No. We must condemn issue #2 for engaging in anti-Semtiic imagery. It's obviously construed as anti-Semitic, even though I doubt it was intended that way.
The problem rests in the obvious, predictable offense caused by the imagery. I don't think it was intended to offend out of malice but rather to offend as an attention-grabbing tactic. That's less problematic than if I thought Mr. Hess to be anti-Semitic, but not by much. It makes us look like attention-seeking fringe lunatics, not the reasoned advocates for equal rights we can and must be. Condemning issue #2 as "easily misconstrued" rather than obviously construed suggests that the problem with interpretation rests with the reader rather than the creator. It doesn't. "I'm sorry" is different than "I'm sorry you were offended." Only the former is acceptable in this case. Anything less prolongs and deepens the damage.
We seem to dis agree about ¿what to do about Foreskin Man # 2? Maybe we should just compromise:
We condemn Foreskin Man # 2 as being easily misconstrued as antisemitic, but when pressed on the issue, point out that Foreskin Man rescues a Jewish baby in Foreskin Man # 2 and what makes it so easily misconstruable is that the antagonist is also Jewish. We can point out that the Jewish and the guests about half of whom are Jewish were cool with a Brit Shalom and objected to a Brit Milah.
We should only go on to analyzing the true meaning of Foreskin Man # 2 if pressed. Otherwise, we just condemn it as being easily misconstrued as antisemitic.
Of course we must deal with where we are rather than where we wish we were. But on this, Mr. Hess is part of the problem. I and at least several others contacted him when issue two came out last year and told him that it was not helpful and we shouldn't be using it. He kept it available instead. So, while I doubt heavily that he is an anti-Semite, he is very bad at marketing and is actively hurting us. I will not stand by and let that go just because we're on the same side. The mistake is - and should've been - obvious. We shouldn't have to salvage anything because this fiasco is entirely self-inflicted. The sooner we all acknowledge it, the sooner it will be behind us.
I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that Foreskin Man #2 is not anti-Semitic. I'm willing to grant that it merely engages in such imagery rather than being its intent. It's not meant to attack Jews exclusively or to suggest their reason for circumcising is any worse than other reason offered. It's meant to be a series that, as a whole, addresses the flaws in the various reasons parents circumcise. Issue one was medical, issue 2 is ritual, and so on. I get that. But it's inexcusable carelessness, at best. That imagery is not acceptable. Anything with "Monster Mohel" and his armed gang forcibly circumcising a child against one of the parent's wishes is offensive. It engages in stereotypical caricatures that have well-known implications. Mr. Hess is trying to be Christopher Hitchens but doesn't have the talent. Few of us do, but the rest of us wisely don't try.
When confronted with Foreskin Man # 2, we need to look the accusers in the eye and state that Foreskin Man #2 is inexcusable. In doing so, we can eventually make our principled case against non-therapeutic child genital cutting again. We will demonstrate that we recognize the difference between challenging circumcision on minors and attacking religion. Anything else prolongs the damage and permits those who wish to apply blanket assumptions the "evidence" they need to continue assuming that we all accept and endorse the imagery in issue two.
People like Andrew Sullivan and others, who agree openly and often with us, are abandoning the initiative in SF because of this. I disagree with that action and wish they wouldn't, but I understand why. We are thankfully in an era where anti-Semitism is not tolerated. Any whiff of it disgusts people. This is not surprising.
Ultimately, we're not going to convince those who disagree with us enough to mindlessly call us anti-Semites because opposing circumcision. We're not going to convince people who have a closed mind. That'll happen only culturally and over time. But we can educate people who haven't yet grasped the offense of child circumcision but aren't convinced that it's essential. Those who think this is a non-issue are the people we can reach. This initiative in SF wasn't going to pass before issue two became the story. But the initiative had the chance to educate some people, to do some good work at changing the culture. There is no scenario in which issue two could've helped us. What we're seeing now was entirely predictable. If we don't reject it, it lingers and damages us longer.
I agree that the sexual genital mutilators will try to use Foreskin Man # 2 against us. I agree that it would be better if Mister Hess never published Foreskin Man # 2. That does not change the fact that the cat is out of the bag. When confronted with Foreskin Man # 2, we need to look the mutilators in the eye and state that Foreskin Man saves a Jewish baby. This will be easy to do because it is the truth:
Foreskin Man saves children. In the first issue, he saves a baby from gentile-against-gentile violence. In Foreskin Man # 2, he saves a baby from Jew-against-Jew violence. I have a feeling that in Foreskin Man # 3, which will be about tribal circumcision, he will probably stop violence between members in a tribe. We can honestly say that he saved a Jewish baby.
We can honestly say that Foreskin Man # 2 is not antisemitic, but the victim of a smear-campaign. It is the truth.
