So this bill will make it legal for a blind man with Parkinsons to circumcise a protesting 17-year-old with a boxcutter, just so long as one parent has consented and it's a clean boxcutter...?
(LandoftheFree - I think they'd argue that a chainsaw couldn't be made sufficiently "hygienic")
It is an uphill battle against people who are unwilling to think logically, but with the decrease in percentage of neonatal circumcision in California, there should be a sufficient number of parents who would vote for an anti-circumcision bill. The problem is to convince them to vote. I am not at all familiar with the California legal system, but now that enough signatures have been collected to bring it to a popular vote, can the language of the proposed bill be modified?
No matter what the outcome in San Francisco turns out to be, the subject of infant circumcision is getting out in the open. Perhaps, the intactivist movement should now concentrate on Colorado, where the state legislature stopped Medicaid funding for circumcision. Although not considered as important as the West Coast, Colorado is also a trend-setting state, with a large number of pragmatic voters.
A similar law to the religious Coven-ant law is the religious Blasphemy law. It allows parents to excise their children's lives if they embarrass their religious beliefs.
(1) Infant male circumcision has a potential array of health benefits for the affiliative uneducated and an array of known short term and long term risks and harms for its victims. This would be a more honest statement than what the proponents of infant male prepuce excisionists claim.
"No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same."
I've always wanted to have a group of fundamentalists from my church come around to my house and help me circumcise my teenage son with a chainsaw, and now I will be able to, free from the interference of do-gooding child protection workers. America; the land of the free!
Those people that suffer abuse are prone to want to see it happen on others. Since people who have been circumcised are the ones that usually want to see it kept up, they're trying to rationalize the violation that happened to them when they were younger and make sure that others suffer the same fate as them.
"I am speachless. At least I can still write, though."
Uh, not to burst your bubble, but it's "speechless." And uh, yeah. This bill is seeking to curtail the democratic process, nevermind the favoritism for Judaism. The ban should be allowed to play out, and the people should vote it down. What good is a voting system if you can't even vote? And Gatto needs to show us how a parent is entitled to elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgeries on their normal, healthy children, and why doctors are even obliged to perform it.
Exercises, when done regularly, strengthen the core and prevent recurrence of back pain. Everyone knows somebody who sits behind a desk all day and comes home complaining about their back pain but it can be healed.
A skin tear or irritated spot should disappear within a few days or a week. If you have red spots or boils or pimples that recur or do not disappear after a few days or a week, see a doctor.
If it is herpes, the doctor can identify what type it is and possibly prescribe treatment to minimize the outbreaks. The doctor can also tell you how best to avoid passing the herpes on your partner.
I think i have herpes as well. Once in a month or so, small bumps appear for a few days. They are filled with water and when they broke, it's really painful! Pearly Penile Papules
I like to think that writing like somebody who has a day job is part of my folksy charm.
But yeah, Tom Wolfe I'm not. Tom Wolverine maybe.
I think the important thing is that those of us harmed by circumcision put our stories out there any way we can. Otherwise myths like "He'll never know what he's missing" and "Circumcised guys don't complain" perpetuate from one generation to the next.
I have a small spot as well, and I am not sure if this is Herpes (or something else) or a result of stress on the skin from stretching. I'm not sure, and judging that very few other people report this, it might be herpes.
I would think he knew what he was doing: getting people's attention at any cost. Doing something offensive and outrageous was bound to get him and his cause a lot of publicity. It wasn't the good kind, but perhaps he believes in the old axiom that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Although Hess himself may not be able to live this one down, he's at least got people talking about the circumcision issue.
Comparing mohelim to hitmen is silly, and bargaining away anti-Semitism only if we agree to the silly comparison helps no one. That includes the children you claim to want to protect.
I think the flaw in your thinking is that you select an explanation that works for you and then assume that must be the explanation for every case. It's why you assume that Foreskin Man's motives can only be viewed as pure because he seeks to protect a Jewish baby from circumcision. No other interpretation is possible to you, even though I offered one.
