Foreskin Man? Uh…Yeah…

June 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM 11 comments

Yep, he's out to save foreskins...

Leave it to those funny folks in San Francisco to come up with the idea that circumcision should be outlawed.  Not to be left out, Matthew Hess of San Diego has something as vacuous as “Foreskin Man,” protector of the uncircumcised genitalia, in support of that plan.  Foreskin Man is a comic in which the hero (Foreskin Man) works to eradicate circumcision from society.

The comic book obviously takes itself seriously.  Foreskin Man is really Miles Hastwick when not in costume, who runs the Museum of Genital Integrity.  The museum is filled with a number of highly realistic displays showing, for instance, the “brutality” of circumcision.  In this display, a very realistic-looking newborn animatronic is strapped down to a table, while the official is cutting off the foreskin, to the gasps and disbelief of those watching.  Hastwick, like Batman, has his hero’s lair below this museum and from there, he is able to fight the criminal element when it comes to saving tots from circumcision.

In issue #1, Hastwick as Foreskin Man saves a newborn from the clutches of Dr. Mutilator, who happens to be working in a hospital and forcing young mothers to submit their newborns to the “mutilation” of circumcision.  The day is saved when a friend of Foreskin Man – Nurse Jenny Sparklett – contacts him to let him know that something is going down.  Foreskin Man arrives, fights off Dr. Mutilator, who by this time has turned into some hulkish freak and watches as the police cart Dr. Mutilator off to the station.

The second issue of Foreskin Man has as its criminal mastermind a Mohel (a Jewish person practiced in the art of Brit milah (circumcision).  At one point, in the home of a family that has a newborn Jewish baby, in waltzes Monster Mohel, whose only goal is to rid the newborn of his foreskin.  Well, not if Miles has anything to say about it, doggone it!

Against the wishes of the mother, but according to the wishes of the father, Monster Mohel attempts to proceed to do the dastardly deed he came to accomplish.  Of course, it need not be stated that Monster Mohel (like Dr. Mutilator) is ugly, almost demonic in appearance.  He orders the guests be removed to another room, which gives Miles the opportunity he needs to…change into FORESKIN MAN!!!!!

As Monster Mohel readies himself to make the cut in the room with the billiard table, Foreskin Man takes aim and heaves the 8 ball directly at Monster Mohel (Go, Foreskin, Go!).  A fight breaks out, with the mother being knocked out cold.  The father seems only to care about his son being circumcised and doesn’t notice that his wife has been knocked out.

Monster Mohel – very much like the Joker – promises to return as many times as it takes until the baby’s foreskin is his (Monster Mohel’s).  Just then, Foreskin Man takes the child away to safety, to the screams of the father, Jethro.

Foreskin Man hands off the child to the underground, led by Tia, who promises to raise the child (Glick) as one of their own.  Wow, could it have ended any better?

And…scene.

Okay, a couple of things.  First, this comic book would make a great TV spoof.  It’s hilarious without meaning to be.  Of course, to those who see circumcision has barbaric, then this comic book is fighting the good fight.  One individual commented, “Thank you for fighting against circumcision in a most clever and artistic way…I was circumcised (without my knowledge or consent, obviously) and I hate the end result…” [1]

Foreskin Man kind of reminds me of a very bad soap opera, in which the characters are all worried about the most asinine things, with dialogue to match.  They take life too seriously, and in the process, the show becomes a spoof of itself.  Reminds me of the TV show Sledge Hammer.

Matthew Hess is the president of the San Diego-based group that publishes Foreskin Man.  His stated goal is “to enact legislation that would protect boys from forced circumcision.” [2]

I honestly feel sorry for these people.  It makes me think of a bunch of guys who got together and racked their brains to try to figure out what they could come up with that would give credence to men’s liberation groups.  Just like women’s groups have been fighting to make and keep abortion legal, men seem to have gone without anything.

Frankly, I think there are far better issues that men can deal with as opposed to circumcision.  Why, for instance, is a woman allowed to get an abortion without even having to inform the person by which she became pregnant, yet when a man goes for a vasectomy, he must obtain his wife’s permission?  How is that equal?  When a man has a vasectomy, he’s not killing or aborting anything that the woman helped create.  When a woman has an abortion, she is taking the life of another human being, yet in spite of the fact that she did not create that life by herself, the law says she has the right to terminate that pregnancy without having to even tell (much less obtain permission) the person who impregnated her.