We must deal with the cards dealt. Many intactivists seem to want Mister Hess to build a timemachine and stop himself from publishing Foreskin Man # 2. This gets us nowhither fast. we need to deal with the current situation rather than yelling at Mister Hess. What is done is done. If we deal with the situation with our conviction and the truth, we can partially salvage the situation, but dumping on Mister Hess does not benefit us.
I disagree because I think your point is too broad. Consider the de facto ban implemented by the Soviets. Most Russians wouldn't circumcise anyway, so it was targeted at religion. But I'll concede it for the sake of the argument because I don't want to debate it further. It's ultimately not what's key here.
The important point is that Foreskin Man the character doesn't have to be an anti-Semite for "Foreskin Man" the comic to be anti-Semitic, or at best, to play foolishly and offensively with anti-Semitic imagery. It unarguably does the latter. That's the problem, not that Foreskin Man himself is protecting a child. It's the comic as a whole, not just the parts we like. Those who disagree with us are not going to just look at the parts we like and ignore the rest. We have to be smart, not arrogant and stupid.
We shouldn't have the burden of proof because we're not the ones who want to circumcise healthy children. But our society isn't perfect, so unfortunately that burden is on us. We have to acknowledge that reality and work within it to demonstrate the logic and truth of our position. We can - we must - make our points without being pointlessly offensive. "Foreskin Man" #2 fails.
Think of it this way: if you think our opponents are lying, why would creating material that is easily and obviously interpreted to be anti-Semitic help us in any way? Wouldn't it be better for us if they were "lying" about anti-Semitism if "Foreskin Man" #2 didn't exist? Wouldn't we have an easier time of rebutting that sweeping generalization if we could rest on the plain text of the proposal rather than having "Monster Mohel" in the discussion? Again, I believe the number of people who are actually lying about anti-Semitism is very small, approaching zero. But this debate is already heated. Why stoke the tangential issues and make them the focus?
Imperator Romanus Publius Ælius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, better known as Hadrianus because Imperator Romanus Publius Ælius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus is a mouthful, was the third of the 5 good Emperors.
Let us be clear, one needs a certain level of ruthlessness to become Emperor, so Hadrianus is not perfect, but he went around the Empire making improvements, the most famous of which is Vallum Ælium, whics is a great public work in the British Isles, still standing today. He also worked on slavery:
Unfortunately, he could not abolish slavery because the Empire depended on slavery, but he made it harder to have to become a slave, easier for slaves to earn their freedom, improved the living and working conditions of slaves.
Hadrianus banned circumcision for all people in the Empire, including Jews. Everyone agrees that his intentions were good.
Hitler was not a good man. I shall not get into why he is bad because I assume that you know why he was a bad man. He did ban circumcision for gentiles because he did not want parents jewing Aryan babies but he let Jews circumcise. His allowing Jews to circumcise fit into his long term plans:
Short term:
Confine Jews to the Jewish Ghettos while building concentration-camps.
Midterm:
After the camps are ready, transfer the Jews to the concentration where they will be worked to death. Gas Jews who cannot work.
Long Term:
No more Jews.
Allowing circumcision in the Ghettos make it very easy to identify escaped Jewish men. Nazis who were definitely antisemitic were not known for saving Jewish babies from mohelim.
Saving a Jewish baby from a mohel is good evidence that Foreskin Man is not antisemitic. If he would be antisemitic, he would prevent others from circumcising, but allow Jews to do so so that when it is time for the Final Solution, he can identify Jewish males.
Your reductio doesn't make sense. Your 3rd item isn't obvious. It could just as easily be theorized that anti-Semites would "rescue" Jewish babies to "correct" them or some other such offensive absurdity. It's not a provable statement. There is no ergo from that.
On the 4th item, it's a reasonable debate that Foreskin Man is not anti-Semitic. However, "Foreskin Man" the comic undeniably uses imagery easily associated anti-Semitism. Whether or not Matthew Hess is anti-Semitic is a relevant question. I think the answer is likely "no", but that doesn't change the inexcusable caricatures used in issue #2. They are wrong. Additionally, they are damaging to those who seek to protect the rights of children to decide for themselves. Rather than debate the merits of protecting boys, we're now having to defend ourselves from blanket accusations. That's a predictable distraction we have to address because of this, no matter how foolish the charge is as a blanket assumption.