The same applies to assuming all mohelim are self-selected pedophiles, an offensive, flawed belief. I think it's exemplified in your assertion that all mohelim perform metzitzah b'peh, To be clear, it's an unacceptable procedure for many reasons, but it's not performed in every case. You seem to think that because a minority of mohelim perform it, they all do. That mistake allows you to then generalize extreme behavior for all involved. Facts matter. You're not using them.
Do I think we could find a mohel somewhere who is a pedophile? Probably. Same with a religious figure from any other faith. But that doesn't impugn every mohel (or priest or ...) for the actions of a small minority. It doesn't excuse holding an offensive position. Most importantly, it doesn't justify you spreading that incorrect, offensive message to others, harming the work of those of us who do not believe such nonsense. If you care about protecting children, you'll behave in a way that maximizes the opportunity to promote genital integrity. Engaging in anti-Semitic drivel is the opposite of what you should be doing as an activist. Either figure out and correct the flaw in your thinking, or stay quiet. Those are the two options for you doing any good in this topic.
I see no point in this thread continuing, but I shall leave you with a thought:
I shall drop believing that mohelim are self-selecting perverts, if you start defending hitmen as morally and ethically good people only murdering for money because they need the money, rather than the murderous self-selecting thugs they truly are.
I truly cannot understand ¿how you cannot see that someone who _“*CHOOSES*”_ a career where he sexually arouses babies, sexually mutilates their genitals, and then fellates them as anything but pervert? You have your head in the sand.
I cannot understand ¿how you can believe that I am antisemitic? Mohelim make up less than < 1% of Jews. The vast majority of Jews are not sexually deviant. Low single digit percent of all people regardless of race and religion have criminal paraphilas. I do not get ¿how you get from me pointing out that less than < 1% of Jews being pædophiles to believing that I believe that all Jews are pædophiles?
I guess that this is where we part company. Please keep up the great work. Although we disagree about the motivations of the mohelim, I have great respect for your efforts for protecting children from sexual genital mutilation. Your blog is a great resource. I wish you the best.
Prejudice describes an unfavorable opinion formed without facts, thought, or reason, often directed toward a racial, religious, or national group. An antisemite is one who has hatred toward Jews, individually and as a group, based on their Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. A pedophile is one with a psychiatric disorder typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. These are simplistic definitions, but they convey the basic meaning of the terms.
Walabio, I do not know you other than through your comments here. But based on what you wrote here, you, sir, are prejudiced and antisemitic. You are painting a picture of a mohel that is not based on reality and you are applying it generally. I find that offensive.
Infant circumcision is a violation of the child's bodily autonomy. But the belief that circumcision is wrong is no excuse to assign unfounded motivations to the practitioners. You make unqualified statements that apply to all mohels (with one minor exception). To accuse every mohel to be a pedophile goes beyond the pale. Without facts, your statements are only opinion that appear to have no foundation in reality and indicate a strong prejudice against Jews.
Based on your strong feelings regarding Jewish circumcision, it would be best if you limited yourself to addressing only secular circumcision. Your assertions that you are not antisemitic are contradicted by what you say. Your statements provide justification to the charge of antisemitism and reflect poorly on all intactivists.
Let us suppose that a hitman tried to get off by claiming justifiable homicide on the grounds that when he took the job, he was unemployed when he took the job. If I would be on the jury I would not buy it because I would rather beg on the streets than be a hitman.
Hitmen market themselves to get the job. They are violent thugs self-selecting themselves for the job.
Another example are dictators. From early childhood, these people want power. As adults, they claw their way to the top by any (and usually violent) means necessary and then do whatever it takes to stay on top.
¿What sort of a man do you beli4eve wants a job where one sexually stimulates infant boy to erection, sexually mutilates their genitals, and then fellates these poor defenseless babies? Please think about that for awhile.
I did not state that all mohelim are pædophiles. I acknowledged that in some small Jewish communities, to insure that they will always have a mohel, they make the job hereditary. I commented about what a terrible job that would be to inherit.