Not long ago, studies were done to see whether or not there were any benefits at all to circumcision.  In one study, a number of interesting factors came to light.

Men with larger foreskins are more likely to become infected with the AIDS virus, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that helps explain why circumcision can protect men.

“The study of 965 men in Uganda, all without AIDS at the start, showed those with larger foreskins were more likely to become infected.

“Infection rates correlated with the size of the foreskin, Dr. Godfrey Kigozi of Johns Hopkins University’s Rakai Health Sciences Program in Uganda and colleagues found.

“Mean foreskin surface area was significantly higher among men who acquired HIV,” they wrote in the journal AIDS.

“Several studies have shown that circumcision — removal of the foreskin — can protect men, but not their female sex partners, from HIV. It does not completely prevent infection but reduces the risk.

“Researchers believe the foreskin has many immune cells called dendritic cells, which may provide a route into the body for the virus.

“Kigozi’s team looked at men getting circumcised for one of the studies in Uganda.

“The surface area of the foreskin was measured after surgery using standardized procedures,” they wrote. (Editing by Peter Cooney)” [3]

Of course, the argument is this:  should babies who are unable to provide their permission, be circumcised?  If push comes to shove, it is far better to be circumcised while a newborn than as an adult, since the pain is far greater and will last far longer after the procedure if done as an adult.

This world is a crazy place.  Of all the things that are happening in this country and around the world, some men have gotten together to decide that forced circumcision should be against the law.

San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield, has garnered enough signatures to force a vote on whether or not circumcision should be outlawed.  Arguments vary of course, as to the reasons why circumcision should or should not be outlawed.  If outlawed, it would drastically affect Jewish couples, who routinely have their newborn sons circumcised on the 8th day following birth, in accordance with Jewish law.  In essence then, outlawing circumcision would negatively impact Jewish people the most, as well as those within Islam.

So far, I have not read of any Muslim men complaining.  This whole thing is strange to me.  Think about it.  If the law is passed, that means that in San Francisco, it would be against the law for anyone to do circumcision on a male.  To solve that problem, I suppose then that people who really want their male child(ren) circumcised would simply go outside of San Francisco to have the procedure done.

So in essence, Schofield is accomplishing nothing, though I’m sure he hopes that this thing picks up steam and spreads like wildfire from one city to the next.  Something tells me that for most, the issue of circumcision is not a high-priority issue.  There are certainly many other things to be concerned over.  Oh well.  Small ideas, for small minds.

[1] http://www.foreskinman.com/mail.htm

[2] http://www.foreskinman.com/about.htm

[3] http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091029014955AAsX3Ad

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, ufology. Tags: , , , .

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, and Eric Holder Needs to Go! Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Worried that Militant Christians Will Take Down This Country

11 Comments

  • 1. john smith  |  August 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM

    I was circumcized as a baby and I do not regret it. Foreskins should be removed because it is unhygienic. There are more benefits to be circumcized. As for human rights, babies do not know what is best for them so it is up to the parents to decide. Parents know best.

  • 2. A Jewish Male Opposing Circumcision  |  August 6, 2011 at 12:55 PM

    Some Jews feel the time has come for a symbolic bris without surgery.

    Jewish Groups for Genital Integrity
    * Jews Against Circumcision http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
    * Jews for the Rights of the Child http://www.jewsfortherightsofthechild.org/
    * Brit Shalom Celebrants by Mark D. Reiss, M.D. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
    * Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ron Goldman, Ph.D. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/ritual.htm
    * Beyond the Bris: Jewish Parenting Blog http://www.beyondthebris.com/p/about-project.html
    * A Case for Bris without Milah. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html

    • 3. modres  |  August 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM

      I’m sure there are, but what does it prove? There are liberal Jews, social Jews, Jews in name only, atheistic Jews, etc. Your point, while bolstering your opinion, does nothing. I have even seen those opposing circumcision try to liken it to female circumcision. There is NO comparison since removing the foreskin does not in any way interfere with, or reduce/eliminate the sexual response.

      There are far larger issues that this world is facing than opposing male circumcision. Right now, just under 30,000 children under 5 have died of starvation in Somalia. Get a grip on reality.