Finally, we can't call people "sexual genital mutilators". Yes, circumcision is mutilation. But there's more wrapped up in the term you use. It's also awful marketing for us. It makes us sound rabid. Nor is "lie" a good word choice. People claim "Foreskin Man" is anti-Semitic because it uses such imagery. They are not lying. They may not be thinking by applying it universally to all activists, but to accuse them of lying is to make a much bolder, more offensive claim that is unlikely to be true. (I made this mistake once without thinking of the implication of the word "lie". I meant to state that someone's claim was incorrect, which it was. I wrote "lie". I was justifiably admonished for it.) And we're not going to get anywhere using antagonistic, inaccurate terms like "Jew-on-Jew violence". We're challenging "parent-on-son" genital cutting for whatever non-therapeutic reason it's imposed. It is a violation of personal autonomy and bodily integrity. That is our argument. We have to make that obvious and not give any reason for people to suspect sinister motives that do not exist for most us.
Antisemites hate Jews.
Foreskin Man rescues a Jewish baby.
Because antisemites hate Jews, they do not rescue Jewish babies.
So ergo, Foreskin Man is not antisemitic.
Basically the sexual genital mutilators lie when they claim that Foreskin Man is antisemitic just because he prevents Jew-On-Jew violence.
I am looking for someone to do an expose' on a custom. I am a nurse in newborn nursery. The pain that sweet tiny baby boys go through during a circumcision horrifies me. It is surgery without anesthesia. It is 10 minutes of pure hell. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock immediately. They just stare and make gurgly noises. They are the lucky ones. The others remain perfectly aware of the pain that goes on and on. Their piercing screams haunt me.
In history, the earliest surgery was done without anesthesia. Just tie them down and do it quick. Some people were willing to have surgery once. But I've read that people refused to endure surgery a second time - even if it meant death. They knew how severe the pain was, and decided they would rather die than endure that pain a second time.
How can intelligent, educated people not realize that a scalpel causes a horrendous, sharp, excruciating pain that no human being should ever have to endure. Tell me how a custom can be so strong that it overpowers intelligence and common sense.
For example, the Chinese custom of "binding" young girls' feet. The toes were forced down under the foot [ breaking bones, I believe ] and tightly bound forever. So the feet couldn't grow. Forever small. Big feet were considered UGLY. No one would marry a girl with big feet. Can you imagine the pain? Americans are not under the influence of Chinese customs and from a distance, we are apalled! But in China, even after a law was passed against foot-binding, some parents would still do it - knowing that they were going to prison. That is how strong a custom can be. It can cloud judgement.
The pain of circumcision wouldn't be quite as bad if the foreskin was fully developed at birth. But it is still adhered to the glans [ head of the penis ] and does not separate naturally for several years. Mother Nature may be slow, but it produces an exquisitely sensitive sexual organ.
The first step of a circumcision is to rip the adhered foreskin off the glans using a metal probe. But the two skins are still fused as one. And patches of skin are ripped off the glans in the process. I see the glans of these tiny penises with skin missing and the tissue exposed every day. The pain is supposed to be comparable to having a metal probe forced under your fingernail and ripping it back and forth until the fingernail comes off. Imagine the pain! It is now recommended that a pain block be used. But it is not a law. So only a few babies get it.
So why do we do it? Because it is what we are used to. A custom. Explain that to a baby that is enduring a pain that no human being should ever have to endure!
There are many other reasons not to circumcise. It is removing the best skin of the penis. The foreskin contains approx. 20,000 specialized nerves that enhance sexual pleasure. The skin remaining is crude and has only a fraction of the sensation. The foreskin is NOT extra skin. It is there so that the penis can get longer during an erection. It is designed to unfold and stretch out, allowing the penis to grow. In the process, the foreskin is pulled off the glans. The glans is then uncovered and now the intact penis looks the same as a circumcised penis. They end up looking the same during an erection. But the intact penis is larger and has more sensation.
Over the years, doctors have invented excuses for circumcision and the public latches onto them. These excuses are false and misleading. There is no reason good enough to inflict such sharp, excruciating pain on someone you love. To forever decrease his sexual pleasure. To amputate the best, most sensitive part of his penis. To violate his human rights.
As I watch parents hug and kiss their new babies. Then insist that their babies endure a pain that is comparable to a fingernail being ripped off with a metal probe. And then a scalpel cuts - with no anesthesia. I want to scream, "Do you love your baby, or hate him?"
There are many organizations that would help you with an expose'. They are easy to find on the internet. Please help! Babies are weak. This custom is strong.
Circumcision prevents infections as well as fingernail removal prevents hangnails. And it makes just as little sense. Of course removing a body part means there will be no future problems with that body part. Fortunately, antibiotics are available to treat infections. Amputation (circumcision) is not required for treating infections.
One reason there are foreskin problems in the United States is because parents and many doctors do not understand how to care for the intact penis. So, they fiddle with it and forcibly retract a child's foreskin in an uninformed attempt at cleanliness. Until a boy's foreskin naturally retracts, no cleaning under the foreskin is required. The foreskin is fused to the glans until the boy is somewhere between 3 and 15 years old. One study found that the average age of natural retraction is 10 years. By forcibly retracting the foreskin, the delicate tissues are damaged. This damage is the leading cause of later foreskin problems.
The ordeal you have suffered has not squelched your personality or the love you show for the men and women in your life. You are strong, man. You never gave up.
Your physician's idea that skin bridges can resolve on their own was not entirely bogus. As an intact boy I had several quarter inch to three eights inch long or longer skin bridges from my corona across the sulcus to the inner foreskin mucosa. These resolved over a period of time between ages 10 and 12 y o. I think that the reason why our experiences differ is that your bridge was deep, wide, and structural, no doubt due to healing of severe circumcision trauma, whereas mine were more superficial, never painful, and probably caused by torn adhesions between foreskin and glans when physicians forcibly retracted my foreskin, which I definitely remember happening and experiencing their forcefulness and my discomfort.
And you already know, never trust your health -- or your child's penis -- to a physician or any other health care practitioner. They are your advisors, not your masters. This bit of advice comes to you from a Professor of Medicine, lol.
You are correct, the vast majority of people against infant circumcision are women and intact men. There are some circumcised men against circumcision, me for example. Recently, more men are beginning to realize the harm caused them by their circumcision and are joining the fight for genital integrity for all. The Internet is educating a lot of men, particularly young men.
The webpage Vulnerability of Men describes one possible reason many circumcised men see nothing wrong with circumcision. I notice that it is men in their 30s that are most susceptible to thinking that their circumcised penis is the best thing out there. Many are adament that they prefer their circumcised penis, even though they have no idea what it would be like to have their natural penis with a foreskin.
Younger men are more open to learning about the anatomy of the penis and recognizing that infant circumcision removed erogenous tissue and destroyed the gliding function. Many older men realize that they are enjoying sex less as they get older and are open to learning why. These are the men who are restoring their foreskin and experiencing the increased sexual pleasure a foreskin gives.
Why is it that it's mostly women and uncircumcised men who protest circumcision? I wonder if there's some sort of psychological hole that's being filled here..
Wouldn't it be great if all third trimester expectant mothers saw this video at their OB-GYN's office? There is little information given to these women in the normal course of their being processed through our current medical system, and that helps promulgate the continued "behind closed doors" cutting of baby boys' primary sexual organs for no morally defensible reason, and in total ethical disregard for their rights to genital integrity.
Adult repercussions of infant mgm are rarely -- if ever -- explicated as well as Peter Pink's story.
Please, let no one be deterred from reading Peter Pink’s story because it appears to be long or from far away. It is a tightly written personal narrative that carries ethical, scientific, medical, cosmetic, social, historical, personal, and other story lines from the first day out of womb right through middle-age and beyond, conveying a miserable life experience that affirms many truths and bares many lies.
I am amazed at the NZ (kiwi) parallels to what we experience in the US and Canada, right down to the sexist genital mutilation statute of 1996.
I haven't tried it yet, but I've read that tea tree oil, or Melaleuca alternifolia oil, is an effective natural remedy for Pearly Penile Papules. Tea tree oil is a really lovely product from Australia--it tingles and smells kind of like eucalyptus, and I've used as a treatment for cuts and blisters, because it acts as an antimicrobial. Its also the main ingredient in the Derma Remedies product.
I wish that so many men were apparently circumcised... is there a general reason for this? It seems useless to me. you are born with it.. it's a natural part of your body. not a deformity. And quite frankly, i think it's fantastic!!
Peter's story is impressive. I have heard any number of complaints from circumcised men in their 40's, a decade younger than Peter, about ED of unknown cause. What Peter is telling us about desensitization of his glans penis in his 50's may happen to other men who are years younger, with consequences not only for enjoying fellatio but also for enjoying coitus. Btw, whatever your opinion about fellatio may be, you have to respect coitus -- without it, none of us would be here today!
To me, the penis is first and foremost a sensitive part of the body that provides great pleasure. No way would I ever consider having someone cut or operate on my penis unless it was absolutely necessary.
Pearly penile papules are not removed by circumcision. Circumcision will remove the foreskin and expose pearly penile papules, which are located on the corona. Circumcision is not the answer to pearly penile papules.
Restoring Tally is just an ordinary guy who had to confront his prostate and circumcision problems. This site chronicles his journey in dealing with these issues. He has had prostate surgery and he is restoring his foreskin.
Recent comments
No. We must condemn issue #2 for engaging in anti-Semtiic imagery. It's obviously construed as anti-Semitic, even though I doubt it was intended that way.
The problem rests in the obvious, predictable offense caused by the imagery. I don't think it was intended to offend out of malice but rather to offend as an attention-grabbing tactic. That's less problematic than if I thought Mr. Hess to be anti-Semitic, but not by much. It makes us look like attention-seeking fringe lunatics, not the reasoned advocates for equal rights we can and must be. Condemning issue #2 as "easily misconstrued" rather than obviously construed suggests that the problem with interpretation rests with the reader rather than the creator. It doesn't. "I'm sorry" is different than "I'm sorry you were offended." Only the former is acceptable in this case. Anything less prolongs and deepens the damage.
We seem to dis agree about ¿what to do about Foreskin Man # 2? Maybe we should just compromise:
We condemn Foreskin Man # 2 as being easily misconstrued as antisemitic, but when pressed on the issue, point out that Foreskin Man rescues a Jewish baby in Foreskin Man # 2 and what makes it so easily misconstruable is that the antagonist is also Jewish. We can point out that the Jewish and the guests about half of whom are Jewish were cool with a Brit Shalom and objected to a Brit Milah.
We should only go on to analyzing the true meaning of Foreskin Man # 2 if pressed. Otherwise, we just condemn it as being easily misconstrued as antisemitic.
¿Is this an acceptable compromise?
Of course we must deal with where we are rather than where we wish we were. But on this, Mr. Hess is part of the problem. I and at least several others contacted him when issue two came out last year and told him that it was not helpful and we shouldn't be using it. He kept it available instead. So, while I doubt heavily that he is an anti-Semite, he is very bad at marketing and is actively hurting us. I will not stand by and let that go just because we're on the same side. The mistake is - and should've been - obvious. We shouldn't have to salvage anything because this fiasco is entirely self-inflicted. The sooner we all acknowledge it, the sooner it will be behind us.
I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that Foreskin Man #2 is not anti-Semitic. I'm willing to grant that it merely engages in such imagery rather than being its intent. It's not meant to attack Jews exclusively or to suggest their reason for circumcising is any worse than other reason offered. It's meant to be a series that, as a whole, addresses the flaws in the various reasons parents circumcise. Issue one was medical, issue 2 is ritual, and so on. I get that. But it's inexcusable carelessness, at best. That imagery is not acceptable. Anything with "Monster Mohel" and his armed gang forcibly circumcising a child against one of the parent's wishes is offensive. It engages in stereotypical caricatures that have well-known implications. Mr. Hess is trying to be Christopher Hitchens but doesn't have the talent. Few of us do, but the rest of us wisely don't try.
When confronted with Foreskin Man # 2, we need to look the accusers in the eye and state that Foreskin Man #2 is inexcusable. In doing so, we can eventually make our principled case against non-therapeutic child genital cutting again. We will demonstrate that we recognize the difference between challenging circumcision on minors and attacking religion. Anything else prolongs the damage and permits those who wish to apply blanket assumptions the "evidence" they need to continue assuming that we all accept and endorse the imagery in issue two.
People like Andrew Sullivan and others, who agree openly and often with us, are abandoning the initiative in SF because of this. I disagree with that action and wish they wouldn't, but I understand why. We are thankfully in an era where anti-Semitism is not tolerated. Any whiff of it disgusts people. This is not surprising.
Ultimately, we're not going to convince those who disagree with us enough to mindlessly call us anti-Semites because opposing circumcision. We're not going to convince people who have a closed mind. That'll happen only culturally and over time. But we can educate people who haven't yet grasped the offense of child circumcision but aren't convinced that it's essential. Those who think this is a non-issue are the people we can reach. This initiative in SF wasn't going to pass before issue two became the story. But the initiative had the chance to educate some people, to do some good work at changing the culture. There is no scenario in which issue two could've helped us. What we're seeing now was entirely predictable. If we don't reject it, it lingers and damages us longer.
I agree that the sexual genital mutilators will try to use Foreskin Man # 2 against us. I agree that it would be better if Mister Hess never published Foreskin Man # 2. That does not change the fact that the cat is out of the bag. When confronted with Foreskin Man # 2, we need to look the mutilators in the eye and state that Foreskin Man saves a Jewish baby. This will be easy to do because it is the truth:
Foreskin Man saves children. In the first issue, he saves a baby from gentile-against-gentile violence. In Foreskin Man # 2, he saves a baby from Jew-against-Jew violence. I have a feeling that in Foreskin Man # 3, which will be about tribal circumcision, he will probably stop violence between members in a tribe. We can honestly say that he saved a Jewish baby.
We can honestly say that Foreskin Man # 2 is not antisemitic, but the victim of a smear-campaign. It is the truth.
We must deal with the cards dealt. Many intactivists seem to want Mister Hess to build a timemachine and stop himself from publishing Foreskin Man # 2. This gets us nowhither fast. we need to deal with the current situation rather than yelling at Mister Hess. What is done is done. If we deal with the situation with our conviction and the truth, we can partially salvage the situation, but dumping on Mister Hess does not benefit us.
I disagree because I think your point is too broad. Consider the de facto ban implemented by the Soviets. Most Russians wouldn't circumcise anyway, so it was targeted at religion. But I'll concede it for the sake of the argument because I don't want to debate it further. It's ultimately not what's key here.
The important point is that Foreskin Man the character doesn't have to be an anti-Semite for "Foreskin Man" the comic to be anti-Semitic, or at best, to play foolishly and offensively with anti-Semitic imagery. It unarguably does the latter. That's the problem, not that Foreskin Man himself is protecting a child. It's the comic as a whole, not just the parts we like. Those who disagree with us are not going to just look at the parts we like and ignore the rest. We have to be smart, not arrogant and stupid.
We shouldn't have the burden of proof because we're not the ones who want to circumcise healthy children. But our society isn't perfect, so unfortunately that burden is on us. We have to acknowledge that reality and work within it to demonstrate the logic and truth of our position. We can - we must - make our points without being pointlessly offensive. "Foreskin Man" #2 fails.
Think of it this way: if you think our opponents are lying, why would creating material that is easily and obviously interpreted to be anti-Semitic help us in any way? Wouldn't it be better for us if they were "lying" about anti-Semitism if "Foreskin Man" #2 didn't exist? Wouldn't we have an easier time of rebutting that sweeping generalization if we could rest on the plain text of the proposal rather than having "Monster Mohel" in the discussion? Again, I believe the number of people who are actually lying about anti-Semitism is very small, approaching zero. But this debate is already heated. Why stoke the tangential issues and make them the focus?
Let us look at 2 historical examples:
Imperator Romanus Publius Ælius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, better known as Hadrianus because Imperator Romanus Publius Ælius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus is a mouthful, was the third of the 5 good Emperors.
Let us be clear, one needs a certain level of ruthlessness to become Emperor, so Hadrianus is not perfect, but he went around the Empire making improvements, the most famous of which is Vallum Ælium, whics is a great public work in the British Isles, still standing today. He also worked on slavery:
Unfortunately, he could not abolish slavery because the Empire depended on slavery, but he made it harder to have to become a slave, easier for slaves to earn their freedom, improved the living and working conditions of slaves.
Hadrianus banned circumcision for all people in the Empire, including Jews. Everyone agrees that his intentions were good.
Hitler was not a good man. I shall not get into why he is bad because I assume that you know why he was a bad man. He did ban circumcision for gentiles because he did not want parents jewing Aryan babies but he let Jews circumcise. His allowing Jews to circumcise fit into his long term plans:
Short term:
Confine Jews to the Jewish Ghettos while building concentration-camps.
Midterm:
After the camps are ready, transfer the Jews to the concentration where they will be worked to death. Gas Jews who cannot work.
Long Term:
No more Jews.
Allowing circumcision in the Ghettos make it very easy to identify escaped Jewish men. Nazis who were definitely antisemitic were not known for saving Jewish babies from mohelim.
Saving a Jewish baby from a mohel is good evidence that Foreskin Man is not antisemitic. If he would be antisemitic, he would prevent others from circumcising, but allow Jews to do so so that when it is time for the Final Solution, he can identify Jewish males.
Walabio:
Your reductio doesn't make sense. Your 3rd item isn't obvious. It could just as easily be theorized that anti-Semites would "rescue" Jewish babies to "correct" them or some other such offensive absurdity. It's not a provable statement. There is no ergo from that.
On the 4th item, it's a reasonable debate that Foreskin Man is not anti-Semitic. However, "Foreskin Man" the comic undeniably uses imagery easily associated anti-Semitism. Whether or not Matthew Hess is anti-Semitic is a relevant question. I think the answer is likely "no", but that doesn't change the inexcusable caricatures used in issue #2. They are wrong. Additionally, they are damaging to those who seek to protect the rights of children to decide for themselves. Rather than debate the merits of protecting boys, we're now having to defend ourselves from blanket accusations. That's a predictable distraction we have to address because of this, no matter how foolish the charge is as a blanket assumption.
Finally, we can't call people "sexual genital mutilators". Yes, circumcision is mutilation. But there's more wrapped up in the term you use. It's also awful marketing for us. It makes us sound rabid. Nor is "lie" a good word choice. People claim "Foreskin Man" is anti-Semitic because it uses such imagery. They are not lying. They may not be thinking by applying it universally to all activists, but to accuse them of lying is to make a much bolder, more offensive claim that is unlikely to be true. (I made this mistake once without thinking of the implication of the word "lie". I meant to state that someone's claim was incorrect, which it was. I wrote "lie". I was justifiably admonished for it.) And we're not going to get anywhere using antagonistic, inaccurate terms like "Jew-on-Jew violence". We're challenging "parent-on-son" genital cutting for whatever non-therapeutic reason it's imposed. It is a violation of personal autonomy and bodily integrity. That is our argument. We have to make that obvious and not give any reason for people to suspect sinister motives that do not exist for most us.
Antisemites hate Jews.
Foreskin Man rescues a Jewish baby.
Because antisemites hate Jews, they do not rescue Jewish babies.
So ergo, Foreskin Man is not antisemitic.
Basically the sexual genital mutilators lie when they claim that Foreskin Man is antisemitic just because he prevents Jew-On-Jew violence.
Thank you for sharing, you have made my life better, keep promoting dickskin stetching, if you had a bisness card i would pass them out.
I am looking for someone to do an expose' on a custom. I am a nurse in newborn nursery. The pain that sweet tiny baby boys go through during a circumcision horrifies me. It is surgery without anesthesia. It is 10 minutes of pure hell. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock immediately. They just stare and make gurgly noises. They are the lucky ones. The others remain perfectly aware of the pain that goes on and on. Their piercing screams haunt me.
In history, the earliest surgery was done without anesthesia. Just tie them down and do it quick. Some people were willing to have surgery once. But I've read that people refused to endure surgery a second time - even if it meant death. They knew how severe the pain was, and decided they would rather die than endure that pain a second time.
How can intelligent, educated people not realize that a scalpel causes a horrendous, sharp, excruciating pain that no human being should ever have to endure. Tell me how a custom can be so strong that it overpowers intelligence and common sense.
For example, the Chinese custom of "binding" young girls' feet. The toes were forced down under the foot [ breaking bones, I believe ] and tightly bound forever. So the feet couldn't grow. Forever small. Big feet were considered UGLY. No one would marry a girl with big feet. Can you imagine the pain? Americans are not under the influence of Chinese customs and from a distance, we are apalled! But in China, even after a law was passed against foot-binding, some parents would still do it - knowing that they were going to prison. That is how strong a custom can be. It can cloud judgement.
The pain of circumcision wouldn't be quite as bad if the foreskin was fully developed at birth. But it is still adhered to the glans [ head of the penis ] and does not separate naturally for several years. Mother Nature may be slow, but it produces an exquisitely sensitive sexual organ.
The first step of a circumcision is to rip the adhered foreskin off the glans using a metal probe. But the two skins are still fused as one. And patches of skin are ripped off the glans in the process. I see the glans of these tiny penises with skin missing and the tissue exposed every day. The pain is supposed to be comparable to having a metal probe forced under your fingernail and ripping it back and forth until the fingernail comes off. Imagine the pain! It is now recommended that a pain block be used. But it is not a law. So only a few babies get it.
So why do we do it? Because it is what we are used to. A custom. Explain that to a baby that is enduring a pain that no human being should ever have to endure!
There are many other reasons not to circumcise. It is removing the best skin of the penis. The foreskin contains approx. 20,000 specialized nerves that enhance sexual pleasure. The skin remaining is crude and has only a fraction of the sensation. The foreskin is NOT extra skin. It is there so that the penis can get longer during an erection. It is designed to unfold and stretch out, allowing the penis to grow. In the process, the foreskin is pulled off the glans. The glans is then uncovered and now the intact penis looks the same as a circumcised penis. They end up looking the same during an erection. But the intact penis is larger and has more sensation.
Over the years, doctors have invented excuses for circumcision and the public latches onto them. These excuses are false and misleading. There is no reason good enough to inflict such sharp, excruciating pain on someone you love. To forever decrease his sexual pleasure. To amputate the best, most sensitive part of his penis. To violate his human rights.
As I watch parents hug and kiss their new babies. Then insist that their babies endure a pain that is comparable to a fingernail being ripped off with a metal probe. And then a scalpel cuts - with no anesthesia. I want to scream, "Do you love your baby, or hate him?"
There are many organizations that would help you with an expose'. They are easy to find on the internet. Please help! Babies are weak. This custom is strong.
Circumcision prevents infections as well as fingernail removal prevents hangnails. And it makes just as little sense. Of course removing a body part means there will be no future problems with that body part. Fortunately, antibiotics are available to treat infections. Amputation (circumcision) is not required for treating infections.
One reason there are foreskin problems in the United States is because parents and many doctors do not understand how to care for the intact penis. So, they fiddle with it and forcibly retract a child's foreskin in an uninformed attempt at cleanliness. Until a boy's foreskin naturally retracts, no cleaning under the foreskin is required. The foreskin is fused to the glans until the boy is somewhere between 3 and 15 years old. One study found that the average age of natural retraction is 10 years. By forcibly retracting the foreskin, the delicate tissues are damaged. This damage is the leading cause of later foreskin problems.
Circumcision also prevents infections, its not a vanity thing. It has nothing to do with the way the penis looks.
The ordeal you have suffered has not squelched your personality or the love you show for the men and women in your life. You are strong, man. You never gave up.
