

Too bad your pediatricians were ignorant on foreskin development.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

captainbryce

Posted at 5:12 PM on May 2, 2010  

Every 5 year old has a “thigh foreskin” since the foreskin doesn’t usually retract until later childhood. Your doctor was a moron! Circumcision doesn’t cure UTI’s (as many circumcised males still get them). They are easily treated with antibiotics. Girls get them at a much higher rate than uncircumcised boys, but you probably wouldn’t consider the same “treatment” for a daughter now would you? Doing what’s in the best interest of your child is not ripping off his foreskin at birth! How can it be a “personal choice” if he in fact has no choice in the matter whatsoever? Grow a brain would you?

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Denise

Posted at 11:19 AM on April 29, 2010  

I had my son circumsized, and wish like heck I hadn’t. I let my idiot husband (now X husband) make the call, and he picked to do it. The foreskin is there for a reason, and it really is wrong to cut it off. Yes people, PLEASE stop doing this to your sons.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Christina

Posted at 8:08 AM on April 29, 2010  

This is disturbing! We would never ok this for a baby girl, why do people continue to think it’s ok to remove part of a baby boy’s body? Boys are born with a foreskin for a reason people!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

David Wilson

Posted at 6:30 AM on April 29, 2010  

Utter insanity. This woman traveled around the world to adopt a beautiful healthy baby boy only to subject the child the a senseless and medically unnecessary genital mutilation. When will our society wake up. Circumcision is sexual mutilation. I hope the day will come when ALL children are protected from being sexually mutilated. I actually thought this woman had some common sense, but it’s very clear she is just as warped as Rosie, Madonna and the rest of these mutilating hypercrit adoptive parents.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

ml66uk

Posted at 7:21 AM on April 29, 2010  

It’s illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby girl, so why don’t boys get the same protection?

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of the genita1s cut off.

An ex-fan of Sandra Bullock.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jess

Posted at 6:20 PM on May 1, 2010  

Enjoy your dick cheese.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:05 AM on May 2, 2010  

It seems you are circumcised and know nothing about a normal penis–daily washing eliminates any collection of smegma–AKA dick cheese by the ignorant.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Loewen

Posted at 11:13 PM on March 16, 2011  

Washing relieves the human body of toe jam, ear wax and “dick cheese.”

I suppose you could cut off body parts to save the trouble of washing, but most people value their body parts (particularly their primary erogenous ones), unless of course someone else forcibly removed them without the owner’s consent, and then we see comments like yours, predictably cavalier and derogatory about the part that was stolen.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

KATHY HOWARD

Posted at 12:29 AM on April 29, 2010  

This is not only disheartening but sick. I adored Sandra Bullock until now. Would she take a baby girl and do a secret Muslim female circumcision and think it is so beautiful. To all mothers who cut their boys – one suggestion – you first……………

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

n

Posted at 9:22 PM on April 29, 2010  

Hey Kathy,i don’t know if your speaking from ignorance or if you are simply uninformed/misinformed, but there is certainly no such thing as a muslim female circucision, in fact it’s an old African practice. It has nothing to do with the muslim religion whatsoever.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:09 PM on April 29, 2010  

REALLY, sorry to dispute you, but some groups of Muslims DO circumise females.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

n

Posted at 12:40 AM on April 30, 2010  

I don’t dispute that at all Robert, and those particular muslims who do it happen to come from the African continent. I have never heard of it happening in the Middle east or Asia. My point is that it is a practice rooted in African culture and has no place in Islam, it isn’t even mentioned in any Islamic text period.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Hugh7

Posted at 5:19 AM on April 30, 2010  

Female Genital Cutting certainly is mentioned in one hadith, where Mohammed reportedly says not to take too much tissue. This Malaysian mother shows it is not too different from Male Genital Cutting at all.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:08 AM on April 30, 2010  

And my point is that MUSLIMS do circumcise females–like for all religious nonsense, believers pick and choose what they wish to do–after all circumcision of males is also NOT mentioned in the Koran, yet nearly all Muslims do it anyway.

So choosing to try to limit something as to region is hardly a denial that it occurs…that it occurs at all is sufficient to establish it as occurring.

P.S. female circumcision also occurs in Indonesia.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Van Lewis

Posted at 10:26 AM on April 30, 2010  

Female circumcision has been practiced by Muslims in parts of Iraq for a long time, and perhaps other areas of the Middle east, but neither it nor male circumcision are mentioned in the Koran at all, which does have verses prohibiting mutilation of Allah’s creation. It would be nice if all Muslims believed as we do that genital mutilation has nothing to do with Islam, instead of that it is required by Islam, as many or most do. The idiotic compulsion to mutilate the sex organs of one’s own children is one of the sickest abominations in human life. Religion, medicine, custom, tradition, old wives’ tales, all are used to mask this repulsive sickness. Rip off the masks.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Mac

Posted at 9:58 PM on April 28, 2010  

What would the child have wanted? Surely not to have the most sensitive parts of his penis removed and the exquisite frictionless gliding function destroyed in an ancient and brutal blood rite. This is an abject failure by Bullock to protect and respect this child she’s supposed to care about. I have lost ALL respect I ever had for her.

“Are you telling me that it is more humane to be hurt in the presence of those who supposedly love and care about you? Are you saying that it is more humane if a child’s first sexual experience involving another human being is associated with blood, pain, and alcohol?” Jody McLaughlin

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Troy

Posted at 8:59 PM on April 28, 2010  

She is disgusting. I will not be watching her movies anymore.

There was no need for her to have him circumcised – it is a painful and unnecessary procedure. She isn’t even Jewish.

She did it just for the hell of it.

The majority of the boys in the world are not circumcised. Her son may grow up to be very angry about this one day.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jess

Posted at 6:21 PM on May 1, 2010  

Dick cheese

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:06 AM on May 2, 2010  

Ignorant

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Loewen

Posted at 11:15 PM on March 16, 2011  

Washing. The genitals are perfectly situated on the human body to permit easy access for washing. Pleasurable to wash also.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Restoring Tally

Posted at 7:06 PM on April 28, 2010  

What is it with Americans and their desire to cut of part of the sex organ of baby boys? Aren’t they born perfect enough? The rest of the world gets along fine with their foreskin.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Sugar

Posted at 1:56 PM on April 28, 2010  

What a beautiful photo! Good luck to the new mom and her son.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Josette

Posted at 1:25 PM on April 28, 2010  

Sandra this is a lovely picture of you and your son..Many more to come.. Should you had gone to the hospital it would have been all over the papers/news..You are a very private person..Jesse ruined your marriage.. He can’t take your happiness or your believe in yourself…You are going to make it.Your the winner..Hold your head up and keep moving forward…Bless you and Louis

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:11 AM on April 30, 2010  

“You are a very private person..Jesse ruined your marriage.. He can’t take your happiness or your believe in yourself…You are going to make it.Your the winner..Hold your head up and keep moving forward…Bless you and Louis”

Jesse may have cheated on her, but at least he didn’t mutilate an adopted son, so neither has any reason to hold their heads up.

Since when does harming an innocent child add to HER happiness? This whole incident is sordid.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jess

Posted at 6:21 PM on May 1, 2010  

You sir, have dick cheese.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Nathalie

Posted at 4:50 AM on May 2, 2010  

Jess, the majority of the men in this world are intact. Spouting “dick cheese” over and over only proves your jealousy in knowing that you lack something you should have rightly had.

By the way, that “cheese” is called smegma, and WOMEN have it too.

Enjoy your scar.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert

Posted at 10:36 AM on May 2, 2010  

“enjoy your scar”

How succinct and ironic considering that science has shown that this is the most sensitive part of what remains of his penis.

“Analysis of results showed the glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower thresholds than that of circumcised men (P = 0.040). There were also significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (p < 0.0001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. It was remarkable that five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds that the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.

This study suggests that the transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. It appears that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

This means that his scar gives him the most enjoyment he will ever have.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

George W Bush

Posted at 2:19 PM on May 6, 2010  

lol..enjoy the scar…that was funny…I am also going to stop watching her movies.Now I don’t feel bad for her at all. She probably wanted to shop off Jesse’s foreskin too…

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Allofus

Posted at 2:31 AM on June 18, 2010  

You Jess, have vagina cheese

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,602 other followers