  • 4. Frederick Rhodes  |  June 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM

    There are other parts, besides the male and female prepuce that need daily cleaning, in the same area, in case you are unaware, Mrs. Modres. Excising them to keep them clean is just plain uneducated. All the benefits of infant excisions of the prepuce can be replaced with the lifetime benefits of an education in the functions, care and use of the prepuce. So all the benefits you read about are for ignorant people.
    Circumcision, Abortion, Holocausts, ethnic cleansing, genicide, mass murder/suicide, 9/11, these are all side effects from putting the false heavenly godfather’s penis of creation theory before the Singularity’s feminine womb of evolution theory.
    Sharia’ law includes many types of sacrifices involving others lives and body parts.

    • 5. modres  |  June 23, 2011 at 2:03 PM

      First off, I’m a guy and we share the same name.

      Secondly, I doubt seriously that the medical people who have written about the benefits of circumcision are morons or that they write for “ignorant people” as you state.

      You seem to be quite confused, Frederick. As I said before, once you actually begin talking about outlawing the murder of unborn babies, then I’ll take you seriously. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

      Oh…and, we’re done here. Thanks.

  • 6. Frederick Rhodes  |  June 23, 2011 at 4:41 AM

    I hear the trial of the millennia is coming up as the SF Jews and the Muslims try to repress human rights under religious rights by excising the issue off of SF’s ballot. If the sacrificial covenant law and shari’a law get presidents over human rights…..

    • 7. modres  |  June 23, 2011 at 11:03 AM

      Is that what you “hear”, Frederick? Got a link for that, or is it just hearsay?

      I cannot imagine that there would be a trial to get the measure OFF the ballot after it was placed there through entirely legal means. But here is the deal. Let’s say that the measure gets on the ballot and let’s say that it passes. What happens then? Does it immediately go into law? Did Prop 8? There will be lawsuits to determine the Constitutionality of such a law, which is why we have the courts.

      So even if the anti-circumcision ballot is voted in “by the people,” just like Prop 8 and other propositions, the courts will ultimately decide the legality of the issue.

      Sharia law would not even play a part in this since it is unlawful for Muslims to “mutilate” their genitalia. As far as Jews are concerned, there would likely be a religious exemption to the law anyway. We all know just how terrible Jews are, right Frederick? By the way, when YOU start talking about the rights of the unborn, then feel free to write and complain about circumcision, all right? Until then, all you’re doing is blowing hypocritical smoke. The only reason the unborn do not have “human rights,” is because feminist groups and leftheads like yourself have deemed that the unborn are NOT human. What a joke.

  • 8. Barefoot Intactivist  |  June 20, 2011 at 9:28 PM

    You Said: “it is far better to be circumcised while a newborn than as an adult, since the pain is far greater and will last far longer after the procedure if done as an adult.”
    ——————————

    The opposite is actually true — circumcising a baby involves ripping the foreskin, which is fused to the glans in children, from the penis. This is incredibly painful and has been described as similar to ripping off a fingernail, only on the most sensitive part of your body. The bloody, raw wound (again, the whole glans is like an open wound after prying off the foreskin) is left to fester and burn in urine & feces-soaked diapers.

    Moreover, children cannot be properly anesthetized, so they are forced to have their genitals ripped apart while awake. Adults can be put under general anesthesia, and can also take pain medication after the surgery to manage the pain.

    Children are also more likely to die to the procedure since it requires such a small amount of blood loss to cost a child his life.

    Perhaps most importantly, the VAST majority of intact men would NEVER, ever choose to be circumcised, so they will never have to undergo the disgusting procedure in the first place.

    Ban it!

    ~Barefoot Intactivist

    PS Intactivism has been going on for 40 years — do some research.

    • 9. modres  |  June 20, 2011 at 10:11 PM

      Sigh…there are pros and cons on each side. I’ve read some studies that state that there are health benefits. I’ve also read studies that state there are not. Beyond this, I’ve studied how men who are NOT circumcised are supposed to cleanse their genitalia daily (specifically near the base of the glans after retracting the foreskin).

      I also realize that “intactivism” has been here for years and so has abortion. To simply try to create a law that makes it a crime to have a child circumcised without any religious exemptions means that the government is acting to NOT separate church from state and since there is NO definitive overriding factual information on the pros and cons of circumcision, then your position cannot be successfully argued as if it and it alone is true.

      While it is tragic that any child dies due to circumcision, why are you not doubling up your efforts and combining it with ABORTION? When a male child undergoes circumcision, it is NOT the goal of the parents or the doctor to kill the child. Yet, with EVERY abortion, this IS the stated goal and outcome.