Your physician's idea that skin bridges can resolve on their own was not entirely bogus. As an intact boy I had several quarter inch to three eights inch long or longer skin bridges from my corona across the sulcus to the inner foreskin mucosa. These resolved over a period of time between ages 10 and 12 y o. I think that the reason why our experiences differ is that your bridge was deep, wide, and structural, no doubt due to healing of severe circumcision trauma, whereas mine were more superficial, never painful, and probably caused by torn adhesions between foreskin and glans when physicians forcibly retracted my foreskin, which I definitely remember happening and experiencing their forcefulness and my discomfort.
And you already know, never trust your health -- or your child's penis -- to a physician or any other health care practitioner. They are your advisors, not your masters. This bit of advice comes to you from a Professor of Medicine, lol.
You are correct, the vast majority of people against infant circumcision are women and intact men. There are some circumcised men against circumcision, me for example. Recently, more men are beginning to realize the harm caused them by their circumcision and are joining the fight for genital integrity for all. The Internet is educating a lot of men, particularly young men.
The webpage Vulnerability of Men describes one possible reason many circumcised men see nothing wrong with circumcision. I notice that it is men in their 30s that are most susceptible to thinking that their circumcised penis is the best thing out there. Many are adament that they prefer their circumcised penis, even though they have no idea what it would be like to have their natural penis with a foreskin.
Younger men are more open to learning about the anatomy of the penis and recognizing that infant circumcision removed erogenous tissue and destroyed the gliding function. Many older men realize that they are enjoying sex less as they get older and are open to learning why. These are the men who are restoring their foreskin and experiencing the increased sexual pleasure a foreskin gives.
Why is it that it's mostly women and uncircumcised men who protest circumcision? I wonder if there's some sort of psychological hole that's being filled here..
Wouldn't it be great if all third trimester expectant mothers saw this video at their OB-GYN's office? There is little information given to these women in the normal course of their being processed through our current medical system, and that helps promulgate the continued "behind closed doors" cutting of baby boys' primary sexual organs for no morally defensible reason, and in total ethical disregard for their rights to genital integrity.
Adult repercussions of infant mgm are rarely -- if ever -- explicated as well as Peter Pink's story.
Please, let no one be deterred from reading Peter Pink’s story because it appears to be long or from far away. It is a tightly written personal narrative that carries ethical, scientific, medical, cosmetic, social, historical, personal, and other story lines from the first day out of womb right through middle-age and beyond, conveying a miserable life experience that affirms many truths and bares many lies.
I am amazed at the NZ (kiwi) parallels to what we experience in the US and Canada, right down to the sexist genital mutilation statute of 1996.
I haven't tried it yet, but I've read that tea tree oil, or Melaleuca alternifolia oil, is an effective natural remedy for Pearly Penile Papules. Tea tree oil is a really lovely product from Australia--it tingles and smells kind of like eucalyptus, and I've used as a treatment for cuts and blisters, because it acts as an antimicrobial. Its also the main ingredient in the Derma Remedies product.
Great things you’ve always shared with us. Just keep writing this kind of posts.
Thanks
I wish that so many men were apparently circumcised... is there a general reason for this? It seems useless to me. you are born with it.. it's a natural part of your body. not a deformity. And quite frankly, i think it's fantastic!!
Peter's story is impressive. I have heard any number of complaints from circumcised men in their 40's, a decade younger than Peter, about ED of unknown cause. What Peter is telling us about desensitization of his glans penis in his 50's may happen to other men who are years younger, with consequences not only for enjoying fellatio but also for enjoying coitus. Btw, whatever your opinion about fellatio may be, you have to respect coitus -- without it, none of us would be here today!
To me, the penis is first and foremost a sensitive part of the body that provides great pleasure. No way would I ever consider having someone cut or operate on my penis unless it was absolutely necessary.
Pearly penile papules are not removed by circumcision. Circumcision will remove the foreskin and expose pearly penile papules, which are located on the corona. Circumcision is not the answer to pearly penile papules.
Is Circumcision Going to Treat the Pearly Penile Papules?
I am glad to hear that you are taking action. It is important that we all do what we can to speak out for those that cannot speak for themselves.
Who is this guy?
Restoring Tally is just an ordinary guy who had to confront his prostate and circumcision problems. This site chronicles his journey in dealing with these issues. He has had prostate surgery and he is restoring his foreskin.
Read more about Tally
Recent Blog Posts
more . . .
Blog Tags
Monthly Archive of Blogs
Recent Web Links
more . . .
Recent comments
Calendars
Foreskin Restoration Calendar
Intactivist Calendar
Terms of Service | About | Contact
RestoringTally.com is a blog addressing Men's issues, particularly prostate problems and circumcised men who are restoring their foreskins.
Tell someone you love how nice it is to have a foreskin.