Jewish activists call circumcision ban superhero anti-Semitic

[rayofreason]

Source: LA Times

A ballot measure to ban circumcision in San Francisco has taken a strange twist with the publication, by the measure’s sponsors, of a comic book in which an anti-circumcision superhero -– blond, buff and handsome -– battles evil Jewish characters who recall the stereotypical images of classic anti-Semitism.

"Foreskin Man" was written and created by Matthew Hess, one of the leaders behind the initiative to ban circumcision, the ritual cutting of foreskin on a baby's penis that, in the Jewish religion, is considered central to the covenant between the Jewish people and God. Opponents consider it painful and barbaric, akin to female circumcision rites in Africa that have attracted international condemnation.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/jewish-activists-calls-circumcision-ban-superhero-anti-semitic.html

---

I always thought the radical anti-circumcision group pushing for a ban on the practice (which does have medical benefits) was a bit over the top, but this comic book takes the cake.

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

At first I doubted whether it was real, but as best as I can tell, it is. Julius Streicher would be proud. Is Matthew Hess any relation to Rudolf?

[Bonobo]

1. It is anti-semitic without a question of a doubt.

But I am sure they will find a Jewish person as a human shield to support it and cover their asses.

[Sirveri]

15. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism. A religious exemption would be anti-semetic.

Because to exempt Jewish and Muslim minors would be a statement that they don't deserve the full rights given to gentiles.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. What 'full rights' are these? nt

[Fearless]

17. The right to choose as an adult how your penis looks.

It's like tattooing your baby and it's unnecessary.

[pnwmom]

30. It has a number of medical benefits. Tattooing has none. n/t

[Sirveri]

38. tattooing is also reversible. The nerves lost from circumcision can never be replaced. n/t

[Fearless]

73. And as an adult a person should be allowed to make a decision on the appearance of their body.

This isn't a life or death issue. Even if there are medial issues surrounding foreskin, there are procedures that can be had that don't remove it.

[pnwmom]

83. To the infants who are ten times more likely to get a urinary tract infection,

which can lead to a kidney infection, it can become a life or death issue. And there are other health risks to children that can be avoided with a circumcision, as I've listed in other posts.

But there are small but real risks. So the Urological and Pediatric Associations neither recommend nor oppose the procedure, saying that it is up to each family and doctor to decide.

[Cronus Protagonist]

116. The ignorance!

It hurts. It HURTS!

:argh:

[Fearless]

123. Do you know what the odds of these things are?

Is there a clinical study you can cite? In the end, even if what you said was true, which I doubt, the fact is that by that logic we should remove all women's breasts to prevent breast cancer... because that really sucks.

[Cronus Protagonist]

44. AND how it works

It is not solely a cosmetic operation. It removes functionality.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. What functionality is removed?

(eidt: spelling error)

[Fearless]

72. It destroys nerve endings making your penis less sensitive.

[Behind the Aegis]

78. How is that functionality?!

[Fearless]

125. Is tattooing your child or branding them destroying functionality?

The fact is that foreskin is a protective sheathe. People should have the right to decide how their body is manipulated. Like I said, I am not against circumcision, if it is in adults who can consent. Its illegal to tattoo your child. It should be illegal to circumcise them for the same reason.

[Behind the Aegis]

140. You are all over the map.

You did answer the question, you simply changed the goalposts. Removing foreskin does not destroy functionality. I don't care you aren't against circumcision, I find it interesting though you serve all over the place with clumsy arguments, latching on to STUPID remarks, and COMPLETELY ignoring the use of anti-Semitism; or are you like a few others here and believe that some types of anti-Semitism are OK?

[Fearless]

153. Not everything that is not in line with Jewish beliefs is anti-Semitic

If you can't see the difference, I can't make you.

[Behind the Aegis]

161. Learn what anti-Semitism is.

If you can't see why the crap propaganda in the OP is anti-Semitic, well, I can't help you.

[aquart]

163. And you know that because you personally tried it both ways?

WELL, GUESS WHAT? Male "sensitivity" is NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ON EARTH.

The foreskin is an offering to GOD, whether it's done at 13 or birth and it involves being a man in a community.

But I can understand how it might make Jewish men able to go that much longer which would put Christians at their usual disadvantage.

[Cronus Protagonist]

114. I'm not going to explain it to you

If you need to be educated as to the functionality of a foreskin, your education is lacking beyond anything I can teach.

I use mine every day. Sorry you have no direct knowledge of foreskins, but that ignorance is the result of your infant cuttage, and the reason these barbaric practices still continue.

[Behind the Aegis]

141. I didn't think so.

Given your posts lack of rationality and reason, I am not surprised.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. And how is that "anti-Semitism?"

[Fearless]

71. It isn't.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. So you weren't agreeing with the idiotic statement by Sirveri?

"A religious exemption would be anti-semetic."

[Sirveri]

96. In the minds of the anti-circ community, a religious exemption is anti-semetic/Islamic

That you disagree with my statement doesn't make it false, or idiotic. It just means you have shitty reading comprehension abilities.

[Behind the Aegis]

139. Incredibly stupid remark.

You obviously don't know what anti-Semitism is. It has nothing to do with my skills, but rather your lack of them, as well as shitty reasoning.

[Fearless]

127. Maybe you want to look and see what I was responding to.

But to answer your question (I think): Do I think that circumcision if made illegal should have a religious exemption? No. As far as I'm concerned, religion is not an excuse to harm children. You may argue that it doesn't harm children. It does. It damages the nerves in the penis making sexual stimulation less pleasurable. You might say that it doesn't "really" harm them. But the fact that sexual stimulation is only decreased isn't an excuse either. With that logic we could bind our children's feet, since it doesn't "really" harm them. Or tattoo them. Or sell a kidney or a lung. Or any number of other things. The fact is that circumcision should be allowed but only if the person getting it is cognizant of the permanent effect that it has on their body.

[Behind the Aegis]

142. I think you should go back and read.

I find your examples foolish and lacking merit. It doesn't harm children, and not you or a single "anti" person has shown otherwise, other than conjecture and speculation.

[Fearless]

154. You would find my examples foolish.

You would find any examples foolish. Because you don't want to listen to the other side. You just want to keep pushing your own points.

Here is your proof that it is damaging...


http://www.gentleparents.com/circumcision.html

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

If you want more, google it. Stop reciting platitudes and research it.

[Behind the Aegis]

162. Of course they are foolish. They are nothing but talking points.

I love your propganda sites...fun stuff, but at least they aren't using anti-Semitism to promote their point of view.

[Fearless]

172. I will say this for the last time... I don't give a damn what Jews think on this subject

This is science class not religion. People are allowed to practice whatever they want to, providing they are not harming others or making others follow suit. Get over yourself.

[Behind the Aegis]

182. Get over yourself.

Bigotry should never be used to promote your cause.

[mistertrickster]

156. Has this been quantified? Who says sex is less pleasurable?

I would think that individual differences far outweigh the intact or removed foreskin issue.

[Fearless]

158. It is medical fact that circumcision exposes nerve endings...

They were supposed to be protected from wear. That wear (rubbing against clothing for instance) has been proven to make the sexual experience less pleasurable. Not the end result, the process. If you don't believe medical science, take the advice of a guy who has seen his share of penises, it's true. I will not get graphic about it, but we'll say my own bedroom experiences support the findings of medical science.


EDIT: If the DUzy's were still around...

[Bonobo]

173. Exposes nerve endings? Highly doubtful.

Post proof or it is bullshit.

[Sirveri]

179. Are you seriously arguing that circ doesn't permanently expose the glans?

Seriously?

[Bonobo]

185. I am asking you to backup your assertion that it exposes nerve endings.

If you cannot, then it isn't true.

Do you know what a nerve is anatomically?

Are you seriously saying that circumcisions expose them (I assume you mean leaves them exposed above the dermis).

[Sirveri]

186. I didn't make the claim, I'm simply interpreting what I read.

[Bonobo]

187. Glad to hear you at least understand how silly the claim is. nt

[Sirveri]

189. That it exposes nerves that are traditionally protected from environmental factors?

That's not really silly, it's what the procedure does. It exposes the glans to the environment, the glans has nerves. In normal situations when not used for copulation those nerves in the glans would be concealed under the foreskin. I'm curious as to what your interpretation of the claim was.

[Bonobo]

191. Here, I'll make it easy for you,

Do you know what an "exposed nerve" means?