      You folks are extremely hypocritical for that reason alone. If you truly cared about infants, you would NOT want ANY of them to wind up dead through medical procedures. There is NOTHING more barbaric than murdering an unborn child. Have you bothered to watch any of THOSE videos?

      DO SOME RESEARCH!!!!!

      We are done with this unless you want me to get REALLY angry…

  • 10. cyndavaz  |  June 20, 2011 at 8:31 PM

    It’s past time for this brutal and unnecessary procedure to be outlawed. There’s no justification for it being inflicted on the body of a non-willing human being.

    There’s still a lot of ignorance out there among Americans – people who literally have no clue about the negative consequences (as well as the human rights violation) associated with inflicting this unnecessary genital surgery on infants.

    Many Jewish people and Muslims are upset (but not all – http://www.jewishcircumcision.org , http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org, http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html, http://www.quran.org/khatne.htm, http://www.noharmm.org/persreligion.htm#islam). They believe this ban would be a threat to their freedom of religion. To which we counter: Muslims are legally prohibited from having the genitalia of their baby girls cut for cultural/religious reasons. Males are being denied equal protection under the law, and this is unconstitutional.

    Religion really shouldn’t be allowed any more as an excuse for inflicting physical alterations on the body of a non-consenting human being. Besides, babies don’t have a religion. They don’t even understand the concept. And circumcising a child in the name of religion actually infringes upon the child’s individual freedom of religion.

    Therefore, a ban on infant cutting would actually preserve our inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution. It’s just that many people are unwilling to look at it that way … that’s how strong of a grip this culture of cutting has on the mindset of many Americans.

    And BTW – the so-called health ‘benefits’ are largely exaggerated. The risks/complications/damage/death associated with infant circumcision are greater than any possible issue which MIGHT arise from remaining intact.

    Please, people. Let go of what you *think* you know about infant circumcision and do your homework on this blatant human rights violation.

    • 11. modres  |  June 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM

      There is no justification for abortion on demand either. What YOU are talking about is the removal of unnecessary skin around the male genitalia and you and others act as if to not get circumcision outlawed would be the end of the world. Would that you would put just as much effort into getting abortion on demand (often used as BIRTH control) and “Up Your Alley” outlawed. Instead, you focus on something as juvenile as this. Go figure.

      Let’s see, in our world today, we have the Taliban treating women as if they are pieces of furniture (they treat their cattle better), Sharia law is impacting many nations throughout Europe and beginning to establish itself here in the U.S., we have a war going on with Libya, the one is still raging in Afghanistan, we’ve got completely corrupt politicians doing what they do, a president who cannot outspend what the Federal gov’t takes in fast enough, and YOUR big issue is CIRCUMCISION?

      I note that you said “the so-called health ‘benefits’ are largely exaggerated,” so you AGREE that there are SOME health benefits to being circumcised, especially where Gay men are concerned? I fully disagree with your flawed statement about “infant circumcision are greater than any possible issues…”

      This is such an inane topic to even be discussing and it is difficult to take you and those who think as you do with more than a grain of salt. I bet you would not object to the number of people who subject their toddlers to earrings – something the child does not need.

      With respect to religion, of COURSE it plays a role in the issue of circumcision, whether you think so or not. Orthodox Jewish people STILL obey the covenant of circumcision because that is what is the acknowledged covenant between God and the Jewish male. Just because YOU do not think that’s important, tough shinsky. Who do you think YOU are to overrule someone’s religious beliefs? What, because you’re an atheist, you have the right to inflict those beliefs on others, when it’s convenient for you to defer to “human rights”? Truth of the matter is that you need to read the entire Bill of Rights AND the U.S. Constitution to determine what it says about freedom of religion (not FROM religion). The only “misconceptions” regarding Jewish circumcision are by those who view Scripture allegorically, as opposed to literally (NOT literalistically).

      I suggest you use your time to try and effect some real change in this world, as opposed to dealing with an issue that is so miniscule in the overall picture, that it pales completely when it is compared to everything else.

      Keep putting out the comic book. It’s a hoot! I can really see it as a TV show, along the lines of “The Tick.” I’m done with this one. I’ve given you folks more press than you deserve.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13,202 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,015,177 hits

%d bloggers like this: