Sunday, October 21, 2012

Gonorrhea: The New AIDS?

As true now as it was in the 1940's
Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted disease which if left untreated will cause sterility as well as other painful complications. Untreated gonorrhea infection spreads to sites other than the genitals, such as the joints, skin, heart, or blood. It may even be fatal.

And apparently there will soon be no treatment for it.

Gonorrhea can be transmitted from either partner to the other by vaginal and anal sex as well as by fellatio.

It is true that latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, reduce the risk of transmission of STDs such as gonorrhea. However very few people actually do use them consistently and correctly, for many reasons, between the discomfort of condom usage to the lack of sobriety of people having sex.  Surveys indicate that most sexually active unmarried Americans seldom use condoms at all. During fellatio it seems to be unheard of.

This should give a little bit of pause to potential atheists out there who are looking forward to a life of sexual freedom. They could well be in for a life of permanent misery. And it helps us to appreciate the great wisdom of the Torah's emphasis on chastity.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why are you posting pictures of your mom?

Anonymous said...

Is it still safe to get handjobs?

jewish philosopher said...

I thought that was your mother. And I would ask your doctor and your rabbi about all jobs until further notice,

Abe said...

How about potential non-atheists who are looking for sexual freedom? Have you done any scientific statistical evaluations regarding the percentage of non-atheists who have become infected with gonorrhea?
Or as is your habit, do you just make this stuff up to appease your priggish predilections?

jewish philosopher said...

You don't get Gonorrhea from being orthodox.

Abe said...

Chareidi orthodox also don't engage in critical thinking. But that wasn't the the point of my previous comment, which you disingenuously ignore.

So, have you done any scientific statistical evaluations regarding the percentage of non-atheists who have become infected with gonorrhea?
Oh, never mind. I forgot that you're incapable of answering the question .... because if you can't engage in clear, rational thought informed by evidence, well, you'll find myriad irrational solutions to justify your conclusions. Its the true torah way.

jewish philosopher said...

Keep the Torah and you'll be fine. If you don't, don't expect my tax dollars to keep you on life support while bacteria eat you up.

Remember - she looks clean, but....

Dave said...

Moral coherence is when you have a moral position and then you make the facts fit your position pragmatically, like US Rep Todd Akin's comment about "legitimate rape"

http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2012/10/in-defense-of-akin-moral-coherence-is-common/

He holds that abortion is bad, so it couldn't be that a situation would arise where an abortion would be desirable, like after rape. So you make up your science to say that a raped woman can't get pregnant.

This post does the same thing. Extramarital sex is claimed to be immoral, and then you "prove" that it is also dangerous.

JP, its also dangerous to get into a car and drive somewhere. Do you have any statistics as to what is more dangerous-- driving or casual safe sex?

Do you honestly think that you convince anybody?

ksil said...

there a millions of people who are "fine" and dont keep the torah.

your false choices of orthodox rabbinic judaism (lol) or a life of atheism devoid of morality is silly.

oh how nice it would be if they would teach science english social studies and math as well as critical thinknig in orthodox jewish schools...we have so much to learn from secular society. note to JP's kids: search for the truth! try to escape!

jewish philosopher said...

"JP, its also dangerous to get into a car and drive somewhere."

I would say that extramarital sex is more like shooting heroin than driving. There is no practical need for it and the thrill such as it is is not worth the terrible consequences.

"there a millions of people who are "fine" and dont keep the torah."

There probably were plenty of Nazis who were also fine. So?

natschuster said...

ksil:

My attended an Orthodox Jewish High school. She got perfect scores two years in a row on the Math Regents and won a very prestigious scholarship.

What is really interesting is how poorly public schools , with all that emphasis on critical thinking skills that you value so much, are doing.

Dave said...

"I would say that extramarital sex is more like shooting heroin than driving. There is no practical need for it and the thrill such as it is is not worth the terrible consequences."

If that statement is as obvious as you seem to think, I would expect that health organizations or government authorities would target that behavior and try to stop it, as with drug use, obesity or smoking. Insurance companies which operate strictly on a practical business model, would seek such information about applicants and refuse coverage or raise premiums.

Ironmistress said...

I must admit I was involved in premarital sex when I was young.

I am still married to the guy to whom I lost my virginity years ago.

The keyword here is "promiscuity". IMO it really does not hurt if the sexual life is premarital or nonmarital as long as the question is of a standing and lasting relationship, and care is taken of contraception. What makes nonmarital sex dangerous is promiscuity and promiscuous relationships.

I must agree promiscuous sex is more like shooting heroin than having a joyride. If also condoms are disdained, it makes it rather like playing Russian roulette than shooting heroin. Gonorrhea, syphilis and HIV are no jokes - especially syphilis.

Had Adolf Hitler not casualled prostitutes as a youth and not caught syphilis, he might well have made it to Vienna Polytechnic and an architect. Austria would be full of ugly buildings, but there had not been Holocaust nor WWII.

jewish philosopher said...

"If that statement is as obvious as you seem to think, I would expect that health organizations or government authorities would target that behavior and try to stop it"

You're making what is known as an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"), a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

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

Dave said...

"You're making what is known as an argumentum ad populum"

No, I am arguing that there is simply no evidence for your claim. (and the organizations I mention base their policies on evidence, not religious philsophy)

Perhaps you could argue instead that I am making argument by authority, which in this case is not a fallacy because the organizations I mentioned ARE authorities regarding risky behaviors. They make a living by studying and identifying these things.

jewish philosopher said...

"the organizations I mentioned ARE authorities regarding risky behaviors"

I'm not sure what your point is. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

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

the emergence of antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is a potentially major health care crisis and the surest way to avoid transmission of gonorrhea is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/2012/GonorrheaTreatmentGuidelinesFactSheet8-9-2012.pdf

This post just quotes the latest science.

Just because something is at the moment legal is not proof that it's safe or a smart thing to do. Ask anyone dying from tobacco caused lung cancer or suffering from obesity caused diabetes.

Regarding health insurance companies which operate strictly on a practical business model, you indeed will probably not get individual insurance if you are messing around with good time girls. Even if not, you'll be lucky to get it even with a high premium and a high deductible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html

Dave said...

1. As usual, you quote incompletely and out of context, not mentioning the rest of the conclusions for effective prevention and treatment.
2. Long term monogomous relationship is not necessarily marital.
3. Not sure where you get your information about insurance. I've bought life and medical insurance before, and have not been asked about my sexual habits-- only existing diseases or known risk factors.

Dave said...

It would be interesting to hear your take on the increasing lifespans in Western countries-- despite the seemingly dangerous behavior and debauchery practiced by their citizens. Interestingly, in Iran the average life expectancy is 10 years shorter than it is in Italy.

It doesn't prove anything, but it kind of debunks your idea of how dangerous western culture is to your health.

jewish philosopher said...

"I've bought life and medical insurance before, and have not been asked about my sexual habits-- only existing diseases or known risk factors."

According to this article 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html

a health insurer may turn you down because of a corn on your toe for which your podiatrist had recommended an in-office procedure. Now if you've had gonorrhea, they probably won't be thrilled either.

"It would be interesting to hear your take on the increasing lifespans in Western countries"

That may be changing. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/life-expectancy-in-the-us-varies-widely-by-region-and-in-some-places-is-decreasing/2011/06/13/AGdHuZVH_story.html

And if gonorrhea becomes the new AIDS that will definitely change.

Also, although the Western country elderly may be kept alive thanks to modern medical care, which is bankrupting the US, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Spending

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm#HowAre

however they often have a low quality of life, which is to some extent due to poor lifestyle choices.

http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/189/

You may have people living to 85 but constantly sick and/or disabled since age 65 or younger. You may be HIV positive or have antibiotic resistant gonorrhea and be alive but I wouldn't envy you.

DAve said...

You paint a very dark picture of quality of life in Western countries, and perhaps if you are black and live in a poor, neglected inner city area then maybe you are right. But I would not characterize this as the life of a middle class American, Canadian or European.

Dave said...

" Now if you've had gonorrhea, they probably won't be thrilled either."

You pulled a fast one, JP. We were referring to the lifestyle/risk factor, not having the disease.

You claimed to describe secular lifestyle as dangerous, and I argued that insurance companies don't define sexual habits as risk factors (they probably can't ask about homosexuality for legal reasons, but they could ask other things, theoretically.)

The correlation at a country level between wealth/prosperity and lack of religiousness is interesting. Causality is hard to prove, but social scientists propose (I would agree with them) that prosperity tends to allow people more freedom and independence, causing them to abandon religion. In contrast, if your country is poor, war-torn, or otherwise full of suffering, you tend to turn to religion for comfort and support.

In other words, religion is for the world's losers.

jewish philosopher said...

"I argued that insurance companies don't define sexual habits as risk factors"

Perhaps because it's something no one will be honest about. Remember Monica?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal#Denial_and_subsequent_admission

With your spouse sitting next to you, you're really going to check "yes" to "I have unprotected sex with people I am not married to".

Anyway, I don't base my health choices on what isn't on health insurance applications. I don't think your doctor would recommend that idea either.