Do you see the nerve? Are you making the silly claim that the nerve ending becomes exposed to outside of the epidermal layer???

[Sirveri]

193. I think you're just picking nits here.

Basically, your point of view is probably not what they meant (though he/she will have to clarify the specifics themselves). It seems like you're focused more on the technicalities of the language than on what they were attempting to communicate.

[Bonobo]

195. The person I responded to was ultra-specific, that's why:

He or she said:

"It is medical fact that circumcision exposes nerve endings.."

That is why I am picking nits.

It's wrong and should be pointed out when someone makes such an unscientific statement.

[mistertrickster]

213. I have a hard time believing that the sexual process can be MORE pleasurable than it already is . .

sorry . . . it's my anecdote and I'm sticking to it.

As for "not believing in medical science," actual medical science in the form of research is exactly what I'm asking for.

[Sirveri]

22. Basically what the above said, but you need to look at it from their view.

To fully understand it at least. In the anti-circ mindset all children have the right to genital integrity, so to somehow claim that Muslims or Jews are exempt from this right would in itself be bigoted because you're effectively saying that their children should not have the same level of rights as others simply due to their religion. Now to combine this with a 14th Amendment defense and this law simply becomes an extension of the already existing law covering females which prevents any non-therapeutic genital cutting (of any severity, including less severe than currently practiced male genital cutting).

That we allow male circumcision is simply cultural, since ultimately the majority of the proposed health benefits accrue near the age of majority, when the actual owner of the genitals can make their own informed decision regarding the subject. As such their is no need to allow the parents to make the choice for their minor children, which effectively robs those children of their own choice. Personally however I prefer a social outreach method rather than legislative to change personal opinion on the subject, as the legislative typically creates a backlash from those who normally wouldn't have even thought of the subject, entrenching their viewpoints and likely causing a minor rate spike. That said this is not the first time the MGMbill.org people have pursued this route.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. That is some well-spoken

bullshit.

The pics of the strong, square-jawed Aryans, standing firm in the face of the subhuman...

It is racist filth, and i wish i could wash my eyes after haveing read it.

[Sirveri]

37. Hess wrote it, he didn't draw it.

He got some no name wannabe comic book artist to do the drawings. That he approved it is a mystery to me, but like I mentioned earlier, I don't approve of the angle of approach they typically take. In any even this is fairly irrelevant to the SF ban since the person who put that on the ballot was Lloyd Schofield. That he signs on with Hess doesn't somehow make him an anti-semite (if Hess is an anti-semite, which I'm not actually convinced of).

[pnwmom]

31. Many of the health benefits occur in young children,

including reducing the numbers of serious urinary tract infections, which babies are much more susceptible to than adult men because of their shorter urinary tracts (and which can lead to serious but kidney infections.)


http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-ca...

The American Urological Association, Inc.® (AUA) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction. Nevertheless, when performed on healthy newborn infants as an elective procedure, the incidence of serious complications is extremely low. The minor complications are reported to be three percent.

Properly performed neonatal circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis and balanoposthitis, and is associated with a decreased incidence of cancer of the penis among U.S. males. In addition, there is a connection between the foreskin and urinary tract infections in the neonate. For the first three to six months of life, the incidence of urinary tract infections is at least ten times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised boys. Evidence associating neonatal circumcision with reduced incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting. Circumcision may be required in a small number of uncircumcized boys when phimosis, paraphimosis or recurrent balanoposthitis occur and may be requested for ethnic and cultural reasons after the newborn period. Circumcision in these children usually requires general anesthesia.

[Sirveri]

35. Aside from UTI's, all of those benefits accrue during adolescence.

The foreskin is naturally phimotic in the neonate, and unless it interferes with urination or causes pain then it's normal. In either case the standard treatment for balanitis is antibiotics or anti-fungals, not surgery. In some cases it can actually be cured simply by changing the soap you bathe with. But all of this is irrelevant, since in the case of phimosis it won't occur until the actual owner of the body part is capable of making his own decision. Same with STD's, penile cancer (more STD's), and most of the other issues they can't come up with.

UTI's I would argue are the only health benefit that occurs within the time frame for parental consent. However considering that their incidence levels equalize by age 3, and uncut males still get less UTI's than females, it's all a moot point and not a sufficient reason on its own to perform the procedure as a prophylactic.

The argument that a very small majority will have issues isn't an argument to perform the procedure on a widespread basis. This isn't vaccination, there is no herd immunity to be gained, which means that the argument boils down to personal choice weighting and cost benefit analysis. Even if the cost benefit analysis showed that it should be performed as a routine (which according to the most recent AAP study, and all other western studies it doesn't), society would still have to show a compelling reason to cause the whole sale alteration of other people who can not consent.

[pnwmom]

84. Society would have to show a compelling reason to intervene

in the private medical decision made by a family in consultation with their doctors. And it hasn't, since the major medical societies are neither recommending routine circumcisions, nor opposing it in those infants whose parents and doctors decide they should have it.

UTI's, by the way, aren't an insignificant risk. I have a child who had a symptomless infection that led to permanent kidney damage. In our family the decision about circumcising the next child was very clear.

[Sirveri]

95. Single point personal experience does not defeat actual medical statistics.

A ten fold increase (which was only found by Wisewell and never duplicated), is still not sufficient to justify its routine adoption, doubly so since females typically have a higher rate than intact male neonates. The majority of theory regarding UTI's currently points to them being caused by abnormalities in the urinary tract itself, not in the state of the male foreskin. The bottom line is that we're one of the only western countries to practice this routinely, and it's primarily not done for health reasons. If you are not performing the procedure for health reasons then for the sake of social justice you should seek to preserve the rights of those who can not fight for themselves.

[defendandprotect]

27. For a child to be free from having their body mutilated --

[pnwmom]

29. Both the American Urological Association and the Pediatric Association

say that the proven benefits of the procedure must be weighed against the risks, and that parents should make the decision themselves. Neither group takes a medical position against the procedure.

In my opinion, Jewish and Gentile children have an equal right to have their parents decide whether to have the procedure based on a calculation of its risks and benefits. I don't think the San Francisco city government should be intervening in decisions made by the parents and their doctors.


http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/policy-statements/c/circumcision.cfm

The American Urological Association, Inc.® (AUA) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction. Nevertheless, when performed on healthy newborn infants as an elective procedure, the incidence of serious complications is extremely low. The minor complications are reported to be three percent.
Properly performed neonatal circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis and balanoposthitis, and is associated with a decreased incidence of cancer of the penis among U.S. males. In addition, there is a connection between the foreskin and urinary tract infections in the neonate. For the first three to six months of life, the incidence of urinary tract infections is at least ten times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised boys. Evidence associating neonatal circumcision with reduced incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting. Circumcision may be required in a small number of uncircumcized boys when phimosis, paraphimosis or recurrent balanoposthitis occur and may be requested for ethnic and cultural reasons after the newborn period. Circumcision in these children usually requires general anesthesia.
When circumcision is being discussed with parents and informed consent obtained, medical benefits and risks, and ethnic, cultural, religious and individual preferences should be considered. The risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective.
Three studies from African nations published in 2005 and 2007 provide convincing evidence that circumcision reduces by 50-60% the risk of transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to HIV negative men through sexual contact with HIV positive females. While the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits. Circumcision should not be offered as the only strategy for HIV risk reduction. Other methods of HIV risk reduction, including safe sexual practices, should be emphasized.




In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.
In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained.

[Sirveri]

39. "the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision."

Not sure how much clearer that can get. That they put the BS in about parents is simply them hedging their bets due to cultural issues. Children are their own person, and if there is no medical need to perform the procedure then it should not be performed. Parents owe the duty to their children to provide them with the best quality of care, I would not consider performing unnecessary genital surgery on their children the best quality of care. That many parents are fooled into it by societal pressure, ego, or uninformed doctors is sad, but that is what is going on. The reasons for the performance of RIC are cultural, not medical.

[pnwmom]

85. It's clear that not every baby needs a circumcision.

So the Academy is leaving the decision up to individual families and doctors. There are valid medical reasons for some infants to have circumcisions, which the Academy states.

[Sirveri]

98. No the academy states there is no medical indication to do it routinely.

And the bill in question provides an out for therapeutic circumcisions. Considering that the vast majority of male circs are not therapeutic or necessary this is the correct stance to take. Even those that are performed for therapeutic reasons circ is typically over prescribed. What needs to occur is for the medical profession to step up and simply stop performing the procedure like they did in every other Western country that adopted this during the Victorian era. It wasn't in the best interest of the patient so Canadian, Australian, and British doctors simply stopped performing the procedure. British physicians further had the NHS refusing to pay for it pushing them along, and today Medicaid is doing the same stateside.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. What a comical response.

"Comical" in the sad sense of the word.

[Sirveri]

53. Define sad. Especially since I was specifically addressing the proposed ban.

I had previously seen issue #1 and didn't realize that they had put out issue #2 of the comic at the time of my post, so my comments didn't apply to the comic at all.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. But your comments DID relate to the first post.

[Sirveri]

58. Do you actually have a point, no real need to be obtuse about it. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

59. I made my point.

Did you not understand it?

[still_one]

76. It is because they don't have that exemption it is anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish /nt

[Sirveri]

97. An exemption would give less rights to children of Jews and Muslims.

So an exemption for the right to have a whole body is in fact the same as claiming that those children aren't worth those rights, and are thus worth less than their counterparts. It is the height of anti-Semitism and anti-Islam to suggest the Jewish and Muslim children should have less rights than other children.

[Cronus Protagonist]

129. HIt the nail on the head!

:toast:

[Behind the Aegis]

143. Learn the fucking meaning of Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism...

and stop making up your own stupid-ass definitions!

[Sirveri]

Why don't you just tell me what you think it is, since you won't listen to anyone else.

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."
Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims.
Source: Wikipedia

If you hold the belief the Jews should have less rights than non-Jews you're probably an anti-semite. If you hold the belief that all people should have the right to genital integrity, then if you create a personal exemption for Jews, then you are saying that Jews should have less rights than others. This isn't fucking rocket science here.

Here we'll try this way. We should protect all children from harm... except Jewish children. Get it now. It doesn't make any sense to create an exemption, unless you specifically have issues with Jews/Muslims. It has nothing to do with disrespecting their religion, and everything to do with attempting to respect their children.

[Behind the Aegis]

146. At least you got the definitions correct; that's a relief.

Too bad you are "pretzeling" them to fit your beliefs.

[Sirveri]

149. The definitions only apply to individual belief. Bigotry has everything to do with personal views.

What a person believes is the entire point behind definitions about anti-semitism. If you aren't acting out of hatred for a class, then you aren't acting in a bigoted fashion.

[Sirveri]

145. dupe

delete

[still_one]

155. Gee, thanks for protecting those Jewish and Muslim children based on your beliefs not theirs

[Sirveri]

164. In this case they are not old enough to have beliefs, so it falls to society to protect their rights

Or should we simply allow parents to treat their children like property?

[still_one]

198. Same argument used with Terry Schiavo, and that parents can't feed their kids happy meals

You raise your kids your way, leave others alone to do it their way

For some people this is not only done for religious reasons, it is also done for hygienic reasons. You don't subscribe to that, then don't do it to your kids.

Likewise, If you don't want your kids to have vaccinations, then don't do it

[Sirveri]

201. Then you take no issue with me putting lit cigarettes out on my child for discipline.

After all, I'm raising my kids the way I want to.
:sarcasm:

Parents should not have the right to authorize non-therapeutic medical procedures on their children for whatever reason. All children should have the right to a whole and healthy body. Furthermore the law is already established that genital cutting on minors for non-therapeutic reasons is illegal, there is no religious exception. That the bill was written to only apply to females is irrelevant thanks to the 14th amendment.

[aquart]

160. You mean anti-emetic but it ain't working.

This crap does make me want to vomit. The reeking self-righteousness. Only Christians know how to treat their children. Their precious man children.

[yurbud]

220. you mean genitals don't you?

[Sirveri]

222. Gentiles is another way of saying non-Israeli.

In the Western sense I always thought of it meaning Christians, though it technically means all non-Jews.

[yurbud]

232. I know. It was a pun.

[The Magistrate]

2. Damn, Sir: That Does Indeed Look Like Illustrations From 'Der Sturmer'

The charge of Jew-Hate would seem to be sustained....

[ronnie624]

19. I agree. It's repulsive. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. What annoys me is, with shit like that, you'll no longer be able to publicly disapprove circumcision

You'll be labeled an anti-semite faster than you can say "1967 borders".

Stupid cling-on wannabe Nazis.

[Sirveri]

48. I really hoped they would stop after the first issue...

But no, they had to go and make a second one. Makes me wonder what the third will look like, since they want to do six of them.

[Cronus Protagonist]

132. They will possibly create a reactionary circumcision movement

Which is a shame and it speaks to the errors of duplicating Nazi style propaganda in any human rights campaign.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. But what it does do, is show that some will use anti-Semitism....

...when they think the ends justify the means.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. I think ends and means are reversed in this case.

What "some" are doing is using the disapproval of circumcision (a legitimate opinion) to try to legitimize anti-semitism.

[Behind the Aegis]

52. And it happens elsewhere, which was my point.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. You won't try to stick anti-semitism on anybody who doesn't like circumcision, will you?

Nah, I don't think you will. That would be dishonest, don't you think?

[Behind the Aegis]

57. It wouldn't be dishonest, it would be absurd!

[rayofreason]

77. That's why I first thought this has to be fake....

...that it was an attempt to discredit disapproval of circumcision (a legitimate opinion) by smearing it with obvious Nazi-like illustrations that looked like they were updates of 1930's Der Sturmer greatest hits.

But no. A bit of checking and it became clear that this was indeed the work of the leading anti-circumcision group, MGMbill.org, and boy did they jump the shark on this one. For all the protests about circumcision, there seems to be a deep well of hate in this group for the fact that it is a "jewish ritual", as an Indiana Jones Nazi would say.

So hopefully, this will mean the end of an ill-considered bill banning circumcision. It is the parents and doctors who should make the decision, just like piercing ears and putting in earrings in baby girls is a decision made by many hispanics. And to those who want to equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation, you are morons.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

150. You said everything better than I would do.

:thumbsup:

[FLAprogressive]

3. Comparing circumcision to FGM is extremely dishonest and hyperbolic.

And yes, he is anti-semitic.

[The Unawriter]

4. I was circumsized for health reasons

I'm not Jewish: It was a medically-necessary procedure.

[NobleCynic]

5. Poe's law kicks in...

Sometimes, something is so fundamentalist / crazy, it is almost impossible to tell if it is a joke.

[Poll_Blind]

6. LOL- THAT dude has got some goose-stepping skeletons in his closet! But it's still mutilation.

Doesn't change the fact that circumcision is genital mutilation and the orthodox Jews practice of sucking blood from the penis after it's cut is not only un-hygenic, it's potentially deadly.

PB

[izquierdista]

7. A. Religion

Q. How do you get people to blow themselves up, starve themselves, mutilate their children, feel superior so they can commit murder, feel ashamed about sex, and in general control them like they were on opium?

[struggle4progress]

13. Most American men are Christian, most are circumcised, and circumcision has little

relation to Christianity for nearly two millennia. Circumcision in the US is the cultural norm, without a religious component:

... Data from a national survey conducted from 1999 to 2002 found that the overall prevalence of male circumcision in the United States was 79% .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision#United_States

[trud]

69. slavery used to be a cultural norm n/t

[struggle4progress]

80. Perhaps you'll publish a comic book blaming the Jews for slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0

[4saken]

8. Anti-Semitic? Yeah right...

Being against the tenets or practices of a religion is not the same as being against Semites. You aren't going to get away from the history of circumcision, and where this ritual derives from.

Assuming that they have something against Semites in general is the biggest cop out. An easy way of avoiding having to defend the primitive scriptures you base so much of your lives on.

Edit: I just read both volumes, and this is really far from being anti-Semitic. In volume two that is a Brit milah(Bris).

[FLAprogressive]

9. Ummmm, calling Jews the "enemy" is not anti-Semitic?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

11. The fact that they didn't go with "The Fantastic Foreskin" tells me all I need to know about this.

The lead villain could have been The Mohel Man, fer cryin' out loud.


Damn, talk about a missed opportunity.

[struggle4progress]

12. First the facts then the analysis

FACTS: Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, and as far as I can tell, it typically does not prevent its "victims" from enjoying a normal sex life. Less than 2% of the US population is Jewish -- but

... WHO estimates prevalence in the United States .. at 75% ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Prevalence

ANALYSIS: I feel a strong personal disgust when guys named "Hess" portray Jews as bloodthirsty ghouls who want to mutilate little babies

[MrScorpio]

14. It's not only anti-Semitic, it's horrible comic booking too

Yeesh!

[Frank Cannon]

183. So nice to see a shitty comic book artist getting so many views.

Although I'm sure his motives are pure, and something as base as mere attention whoredom didn't have anything to do with this. :eyes:

These panels remind me of the illustrations in the first couple of editions of the Dungeons & Dragons rules. Except those weren't anti-Semitic.

[boppers]

18. Equal opportunity attack... if it's anti-semitic, it's also racist.

http://www.foreskinman.com/no1panel08.htm

[The Second Stone]

20. And these Jewish activists did this on a Friday evening?

That's interesting. I can't wait until they comment on this thread. "It won't be long now!"

[iamthebandfanman]

21. all i know is, i love it when someone on DU trys to tell me

my body is flawed because of it.



im perfectly happy being circumcised, and would have made the decision to do so myself if i had been able comprehend at that age. luckily its done so early i dont have to have a memory of it ;)

[4saken]

23. No it's not anti-Semitic... These activists seem to be hair triggered.

It's one thing to find it offensive, but anti-Semitic? The only Jewish characters in this so far are the orthodox ones at the Bris in the second volume. Judaism is a key part in the history of this practice. And the Brit milah is something you would expect to be addressed in regard to circumcision. Such activities and the Semite people are two very different things. And it means two very different things to be against one and the other. It is so very disappointing to see so many unable to differentiate between the two. It leaves you unable to question anything that is misattributed as an attack on yourself, when it is a critique on your activities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Yes, yes it is

having studied the history of antisemitism... it is a classic portrayal

[cali]

43. it's classic text book anti-semitism. disgusting that anyone here would

in any fucking way defend it. One can be both be against circumcision for infants and recognize the most blatant expression of ugly bigotry. Anyone who doesn't recognize it for what it is, is either brain dead or belongs on stormfront, not du.

[4saken]

64. A negative characterization by itself doesn't infer dislike for related people.

Someone can take issue with an attribute of yours for a certain reason, and it's not bigotry. They could even characterize you for that very reason to critique it. It's very clear which tenet of Judaism that comic attempts to scrutinize. And why a Bris ritual is relevant to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsrRMTA45_c">circumcision. And why them being followers of Judaism is relevant to a Bris. It isn't in a respectful or light handed way, but it doesn't demonstrate dislike for Jewish people, only dislike for a ritual that derives from Judaism. You'd need more information about the author, or more volumes of this comic, to discern whether their negative characterization of Jewish followers at a Bris was for reasons other than them being staunch advocates of genital mutilation. If someone demonstrates a negative attribute, you can't expect them to not be characterized negatively for it, even if the resulting character has attributes that you identify with.

[cali]

110. oh for fuckity fuck's sake. It's textbook stuff.

and no amount of dissembling dog shit such as your post can change that, honey.

[4saken]

169. Just claiming something tp be "textbook"...

doesn't make your point. Someone can be characterized for very different reasons, that doesn't make every possible characterization "textbook". Their reason isn't being demonstrated as hatred towards Semitic people. If anything it is hatred of one of their barbaric practices. That much quite clear. But since you weren't able to make it through my last comment, why am I replying to you again? Who knows.

[cali]

171. it characterizes Jews in an ugly, ugly way- as monsters for no purpose what so fucking ever

The vast majority of those doing circumcisions are doctors and the vast majority of those circumcised are not Jewish.

And yeah, genius, it's textbook obvious bigotry. duh.

oh, and enjoy your inevitable pizza, honeypie.

[Sirveri]

180. and the first issue, and the subplot of this issue deals with that exclusively.

Oh and calling others RW trolls by insinuating that they will end up banned is a deletable offense. It actually has its own special drop down under the reason for deletion button, or it did back when I used to be a mod.

[Abq_Sarah]

151. That the author put his name to this abomination

Is ALL I need to know about him. Julius Streicher would have heartily approved of this propaganda.

It's filth and nothing can justify it. Nothing.

[COLGATE4]

66. K&R. This is picture perfect 'Der Steurmer' material. Julius Streicher

would be proud of his new proteges.

[Ian David]

60. Non-Jews should stay out of the argument, since they don't have any skin in the game. n/t

[cali]

61. huh? so non-blacks should stay out of anything to do with racism?

[pnwmom]

86. The anti-Semitism is blatant.

"In the book, the blond superhero takes on "Monster Mohel" -– a bearded, black-hatted man with bloody scissors. In the traditional Jewish community, a mohel is a person trained to perform circumcisions."

[Sirveri]

106. I wasn't aware that the Jewish mother was portrayed in such a negative light.

Oh wait, she wasn't, because they're anti-circ, not anti-Jewish. It's a similar mental outlook to pro-'lifers', at least for some of the movement. You won't get bashed if you're on their side, which is why the only stereotypes and villains were the actual Mohel. The anti-circ mother is not only attractive, but has a sort of halo around her.
http://www.foreskinman.com/no2panel22.htm
Oh and look at all those Jewish stereotyped party guests!
http://www.foreskinman.com/no2panel13.htm
Oh wait, they really aren't. Unless of course none of them are Jewish. Not even the father is drawn in a stereotypical manner.

[cali]

108. lol. it's as blatant a piece of anti-semitic dog shit as anything Julius Streicher

published, dear. You do realize that most circumcisions are done in hospitals on non-Jews, right?

Oh never mind, I forgot my own edict: Don't engage with those who hold, er, opinions like yours.

[Sirveri]

112. Really and what's my opinion. I'd love to know.

[cali]

126. oh, I think it's clear exactly

what YOU are.

[Sirveri]

138. That I'm against genital cutting of minors? You're right, and I'm proud to say so.

If you're trying to paint me as an anti-semite, well keep trying. Pretty sure my last name and heritage helps absolve a lot of the issues in that area.

[4saken]

170. Nothing you said shows anything against Semites.

If anything it is against those who advocate genital mutilation. A Mohel is a title given to someone who does this at a Brit milah ritual. If female circumcision were widely practices as a ritual today, those who did the ritual could be expected to be characterized in a negative light for it. No one can take issue with the activities of a traditional community? Sorry, that's not how things work in reality. Maybe in a mythology.

[ronnie624]

24. Male circumcision

Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability

<http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf>

[saras]

25. It demonstrates the flaw in the concept 'anti-Semitic'

If by 'anti-Semitic' you mean opposed to preserving every single bit of Jewish culture as it presently exists, then it is anti-Semitic. Eliminating circumcision would definitely change Judaism permanently.

I think it needs to be done anyways.

Genital mutilation is genital mutilation, and I can't see any reason it's any more acceptable than a religion that cuts children's ears off. It's not magically different than other genital mutilation just because they're boys. So I think a comparison to African female genital mutilation is a not unreasonable comparison, given that no two cultures or behaviors can really be equated to each other.

But there's no way you could write a law allowing *things like this* (as opposed to making a special law allowing Jewish ritual as a medical procedure) that isn't going to be horribly abused. If you're going to allow this, what other kinds of mutilation are you going to allow? How are you going to draw the line without making religion-specific laws? And never mind how many Gentiles were subject to this for a bunch of bad rationalizations and no good reasons? What the fuck was THAT about? Maybe it was the same logic as tonsils - we don't know what they're for, so if they get inflamed we'll just cut them out permanently.

And, while the comic uses a bunch of offensive stereotypes, so does most mass media I've encountered in the last few decades. And given the disgusting nature of what they're fighting, I'm tempted to slap them on the wrist and say "don't go there - the facts are sufficient". I mean, their opponents are mutilating these boys permanently, by removing most of the nerves in the end of the penis. I'd be curious to see the neurobiology of that, and what difference it makes in adult development.

[Bonobo]

28. A lengthy rationalization that would excuse even the most rabid anti-semitism.

"And, while the comic uses a bunch of offensive stereotypes, so does most mass media I've encountered in the last few decades. And given the disgusting nature of what they're fighting, I'm tempted to slap them on the wrist and say "don't go there - the facts are sufficient""

[Moonwalk]

32. I'm afraid it is an unreasonable comparison--

>I think a comparison to African female genital mutilation is a not unreasonable comparison<

Female genital mutilation is horrific and causes life-long problems for the women. Circumcised male adults suffer no such problems, though there is probably validity in their argument that the uncircumcised have more sensation during sex. But they can still enjoy sex and not suffer from life-long pain during it. I think that makes things significantly different, don't you? The only reason to compare the two is the hope by those arguing against male circumcision that they can make what most people take for granted as a minor and commonplace surgery into something horrific.

But this comparison causes a very serious problem. Which is that it can backfires. Imagine if you will that you say to someone, as you seem to believe, that 'It is not unreasonable to compare male circumcision to female gentile mutilation." What if the person were to say to you, "Oh, well, I thought female genital mutilation was serious, but if it's like male circumcision, then it's nothing. I don't see why it's outlawed if it's like that."

This is why you cannot, cannot, CANNOT compare the two. Because in trying to magnify male circumcision with the comparison, you risk minimizing female genital mutilation. And that's unconscionable.

Now this is not to say that I think male circumcision should be done on babies. I think it should be like getting a tattoo or piercing--to which it is far more comparable (and if you don't believe that, allow me to show you some pictures of Prince Albert piercings). I don't think it should be done to babies because the parents want it done; I think it should be done by informed adults to themselves for whatever reason they want it done.

However, it does make me think less of those arguing the point when they make such comparison. Which only proves that making such a comparison is more likely to undermine the argument than help it as it alienates those who understand the reality of female genital mutilation, and it doesn't clarify the facts or reasons for banning male circumcision for those who don't understand it.

[HankyDubs]

33. this is utterly insane

Like others here, I am a circumcized man. I am not mutiliated, I'm circumcized.

When you refer to me as mutilated, I consider that to be more than a little bit insulting. In fact I'd prefer you watched your fucking mouth to be honest.

I'm also part Jewish (heritage jew), though that is not why I was circumcized and I have never been religious. This cartoon is OBVIOUSLY anti-semitic, playing on sterotypes and demonizing the Hasidim in particular.

When I first heard about this proposed ordinance, I was talking to a few people about it and one of them said that the idea of the ordinance was anti-semitic. I disagreed; those who want to outlaw circumcision aren't necessarily antisemitic.

But this cartoon clearly is. This person clearly is.

Even leaving that issue aside, the idea of this law is fucking moronic. A city outlawing this practice on its own is just fucking dumb. It also spits directly at the 1st amendment.

Some of the ladies have told me they prefer the "cut" look anyhow. So I guess mutilation is sexy.

[Yo_Mama]

148. Uncut dick is nasty

Yes, the ladies do prefer 'em clean and cut.

[Cronus Protagonist]

204. This ignorant statement is the REAL crux of the matter

When people are disgusted by a natural intact human body and are only attracted to one that has been surgically altered, this archaic practice will continue. I give my thanks to the universe that Yo_Mama isn't Mah_Mama.

[Withywindle]

229. Speak for yourself - you sure don't speak for me!

It's not "nasty." Wow.


:eyes:



Not like we women are entitled to a say in what men do with their bodies, for that matter - why does this statement deserve any more respect than some frathouse douchebag making snide comments about "fatties" or women who don't shave their hoohas or get boob jobs? Short answer: it doesn't.

[pnwmom]

87. There are valid medical reasons for choosing to do a circumcision,

which is why both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Urological Association neither oppose nor recommend the procedure on a routine basis, but leave it up to the families and their doctors to weigh the benefits and risks for the individual baby. The city of San Francisco has no business interfering in this decision. Research on the medical benefits of circumcision has been accumulating ever since World War II, when doctors noted that circumcised men were having fewer medical problems than the uncircumcised.

You're incorrect about circumcision removing most of the nerves. Perhaps you need to actually look into the neurobiology that you're curious about.

As to anti-Semitism in the cartoon, you seem to have missed this:

"In the book, the blond superhero takes on "Monster Mohel" -– a bearded, black-hatted man with bloody scissors. In the traditional Jewish community, a mohel is a person trained to perform circumcisions."

[panzerfaust]

167. Circumcision has its origin in, and is generally practiced as,

a religious and social convention.

The putative medical benefits have only been attempted to be identified retroactively.

These possible benefits are are not well supported by the available evidence and THAT "...is why both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Urological Association neither oppose nor recommend the procedure on a routine basis..."

As far as the comic-book, I have not seen it and thus cannot speak to the question of its antisemitism.

[Codeine]

93. Oh for fuck's sake, we're not mutilated.

Not even vaguely.

[Cronus Protagonist]

130. Absoluetely not vaguely

You are actually mutilated. No vagueness about it. Luckily, you don't know what you're missing, and that's the only good thing about infant circumcision - you don't miss what you never enjoyed. It's sad for those of us who know, and would never give up our foreskin, but for you, well, you can fight to defend the attack on your person perpetrated by society via your parents and a doctor, but it's just a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

[ChrisBorg]

34. Did they produce any campaign lit about Catholics?

[cosmicone]

36. What was the tip off that revealed it was antisemitic? n/t

[pnwmom]

88. How about "Monster Mohel"?

"In the book, the blond superhero takes on 'Monster Mohel' -– a bearded, black-hatted man with bloody scissors. In the traditional Jewish community, a mohel is a person trained to perform circumcisions.

[rug]

109. Why on earth do you think he's antisemitic?

[Cronus Protagonist]

131. Mohels are monsters, and they're not the only ones

And I'm not anti-Jewish for saying so, I'm FOR the little Jewish and Muslim and American and Pinoy boys who would be saved if my actions have any weight in the world.

[cosmicone]

134. t was just being flippant --- "tip off" n/t

[dorkulon]

40. Isn't circumcision also a Muslim practice? /nt

[ronnie624]

65. Globally, 30 % of males are circumcised, two thirds of whom are Muslim. n/t

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. W. T. F.

That comic is SO anti-semitic it isn't even funny.

(I disapprove of circumcision, by the way. But I'm skeptical about the need for a ban.)

[John_Adams]

62. "...any relation to Rudolf?" Could be...he does advocate NAZI-like policies.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. Circumcision is STILL an elective, cosmetic surgery. Insurance should not cover it in newborns.

Any more than insurance covers ear piercing in newborns.

[pnwmom]

91. There are valid medical reasons for choosing circumcisions,

as stated both by the American Urological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But there are also some rare but significant risks, so both organizations say that it is up to individual families to weigh the benefits versus the risks.

For example, circumcised infants have 10 times fewer UTI's, which can occur without symptoms and cause permanent kidney damage.

There are no medical reasons for having a baby's ears pierced.

[Cronus Protagonist]

118. Piercing a baby's ears would be less of a crime than ignorant genital cuttage

Still, both should be criminalized.

[nodehopper]

67. I believe circumcision to be child abuse AND that cartoon is TOTALLY antisemitic

the two are not mutually exclusive in my mind, and two wrongs don't make a right.

[Cronus Protagonist]

119. Yay!

I was hoping someone would say something sensible better than I could... if I may ride your coattails.... :D

[trud]

68. I never have understood

why it's a horror to circumcise girls but somehow okay to circumcise boys. Let the individual decide when they're adult whether they want this done or not.

[Arrowhead2k1]

81. Female circumcision ruins sex for them and actually can make sex painful. That's just wrong.

Male circumcision doesn't ruin anything from what I can tell. Sex is still VERY good. ;)

PS, I'm smegma free and quite happy about it as a circumcised male.

[pnwmom]

90. We made the decision based on the data about urinary tract infections

because our daughter had had a symptomless infection that led to permanent kidney damage. Circumcision was something we could do to reduce that risk in our sons.

Later, when my boys were a little older, I was glad we had made that decision. That's when I found out it isn't that easy to make sure a 4 or 5 year old boy is as clean as he would need to be -- if he were uncircumcised. They were pretty lax in washing that area, but I didn't have to nag them or worry.

[Sirveri]

111. To bad that prevention of UTI's would require cutting 444 other children to prevent 1 case.

Wow, oh so cost effective.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

UTI's are a stupid reason to cut up your childs penis.

[Cronus Protagonist]

120. That's it, bring in the facts and spoil the discussion!

You're a party killer! (good work)

:loveya:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

100. Male circumcision makes sex painful for this female.

Uncut men slide around inside their own foreskin, which makes sex much easier and more pleasurable. Cut ones are bare skin sliding against bare vaginal skin which can be sore and painful.

There's a reason for the foreskin, to make sex easier and also the nerve endings.

[Arrowhead2k1]

115. If your partner isn't wet, then you're doing something wrong...

:rofl:

Seriously though, I've never had this problem...

[xmas74]

181. As a female

I've never had a problem with circumcised males and painful sex. Never.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

[Sirveri]

190. maybe not every woman is identical?

[xmas74]

202. Most women produce lubrication.

The lubrication is what allows for sex without so much painful friction. I know my OB/Gyn said if I ever have a problem with painful intercourse due to a lack of lubrication I need to speak with her about it. She said that a lack of lubrication could mean any number of symptoms for a woman and that it needs to be checked.

There was no discussion about foreskin or the lack thereof. Foreskin has never been in the discussion. If there is friction it's because of either a lack of lubrication or someone is really doing something improperly.

Lack of lubrication can be from side effects of medication or can be a medical or even a mental problem. Either way it needs to be discussed with a physician and not decided away on a message board.

[Sirveri]

210. Except that male circ creates more friction by removing moving parts.

So if you're in a low lubrication mode for whatever reason, circ will exacerbate the issue.

There may be other issues at play as well, I'll let (WARNING NSFW):
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
speak for itself.

Disclaimer: This site is run by an anti-circ who wants to sell their book. It is very NSFW after the first page. But it puts some theories and ideas out there to think about. I don't subscribe to all of their theory on this page, but I found it interesting. Oh and the page design has an ugly color scheme IMO, but YMMV.

[Arrowhead2k1]

217. That's all this is, "theories and ideas".

Utter bullshit if you ask me being pushed by people with an obvious agenda. This is the first time I've even heard of it. If it was such a big deal, this kind of thing would be common knowledge given that a majority of American men are circumcised.

It might sound like an interesting concept to you on paper, but we're telling you, it doesn't work this way in the real world. Most women provide more than enough lubrication on their own. Those who don't, may require to buy lube regardless of whether or not their partner is cut. There's no way an uncut penis would be able to adequately compensate for something that.

[xmas74]

219. When I had problems many years ago

my doctor said it wouldn't have mattered either way if the guy were circumcised or not. (The boyfriend at the time was not.) He said that if a woman isn't producing it needs to be addressed-there could be an underlying cause. If nothing is found the use of an artificial lube may be required. In my case, it was all stress-related, which is common.

There are so many other arguments that could be used instead of "lubrication". I don't understand why use this argument? If a woman isn't producing enough lubrication on her own chances are sex will be painful no matter how much lube an uncircumcised penis might produce.

[Sirveri]

224. It's not the lubricant produced by the male, but the mechanics of its removal.

Basically it's postulated that the cut penis acts like a plunger and drags the maximum amount of lubrication it can with it on every outstroke. So lubrication production and mechanics matters. It's a standard mass flow rate calculation from physics. If the flow from the tap is X, and you open the drain to X+2, you will drain the tank eventually. The question is if circ increases the rate at which lubrication is removed. I find their explanations to be valid that it increases rate of loss of lubrication. Does it increase it to a level above that which is produced, that likely depends on a combination of factors and so while it's not always the case, it's probable that in some cases the issue is directly attributable to the circ. How many cases is up for debate, could range anywhere from statistical blip to a majority.

[Sirveri]

223. Just because it's a theory and/or idea doesn't make it wrong.

The mechanics described would exacerbate issues by speeding up lubrication loss. This isn't to say that this is an issue with all women. In addition the since the majority of the populace is cut, it's quite plausible for most women to never find an uncut to tell the difference. Then they would also have to attribute it to a physical difference as opposed to thinking the issue is something wrong on their end. Considering that the medical profession never seems to blame men for female dyspareunia, unless it's to stroke the mans ego by calling him to big, it's quite possible for the underlying cause to go unrecognized.

A woman who produces less lubrication than others isn't necessarily defective, she just might need more time to warm up, or a structure that won't physically remove lubrication on every stroke as postulated by the posted site for the mechanical reasons listed.

[Arrowhead2k1]

225. Blah blah, back to spew more BS. Read this very thread.

All of the women here are saying say there's no difference, and they are talking from EXPERIENCE. It's getting to be pretty obvious what you're doing here and that at the very least you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill based on some weird anti-male-circ fantasy that being cut hurts women.(What really makes it weird is that you seem to be spreading pro-female-circ BS too in other posts).

[Sirveri]

226. So I should take 5 DU'ers opinions over some other 5 peoples opinions?

I must be doing a good job since folks have ran out of the ability to actually logically tear down what I've said. My only goal is to allow all people the chance to make their own choices about their own bodies, and to be free from non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital cutting (or any cutting in the same vein). Male, Female, makes no difference to me. I used to be more heavily involved in the anti-circ movement, while I've taken a step back from that these threads they just draw me back in. Reminds me of old times back on usenet. But if only one person reads what I wrote and actually thinks about it, instead of just dismissing it out of hand, I've succeeded. Sadly most people prefer to blindly cling to their own peculiar institution.

[Arrowhead2k1]

227. Uhh yeah, I'll take womens experiences over some agenda driven people who

cherry pick "theories and ideas" to suit their arguments. Anyways, thanks for being honest about your background on this topic. Now I'm 100% sure that I can't take you seriously. Good night.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

228. I said there is a big difference, read #100. I'm a grown woman.

You didn't read what I said??


It's a mechanical difference with the extra skin of the foreskin to cushion. It's not just about lubrication, it's about the lack of the extra skin. Bare skin of the penis against vaginal mucosa is not very comfortable without lots of lubrication.

I did not know about foreskins until I had sex with a guy who had a foreskin. Prior to that I thought that they came circumcised. I didn't know any better.

Then I realized that Mother Nature has a reason for foreskins. To protect the male organ and to reduce friction to both people, making for more pleasure.

[xmas74]

218. If the female body isn't creating enough lubricant

it won't matter if her partner is or is not circumcised. I've been with both and when I had a "problem" it was actually with an ex who wasn't. The doctor said it wouldn't have mattered either way-if the woman isn't producing enough lube it'll be painful, unless artificial means are used.

The production of lubrication isn't the best argument, since a lack of production on the woman's part may signal trouble that cannot be assisted with anything that would be produced by the male.

[Cronus Protagonist]

121. Gosh, you mean there's FUNCTIONALITY that intact people have that cuttees don't?

Watch out, you might actually educate someone! (excellent work, my friend!)

:loveya:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

137. I won't explain further, TMI.

I will just say "what happens when you are young and enthusiastic" and leave things to the imagination.

[Codeine]

135. Vaginas are, in the main, self-lubricating.

I've never heard a woman complain about "bare skin sliding against bare vaginal skin" in my entire life.

[xmas74]

203. My OB/Gyn informed me that

if I ever have a problem with dry, unlubricated intercourse I should speak with her about it. According to her it's often a sign of something else and it could be a medical condition.

[cali]

166. that's just ridiculous. I've had sex with lots of uncut men and lots of cut men

and whether sex was pleasurable or less so had zippo to do with whether or not they were circumcised.

[Frank Cannon]

184. As a happily circumcized male, I don't know WTF you're talking about.

And I'm pretty sure you don't either.

[Sirveri]

101. Here, have a study showing the females can still enjoy sex after FGC.

Not only can they enjoy it, but apparently the sex is actually better.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17970975

"RESULTS:
The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain.

CONCLUSION:
Embryology, anatomy, and physiology of female erectile organs are neglected in specialist textbooks. In infibulated women, some erectile structures fundamental for orgasm have not been excised. Cultural influence can change the perception of pleasure, as well as social acceptance. Every woman has the right to have sexual health and to feel sexual pleasure for full psychophysical well-being of the person. In accordance with other research, the present study reports that FGM/C women can also have the possibility of reaching an orgasm. Therefore, FGM/C women with sexual dysfunctions can and must be cured; they have the right to have an appropriate sexual therapy."

Even when the study group shows its clear bias in their description and the language they wrote the article they couldn't find a serious difference. I would further hypothesize that if this study was carried out with regards to male circumcision these same authors would not refer to any of the men as mutilated, and would in fact use the data gathered to promote the procedure because according to them it increases desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction.

[pnwmom]

89. Because they are two entirely different procedures.

FMG is designed to eliminate female sexual feeling. In its most severe form (which is the most common form in Africa) it not only removes the entire clitoris, but also the inner and outer labia, all of which is scraped off with a knife or sharp rock, before everything left is pulled back together with stitches or thorns. Only a single tiny hole is left through which both urine and blood must pass. Then the girl's legs are tied together for days so that scars can make the tissues adhere. When the girl marries, either her husband or a medical person has to cut her open again so she can have sex that will always be painful.

Besides destroying female sexual feeling, FMG is associated with lifelong pain, infections and carries absolutely no medical benefit.

A male circumcision, OTOH, removes the hood of the penis only, leaving the sensitive head of the penis completely untouched. While there are some very rare but significant risks, there are also some medical benefits, including 10 times fewer urinary tract infections in infants (which can lead to symptomless kidney infections, which can cause permanent kidney damage.)

Do you still not understand why male circumcision and FMG are not comparable at all?

[Codeine]

94. Because the male equivalent to FGM would be chopping the whole head off.

Clipping a bit of nasty skin off ain't the same.

[SoapBox]

70. Everybody AND government needs to BUTT OUT of this decision.

...what the hell?

Talk about your over-reaching government, that these freaks are so against.

It's a decision that can be made by the parents.

And a male circumcision is WAY different than what the weirdos in the world have been doing to girls. Female circumcision, "defined by the World Health Organization as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."

Circumcision of females, is to stop pleasure during sex...Male circumcision is to remove that nasty chunk of skin over the head of the penis, that gets smelly, disgusting and infected.

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

Again, BUTT out of the decision.

[BlueIris]

82. Oh, good luck.

Personal choice, especially that made by parents about their infants? What's that? This seems like a foreign concept to some DUers.

[Sirveri]

102. I wasn't aware children were their parents property.

I don't find that view to be very progressive.

[Neoma]

176. Might be a little off topic but...

I always felt I was my parents property when I was a kid. Do, this, do that. Nag, nag, nag. That was the main argument with my parents when I was a teenager. I asked my mom questions like "Why can't kids sue people instead of adults when they're wronged?"

Whether intended or not, until you're fully mature, you're trained by your parents. From how to eat, to how to use a toilet, to how to debate in discussions like this. Unless of course, you had the luxury of debate class in school...

I read a little further up that tattooing your kid is illegal, which is news to me. I knew an eight year old bragging about her tattoo when I was in 3rd grade. I think some parents will find ways to own their kids in one way or another. Whether against the law or not.

[Sirveri]

188. There are still many things a parent can't do legally to their child.

This is because that child has their own set of rights that supersede those of the parents. In this case we're talking about non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery foisted upon others. Another interesting way to look at it is thusly. Is it OK to force this surgery on your 17 year old child, against their specific wishes, simply because you want to (for non-therapeutic reasons)? Because it is currently legal to do that. If a 17 year old has the right to say no, then the age of the child should not matter because all people deserve the right to self determination in this matter. If a baby girl has the right to intact genitalia so do males.

In this case there is already a law on the books at the federal level that prevents any alteration of the genitalia of minors. However the language of the bill is not compliant with the 14th amendment because it only applies to females. It has no exemption for religion, and bans everything including symbolic nicks. Despite more recent calls to repeal it from varied medical societies to prevent more wealthy immigrants from bringing their daughters back to their countries of origin and performing a more invasive procedure. All people should be protected from forced genital cutting.

[snooper2]

206. Well they sure as hell aren't property of the State

So why don't you raise your own kids and let everyone else alone to do their damn job...

That is progressive

[Sirveri]

212. No protecting the rights of others is progressive.

Parents are usurping rights from their children that rightfully belong to them.

The right to not have your genitals cut up and modified is a human right, not just a right of females.

It is not the desire to remain whole and natural that requires a reason or explanation, the rests entirely on those who would alter others without their consent, and the reasons given to justify it are insufficient to allow the practice to continue.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pink-o]

75. I read thru these threads before I downloaded the comic panel.

Initially, I figured my peeps were overreacting, but seeing the blond superhero there to obliterate the evil Rabbis, it's unequivocally Anti-Semitic.

I am ethnically Ashkenazi, but an agnostic, and I'm principally against circumcision. Five thousand years ago, Jewish laws were put in place to basically keep us alive: no one cooked pork properly, so no bacon for us. Also, I'm sure it was hard to keep one's genitals clean, so in order to keep breeding, circumcision was really helpful to prevent infections. However, in the 21st century, we do have way better access to hot running water and soap. Like so many other Old Testament laws, circumcision is no longer necessary to adhere to in modern times.

However...to blame Moyels and portray them as evil is just plain racist. Boys who're circumcised at a Bris are actually cut far less than by secular doctors who strap baby boys to a board and chop away the entire foreskin. But you notice, this cartoon doesn't show circumcision happening in a hospital, which is where the majority of them take place. It goes after Rabbis.

Reminds me so much of medieval and German cartoons of Jews, reduced to the old hated stereotypes. No more of that, please!

[pnwmom]

92. If San Francisco is itching to ban something that has no medical benefit

to any children, why don't they ban ear piercing in babies and children?

There are no known benefits to the procedure and it carries the risk of infection. Both of my sisters, who chose to get their ears pierced as teens, were very careful with hygiene but still ended up with infections and scarring. Why does San Francisco allow people to do this painful and unnecessary procedure to babies?

:shrug:

[Sirveri]

103. They should ban that too. But it's also less invasive than MGC.

No tissue is actually removed, and the holes close after the fact if not maintained. But I agree, no more useless cultural procedures.

[Doris32r]

99. I am so tired of this argument!

Circumcision whether for a boy or girl is wrong! Now this is simply my opinion. But how is it that the same people who rage about female circumcision say male circumcision is okay? I really just don't get it!

[cali]

105. really? you don't get the differences between circumcision and

FGM? Extraordinary. One leaves a person mutilated and with severe health problems for the rest of her life- not to mention sexual pleasure is turned into hideous pain. The other doesn't.

And none of that has jack shit to do with the anti-semitic crap in the comic.

[Sirveri]

113. False. Women who have had FGM can and do experience pleasure.

In fact the report I posted upthread at #104 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4872461&mesg_id=4873040

Shows that their sample group had no noticeable difference in pain or lubrication, and that in other areas the 'mutilated' women preferred it.

Oh and it also helps prevent HIV infections.
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
"Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum."

[cali]

124. oh fucking please. for every one link you have, I have a hundred

I'm so tired of the sickos on DU.


http://english.emory.edu/Bahri/FGM.html

http://www.endfgm.eu/en/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/effects-of-fgm/

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/health_consequences_fgm/en/index.html

http://www.africanbirthcollective.org/WHO%20FGM.pdf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/1997/box17.htm

http://www.serc.mb.ca/content/dload/HealthEffectsofFemalGenitalCuttingFemaleGenitalMutilation/file

http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm



Want more? I've got plenty more. And I suggest you note the difference, if you have the ability, between what happens when you google FGM health benefits vs FGM health consequences.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

[Sirveri]

128. Lets go point by point then.

The first link says nothing that refutes both links I've posted in this thread.
The second link is not a scholarly paper and does not address the points I brought up.
The third link is about tribal style initiations, not clinically controlled FGC, all arguments made could easily be applied (with exception of gender specific regarding labial adhesion) to ritualized male circumcision in tribal non clinical situations.
The fourth link focuses on Type 3 FGM which accounts for less than 10% of procedures world wide, and also does nothing to refute my links.
The fifth link, second key fact I have shown a medical study that shows it is false, FGC lowers the rate of HIV acquisition. The paper is not scholarly and provides no supporting documentation, it's really nothing more than a propaganda pamphlet. It also focuses primarily on type 3.
The sixth link is not scholarly, and provides no links to supporting data, or even references to who wrote it.
The seventh link references the WHO, which you've already cited, which makes it a dupe, there is no new data in this article, and I'll address most of the specifics of it after I finish reviewing the links.
The eighth link is just another pamphlet short on actual references.

The main point seems not to be the procedure, but that it is carried out by poorly trained operators in unsanitary conditions with improper controls. The vast majority of short term complications listed could easily be controlled for in a hospital setting by competent operators. Almost all of the short term risks listed, also apply to Male genital cutting which is carried out outside a sterile professional environment.
From the last link:
"1. severe pain and shock"
Can occur in any surgical procedure where proper pain relief is not administered, including MGC.
"2. infection"
Once again can occur in any surgical procedure where cleanliness is not controlled.
"3. urine retention"
This is primarily a side effect of type 3 FGC, but can also occur in males due to swelling and bruising or operator induced injury.
"4. injury to adjacent tissues"
This is also an issue in MGC, even with competently trained operators.
"5. immediate fatal haemorrhaging"
This is another possible complication in any surgery, compounded by the effect of being performed in a primitive situation.

"Long-term implications can entail:
1. extensive damage of the external reproductive system"
Well duh, but apparently damaging the foreskin is irrelevant. Even though it is a part of the external reproductive system in males.
"2. uterus, vaginal and pelvic infections"
This is primarily in reference to type 3, which is a minority practice.
"3. cysts and neuromas"
Possible when any wound is created, humans descended from the peoples of Africa are typically more susceptible to cysts in general.
"4. increased risk of Vesico Vaginal Fistula"
Primarily caused by child birth, and has been known to happen stateside even in controlled conditions, the site fails to establish any compelling linkage through scientific documentation.
"5. complications in pregnancy and child birth"
Primarily due to type 3, less severe types may actually aid in child birth due to increased visibility for birth assistants.
"6. psychological damage"
True for MGC as well. Bearing in mind these are all potentials not absolutes.
"7. sexual dysfunction"
True for MGC as well.
"8. difficulties in menstruation"
Caused by type 3 FGC (Infibulation), which is a minority procedure.

According to this site:
http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm
Type I and II account for 85 percent of cases.

[Doris32r]

175. Wow...

See this is why I rarely comment...I was not addressing the COMIC I was addressing circumcision. And you respond to me like a jerk and with curse words. If you break your arm it is going to hurt. If you break only your thumb granted that is not as bad as your arm but it is still going to hurt. I do understand there is a huge difference between male and female circumcision. I am addressing the fact that I don't agree with circumcision period. I see no difference between the two. Just because one is vastly worse than the other doesn't make the first one okay.

[Odin2005]

104. This sounds like a consiracy to get people to think opposition to circ is anti-semitic.

No real anti-circumcision folks would use that sick, bigoted imagery.

[cali]

107. Yeah? that's as dumb as those that say that Donald Trump is really working with Obama

and sorry, Hess is a real anti-circumcision activist.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

152. Welcome to the wonderful world of Poe's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[Devil_Fish]

117. It's my body, it should be my choice how my penis looks and feels.

no doctor or parent should make that choice for a child unless it is a medical necessity. If I want to cut it when I'm old enough to understand and make the choice then fine. If I am a baby then it should be assumed by my crying that I do not chose to have my forskin removed.

Matt Hess has detracted from the very basic human right to an intact body with this stupid cartoon. what an ass hole.

[Bucky]

133. I was gonna call this a silly story until I googled "Foreskin Man" and looked at his supervillain

This is the bad guy in the comic book


If the swastika fits...

[Codeine]

136. Man, that's some bad comic art.

The face has two entirely different bone structures depending on whether it's in profile or not. Rock on, bigoted incompetent comic dude; rock on.

[Behind the Aegis]

144. But you see,

...there are those willing to defend bigotry/excuse it and or/minimize it. Given your OP on Texas, I am sure you understand where I am coming from (here's yet one more example where some are "blind" to bigotry).

[ismnotwasm]

147. Sounds anti-Semitic to me

But I object, as always the comparison between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. For there to be an equivalency, the whole head of the penis would be cut off, usually with a piece of something dirty and sharp when they child was 7 or 8 years old.

I do agree that male circumcision is barbaric and unnecessary.

[Ter]

157. It's anti-American

The government has no right to stop any parent from doing this to their infants. Federal marshals should jail any politician who voted for it. If it passes, break the law.

[Sirveri]

165. The government has every right to protect the rights of minors.

Hence the reason FGC is illegal, including in cases that are less severe than for males, without any religious exemption.

[Bonobo]

174. Maybe you should start a ballot initative against ear piercing too.

It's mootilshun!

[Sirveri]

178. Maybe you should since you care so much about it.

Which is exactly what Lloyd Schofield did. Don't rely on me to do your work for you if that's what you believe in. If you do get it off the ground, let me know, and I'll happily help out, although I think we can both agree that this is much more of an invasive procedure.

[Bonobo]

192. You seem confused.

I am not advocating taking away parent's rights. That's YOUR side of the argument.

[Sirveri]

194. well then why did you suggest it? Why do you think this is a 'parents right'.

Do parents have the right to perform non-therapeutic surgery on all of their children?

[Bonobo]

196. Umm, no. What does that have to do with a proven therapeutic procedure?

And when did I ever suggest that parents would perform the procedure?

Of course doctors or trained personnel do it only.

[Sirveri]

197. It's not being used for therapy in the instances that would be banned.

So therefore it's non-therapeutic. Because it is used as a treatment of phimosis is not an indication to perform the procedure when phimosis is not present. The majority of routine infant circumcisions performed in this country are not medically indicated. They are not performed for therapeutic reasons, therefore they are performed for non-therapeutic reasons. Furthermore the law as written provides an exemption for medical necessity.

When you turn on the TV do you turn it on, or do you press a button that sends a signal to another object to turn it on for you. Parents performing the procedure indicates that they are authorizing the procedure to be performed by someone else in their stead. The procedure would not be performed without their input or action, therefore one can say that they are performing the action due to their authorization and procurement of services for it. But this is totally off topic and a red herring to distract from the actual subject matter.

[alp227]

168. it's actually a ballot initiative n/t

[still_one]

200. and Proposition 8 was on the ballot, and also anti-American /nt

[aquart]

159. It's a happy happy new version of the blood libel.

Now Jews are torturing their own babies. Really sweet, folks. Your self-justification sounds like the anti-abortion charmers.

[Neoma]

177. I'm not against it or for it.

Because I think both sides have debated it for so long and so hard that no one listens to either side and no one gains any insight. Especially since religion is or becomes in the mix, which confuses everyone because then racism becomes involved. Everyone then goes up in flames over that and the symphony begins. Motion in the song "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik Allegro."

FOR: I think you are being prejudice!
NOT FOR: No! I'm not, I just think it hurts babies!
FOR: But you're, saying parents shouldn't have...the rights that they need...to be in this country.
NOT FOR: You are being ridiculous and outrageous and stupid! Look at all the facts you see...
FOR: Don't you call me stupid you racist -Blank-.

And the administrator deletes the thread.

[still_one]

199. and some also believe it is for hygienic reasons, has less of a chance to develop cancer. If someon...

does not subscribe to that then they shouldn't have it done to their son

The same applies to vaccinations, and other issues

[snooper2]

205. San Francisco, where they will watch a man die in the bay

But will save a piece skin that when removed helps prevent aids...


:eyes:

[Cronus Protagonist]

207. The dumb is strong with you

:dunce: :beer:

[snooper2]

208. As the one liners are with you...

Don't dig too deep in that toolbox

[Sirveri]

211. WTF are you talking about?

If you're talking about what happened at BART, here's some hints.

BART had been closed for two hours
The location where that person died was not visible from street level
SF has a homeless problem and anyone at the bottom of a BART entry point could easily have been thought to simply be a homeless man seeking shelter.

Furthermore the law does nothing to prevent adults from making personal decisions about their own bodies; including allowing them the choice to remove body parts so that they can get an insignificant risk reduction in a disease that's preventable using condoms and showing restraint with their number of partners.

[AngryAmish]

209. These circumcision threads sure bring out the nutters...

[Karenina]

214. Indeed!

:rofl:

[LetTimmySmoke]

215. Captain Uncut to the rescue.

Captain Uncut says don't run with scissors kids!

[sofa king]

231. I wonder if it's the same guy...

Before it jumped the shark, there was another forum on the Internet that was plagued by a person who became known simply as "he who shall not be named," because he would do vanity searches on himself and find a way to divert any subject to the question of circumcision. It was annoying and quite sad.

That particular fellow was too single-minded and consumed by his own madness to be considered an anti-semite in the normal sense of the term. But he was definitely a jerk.

[closeupready]

216. Parents - is it really so hard to teach your sons to wash their foreskins daily?

And to use condoms when having sex with partners whose sex history could expose them to STD's?

[LeftishBrit]

221. Well, so it is. Pretty nasty stuff!

[Withywindle]

230. Wow. Just wow.

That looks like a straight-up Third Reich propaganda broadside! I don't care if it doesn't have the word JEW all over it explicitly, it's still pretty goddamn obvious. Not even a dog whistle. I realize a lot of racist/anti-Semitic crap tries to incorporate "plausible deniability" these days, and even a lot of liberals fall for it, but this doesn't even have that, IMO.


It really does look like the work of someone trying to discredit the anti-circ position - I'm horrified that it apparently isn't.