"In other words, religion is for the world's losers."

I dunno.

China has a high percentage of atheists, while the US has a low percentage

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist1b.htm

however the Chinese quality of life is significantly worse than the US quality of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Quality-of-life_2005.svg&page=1

In Europe, lack of monotheism seems to correlate to lack of children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_No_Belief.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_population_over_65.png

So a lot, perhaps most, of the world's atheists are either miserable east Asians or soon to be extinct Caucasians. Not really winners in my book.

Dave said...

Nor Afghans, Iranians, Egyptians or Syrians.

Dave said...

And the Chinese are neither miserable nor atheists (their communist government may be).

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

Their GDP will overtake that of the US in the next 10 years.

jewish philosopher said...

If we were living 1850 years ago, most likely you, an apostate Jew, would have boasted to me, a loyal Jew, that it's obvious that those who worship Jupiter are winners while we Jews who worship our invisible God are losers.

After all, Jupiter was the main deity of the Roman Empire 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

The Roman empire was vaster was than any seen in previous history and few seen since

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png

The Romans had brutally destroyed the Jewish community in Judea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt#Long-term_consequences_and_historic_importance

Rabbis were tortured to death

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10447-martyrs-the-ten

Jerusalem was wiped out and replaced by a Jew free Roman city dedicated to Jupiter and a temple to Jupiter occupied the Temple Mount

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

Jews were singled out to pay a special tax to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome

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

What could be more blindingly obvious that Jupiter is real and he is succeeding while Judaism is finished? No doubts thousands of Jews indeed accepted that argument.

Well, where is Jupiter today? I don't believe he has one worshipper. While probably a majority of mankind believes in Jewish based monotheism in some form.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

And about those martyred rabbis, tens of thousands of people daily pour over their teachings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/nyregion/nearly-90000-jews-celebrate-talmud-at-metlife-stadium.html

So I would reframe from getting excited about the latest religious fashions. They come and go.

Dave said...

Why should I care what happens to religions or nations over thousands of years? All empires come and go, including the Judaen empire. "Go" doesn't mean disappear, just like the British Empire is now just a country and no Empire. The USA won't rule the world forever, either.

And the reason the Judaen empire was vanquished was because of Jews' own stupidity at the time-- letting their extremists rebel against the Roman empire.

There's nothing wrong with you being proud of your Judaism, but it is no different than any other form of tribalism or national pride.

My point is that religion is more popular among people who are down and out, disadvantaged, ignorant, persecuted or suffering. They turn to religion to give them community, meaning, and comfort. OTOH, people who are doing well have no need for such self-delusions. Of course this is not 100%, as no phenomenon is 100% correct, and I'm sure you'll point out exceptions, but the generalization is blindingly obvious when you look around.

jewish philosopher said...

I would say that atheism is a religion which appeals strongly to addicts

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

and people who are really impoverished and living on a substance level cannot afford too many addictions. Addictions are luxuries.

Secondly, as I explained regarding Jupiter, the the popularity of one religion or another at a certain era in history proves nothing about its validity.

Ironmistress said...

Umm... I beg to disagree here.

Romans were never known for their religious zeal or religious fervour. The Roman Pagan religion was far more just a collection of rites and traditions rather than a living religion. It had died pretty much already during the Republican era, and turned into merely ceremonial collection of rituals and Imperial cult.

Anyone living in the 1st century Rome would have realized the vast number of cults, foreign religions and deities there. Various mystery religions were strong, as were sex and fertility cults and also various philosophies. Buddhism had entered Roman Empire in the East.

In the 2nd century it was pretty certain Jupiter wasn't to be the winner in the long run. Rome was a religious anarchy, and various religions and cults fought over the place in the sun.

In the 3rd century the candidates were already pretty evident. It would be either Buddhism, Mithraism, any of the fertility cults - or YHWH, either in Rabbinic or Messianic form.

In the end YHWH won - in the Messianic form, which was to become Christianity. But Rabbinical Judaism survived just as well. Buddhism exists today as well, but there is very little to speak about Mithra, Cybele, Magna Mater, Sol Invictus or any of the other deities.

Including Juppiter Deus Optimus Maximus.

Dave said...

"I would say that atheism is a religion which appeals strongly to addicts"

Is that a scientifically testable claim? How could we check that, assuming that this has not been done?

"and people who are really impoverished and living on a substance level cannot afford too many addictions. Addictions are luxuries."

I think that assertion contradicts our common sense and what we actually know about drug and alcohol abuse. For example:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/es/node/2435

Poverty is a risk factor.

" the the popularity of one religion or another at a certain era in history proves nothing about its validity."

I didn't say it did. I remarked about who are losers--meaning the weak, uneducated and disadvantaged.

Ironmistress said...

Dave, let's say I've ridden on the crest of the wave of human happiness.

And I have also been on the trough of the same wave.

I've seen both sides of the life - both misery and happiness. I can neither deny nor approve the existence of God. Can I be an Agnostic?

Anonymous said...

JP:

You got to get some kind of podcast going – interviews, call in, whatever. An internet radio broadcast – it’s time.

Tuvia

laugh out loud said...

I do believe that the suicide rates in secular countries are significantly higher than in religious countries. In atheistic countries it is even higher. If my memory serves me correctly, religious people have lower suicide rates in general. If secular people are so happy, why do they kill themselves more often? And it isn't just direct suicide. Other forms of self destructive behavior are more common among secular people as well.

jewish philosopher said...

"Is that a scientifically testable claim?"

It is as much are any claims which atheists make about monotheists. Just for example, Christopher Hitchens contended that organised religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children" and sectarian, and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience."

I would love to see the scientific tests proving that.

"Poverty is a risk factor."

What is called "poverty" in the US today would be called wealth in most other times and places.

"I remarked about who are losers--meaning the weak, uneducated and disadvantaged."

Like for example the atheist population of North Korea, who are strong, educated and advantaged?

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

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

Dave said...

JP, you are throwing in red herrings left and right. I don't care what Hitchens thought of religion. He's not making a scientific claim about nature, as you are.

And, North Korea is the exception that proves the rule. Richer, more successful countries are less religious, on average. You like to say that religious people are nicer, ON AVERAGE, right? Does that mean that EVERY religious person is nice?

So unless you want to compare yourself with Hitchens, I return to my original challenge.

By asserting that free will exists independent of the brain, and resides in a soul, you are making a specific factual claim about nature and reality. As such, if the claim is to have any meaning, there must be a way to test it. I'm all ears about how to test your claim.

I'm not claiming that its false. I just want you to use something other than your magical rhetorical capabilities (like "turning worms into people") and tell me how I can test for a soul, or free will independent of the brain.

Dave said...

Sorry, I got mixed up between the two posts.

jewish philosopher said...

"He's not making a scientific claim about nature, as you are."

I'm making a claim about atheists being frequently addicts.

"Richer, more successful countries are less religious, on average."

First of all, it's interesting how the entire foreign policy of the United States seems to be focused on Muslims - who in your view are "losers".

Secondly, even if you're right, in 150 CE worshippers of Jupiter, meaning the Romans, were unbelievably successful, which proves nothing about Jupiter.

"As such, if the claim is to have any meaning, there must be a way to test it."

It's an undeniable subjective feeling which all humans possess. That's good enough proof for me.

laugh out loud said...

Dave:

I'm a little confused. Atheists claim that America is a religious country when talking about how much better things are in Sweden. Then they say America is a secular country when compared to Bangladesh.

And are rich people happier? I know religious people are?

Dave said...

"It's an undeniable subjective feeling which all humans possess.
That's good enough proof for me."

So is the sky and the ocean being blue.
Are they actually "blue"?

"I'm making a claim about atheists being frequently addicts."

More than non-atheists? That claim should be easily testable and verifiable.

The sun looks bigger at sunset. Does it actually get bigger?

jewish philosopher said...

"More than non-atheists? That claim should be easily testable and verifiable."

No problem. Cut me a check a for a five million dollar research grant and consider it done.

Anyway, I think this study provides a clue.

http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/379-So%20Help%20Me%20God.pdf

Dave said...

Let's suppose 1 in a 1000 atheists are addicts and 1 in 10,000 non-atheists are addicts. Is that supposed to make people believe in something they don't actually believe in?

Another important point, that your trumpeting about the healthy Orthodox lifestyle is really only true where Jews have prospered post-WW2 in tolerant western countries, when everybody prospered, not just Jews.

Prior to that, Orthodox Jews were, with a few exceptions, primarily poor, persecuted and powerless. Being a Jew in the 1400-1900s in Europe was bad for your health. Basically Judaism was a fatal disease. If you didn't die of TB, the plague or the flu, you where likely to be slaughtered by your fellow Abrahamic co-religionist Christian or Muslim brothers. Would you advocate for those that tried to convert, as many did? They were doing it for their health!

jewish philosopher said...

"Is that supposed to make people believe in something they don't actually believe in?"

Actually quite a few atheists have addiction issues. Consider Christopher Hitchens, atheist hero and icon, who recently suffered a bitter end.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2011/12/hitchens-is-not-great.html

And I think that atheists should ponder why a belief in God, which is a fallacy, would appear to be overall beneficial. Do we find other examples of misguided, delusional people who are more successful than rational, clear thinking people? So does this hint to something?

"Orthodox Jews were, with a few exceptions, primarily poor, persecuted and powerless. Being a Jew in the 1400-1900s in Europe was bad for your health."

It was no better or worse than anyone else. As recently as the 1860's my Swedish Finn Lutheran ancestors suffered famine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_famine_of_1866–1868

as did my Irish Catholic ancestors in the 1840s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

The strong Jewish tradition of charity may have offset the brutality of gentile persecution. 

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

I think it's difficult to argue that the European Jew had a lower average quality of life than the European gentile. Actually, considering the low rate of alcoholism and violence within the shtetl and ghetto, probably the opposite.

Anyway, getting back to the topic of this post, you do realize how serious the issue of antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is, right?  I'm not quoting the Talmud, which you don't respect; I'm quoting the most recent reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services. Real hard science. Messing around with "good time girls" (or good time boys) could, in the very near future, make you extremely ill for the rest of your life, which might not be very long.

natschuster said...

According to some historians the reason there was so much Anti-Semitism during the Middle Ages was because Jews were doing better than their Gentile neighbors. They bathed more than twice a year so they didn't get sick as much.

Dave said...

Whose advocating messing around with "good time girls"???

jewish philosopher said...

Whose advocating messing around with "good time girls"???

Well, Richard Dawkins for one advocates polyamory.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polyamory

Ironmistress said...

If secular people are so happy, why do they kill themselves more often?

If you lived in a country where there is snow on ground five months each year and six hours of sunlight during the mid-winter days, I'm quite certain you'd think about offing yourself as well every now and then.

Ironmistress said...

During the Middle Ages European people, both Christian and Jewish, bathed regularly and took care of their hygienie. Public baths were commonplace.

Unfortunately, the culture of hygienie declined sharply. And there is a reason for that as well.

It were the venereal diseases.

Public baths were more often than not also public brothels. People tended to go there to cheat their spouses.

The most nasty VD around isn't HIV. It is syphilis. And the syphilis germ survives well in moderate temperatures and bath water - and is easily infected. Going to a bath was an easy way to catch pox. Gonorrhea tends to also spread via public baths.

The standards of hygienie and cleanliness declined sharply, and baths and saunas survived only in the peripheria, such as in Finland. The same standards of hygienie which prevailed during the Middle Ages were achieved only in the early 20th century.

Dave said...

"Well, Richard Dawkins for one advocates polyamory"

Well, so does the Bible.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polygamy

jewish philosopher said...

I think you've got a typo there. Polyamory, as far as I can figure it out, means you're married, however you have random sex with other people with the full knowledge and consent of your spouse. The atheist Bertrand Russell was a pioneer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspects

Polygamy means ones person being married to more than one other person, usually one man with several wives.

Obviously, polyamory is a risky sexual practice while polygamy is not.

Dave said...

" Polyamory, as far as I can figure it out, means you're married, however you have random sex with other people "

From your own link:

"Unlike swingers, who are generally looking for sexual thrills outside of marriage, "polys" form long-lasting relationships and family units based on partnerships and shared intimacy between several people..."

From what I can tell the difference between that and polygamy is a marriage certificate.

jewish philosopher said...

I think Dawkins and Russell meant "slutting around even though you're married". At least that's what they did.

Dave said...

"I think Dawkins and Russell meant "slutting around even though you're married".

Well there's nothing about the atheist creed that tells you to do that. I have no atheist Bible telling me to do anything, as a matter of fact. I use my own moral sense! (along with obeying laws)

jewish philosopher said...

It's part of the oral law. No pun intended.

Dave said...

Ha Ha.
Mohels sucking baby's penises doesn't turn out to be the healthiest practice either, but Orthodox Jews are having a hard time letting go of the practice.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't know. On the one hand allegedly two babies died as a result of oral suction

http://abcnews.go.com/health/t/blogEntry?id=17227671

on the other hand saliva is an antiseptic

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saliva-cant-be-licked-as-antiseptic-1255594.html

Science changes every day. Maybe it will turn out that oral suction saves more lives than it costs.

Ironmistress said...

Why don't the mohels just wipe the schmeckel with a hospital swab moisturized with antiseptic?

Metztiza b'pe is gross, unhealthy and pretty much sexual abuse of a minor. If the idea is to kill the germs, why not do it the modern medical way?

Anonymous said...

You can.