Although mohelim and other circumfetishists would construe my statements as antisemitic, they are not. I simply point out that both violent criminals self-select a career of violent crime. Unfortunately, this is how the world works. This has implications for strategy of convincing Jews to not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children:
As a policy, we should not bother trying to convince mohelim to not sexually mutilate the genitals of babies unless the mohel is 1 of the unfortunate mohelim who inherited the terrible job. A mohel who chose the job of mohel chose the job specifically for sexually assaulting children and will not give up the job willingly. Instead, we should target the Jewish parents:
The Jewish parents, although they dare not admit it publicly, are probably not happy about letting someone sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, but allow it because they feel that it is a requirement of Judaism. If we can show it is not a requirement of Judaism, many, if not most, can be persuaded to stop.
The only way we can get the mohelim to put down the knife is to convince the Jewish parents not to hire the mohelim.
I'm stunned. All mohelim are pedophiles? One should expect no better from a mohel? Both of those statements are offensive and suggest otherwise when you write against charges of anti-Semitism. If you insist on believing or stating that, please do the boys you want to save from circumcision a favor and stay out of the debate. That kind of garbage is the problem here, and is unacceptable. You damage our cause with that nonsense and make it harder for those of us who don't hold such beliefs to debate and convince others.
Just remind yourself that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ius a mohel and the mohelim are self-selected pædophiles. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach knows perfectly well that if we would be antisemitic, we would have a religious exception in the bill so that when the time is right, we could identify all of the male Jews for the final solution. You are reluctant to call people liars, but I am not:
¡Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is a liar!
I know a little about self-selecting assholes —— Excuse my French —— because my mother is the site-manager for some factory-outlet-malls:
Some people applying for security are on power trips. They go to customers doing nothing wrong interrogate them, and order them to leave. These customers never return. These sorts of guards must be identified and fired before they cost the mall too much money. These little Dictators make up about 10% of applicants.
About 10% of applicants are perverts:
They pat down teenaged boys or girls depending on what floats their boats on the grounds of catching shoplifters. While patting, they grope. Mall-Security is not the TSA. Not only does this cost business, but it causes expensive lawsuits and terrible publicity. These perverts must be fired as soon as identified.
About 10% of applicants are both perverts and dictators. They must be fired too.
The Founding Fathers understood about self-selecting people:
Although most cops are are alright working Joes trying to protect us from criminals and helping people in need (to protect and to serve), a few bad apples who are little dictators would arrest people and go through their property for shits and giggles —— excuse my French —— even though they do not suspect these citizens of doing anything wrong. That is why we have the 4th Amendment. Police need probable cause for arresting and enough probable cause for a judge to grant a search-warrant for searching property.
Do not let the lies of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach get you down because one should expect no better from a mohel anyway.
The gist of what I'm getting at is exemplified in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's Huffington Post essay today. Every time he uses the word "lie" to describe those who oppose circumcision, does it make you angry because that's incorrect? We know we're not lying, that we're stating what we believe. If some of what we state is wrong (emphasis on "if"), is that an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead others into choosing genital integrity?
His essay makes me angry because I know that I'm honest in what I state and am capable of comprehending the argument made for circumcision, even though I recognize that argument's fatal weaknesses. The overwhelming majority of genital integrity activists are the same. Regardless of that, the word "lie" is too loaded and does nothing but inflame the conversation if we let it. I'm not interested in letting it because I'd rather get dinged temporarily on unfair assumptions that I can disprove with logic and reason than get bent out of shape and demand that my view be accepted, period. This is all "hearts and minds". We need to leave the flamethrower mentality out of it whenever possible.
It was definitely a mistake to publish Foreskin Man # 2, but Hess was truthful about the Mohelim:
Certainly, Foreskin Man # 2 was cartoonish, but the way Monster Mohel thinks is typical of Mohelim:
Some small Jewish communities sometimes results to making the job of mohel hereditary so that they will be assured of having a mohel —— ¡that is a terrible job to inherit! —— but most mohelim are self-selected. That is ¿why mohelim fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) babies?:
Mohelim like to fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) babies because they are sick perverts. In 2005, a mohel killed babies with herpes from fellating them (Metzitzah B'Peh). He probably got the herpes from practicing Metzitzah B'Peh on some teenaged runaway in a filthy back alley in the dead of night after giving the boy 20.00 U$D. Only perverts would want a job where they sexually stimulate babies, sexually mutilate their genitalsa and then fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) them.
I shall condemn Foreskin Man # 2 as being easily misconstrued, but when pushed, I cannot condemn the truth. I shall have to defend it on the grounds of Foreskin Man saving a Jewish baby and mohelim as being perverted pædophiles like Monster Mohel. I shall point out the guests, half of whom were Jewish, and the Jewish mother are fine with a Brit Shalom, but oppose a Brit Milah.
I shall only expand mine answer if pressed on the subject. Otherwise, I shall condemn Foreskin Man # 2 was being easily misconstrued and leave it at that. That is what I shall do.
Many who are not involved in the circumcision issue recognize the antisemitic imagery in the Foreskin Man comic. The Foreskin Man comic does not represent what I believe as an intactivist. I believe in genital integrity and bodily autonomy for all children. Intactivism is about protecting children's rights, not religion.
Intactivists should condemn the comic. The comic is indefensible. If pressed, we need not defend it. The Foreskin Man comic is the work of one man who does not speak for everyone. He definitely does not speak for me.
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
It's gone Fe(de)ral! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2400
So this bill will make it legal for a blind man with Parkinsons to circumcise a protesting 17-year-old with a boxcutter, just so long as one parent has consented and it's a clean boxcutter...?
(LandoftheFree - I think they'd argue that a chainsaw couldn't be made sufficiently "hygienic")
It is an uphill battle against people who are unwilling to think logically, but with the decrease in percentage of neonatal circumcision in California, there should be a sufficient number of parents who would vote for an anti-circumcision bill. The problem is to convince them to vote. I am not at all familiar with the California legal system, but now that enough signatures have been collected to bring it to a popular vote, can the language of the proposed bill be modified?
No matter what the outcome in San Francisco turns out to be, the subject of infant circumcision is getting out in the open. Perhaps, the intactivist movement should now concentrate on Colorado, where the state legislature stopped Medicaid funding for circumcision. Although not considered as important as the West Coast, Colorado is also a trend-setting state, with a large number of pragmatic voters.
A similar law to the religious Coven-ant law is the religious Blasphemy law. It allows parents to excise their children's lives if they embarrass their religious beliefs.
(1) Infant male circumcision has a potential array of health benefits for the affiliative uneducated and an array of known short term and long term risks and harms for its victims. This would be a more honest statement than what the proponents of infant male prepuce excisionists claim.
"No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same."
I've always wanted to have a group of fundamentalists from my church come around to my house and help me circumcise my teenage son with a chainsaw, and now I will be able to, free from the interference of do-gooding child protection workers. America; the land of the free!
Those people that suffer abuse are prone to want to see it happen on others. Since people who have been circumcised are the ones that usually want to see it kept up, they're trying to rationalize the violation that happened to them when they were younger and make sure that others suffer the same fate as them.
Appaling.
Oops. I fixed my spelling error.
"I am speachless. At least I can still write, though."
Uh, not to burst your bubble, but it's "speechless." And uh, yeah. This bill is seeking to curtail the democratic process, nevermind the favoritism for Judaism. The ban should be allowed to play out, and the people should vote it down. What good is a voting system if you can't even vote? And Gatto needs to show us how a parent is entitled to elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgeries on their normal, healthy children, and why doctors are even obliged to perform it.
I was just reading through this post and I hadn't seen the Counter Punch article before. Excellently written! Thanks for posting this!
Joseph
Exercises, when done regularly, strengthen the core and prevent recurrence of back pain. Everyone knows somebody who sits behind a desk all day and comes home complaining about their back pain but it can be healed.
Thanks. If I ever miss anything of interest, please leave a comment with a link.
Just now discovering your recaps of each week in intactivism. Fabulous! Comprehensive, descriptive, WELL DONE! :)
A skin tear or irritated spot should disappear within a few days or a week. If you have red spots or boils or pimples that recur or do not disappear after a few days or a week, see a doctor.
If it is herpes, the doctor can identify what type it is and possibly prescribe treatment to minimize the outbreaks. The doctor can also tell you how best to avoid passing the herpes on your partner.
I think i have herpes as well. Once in a month or so, small bumps appear for a few days. They are filled with water and when they broke, it's really painful!
Pearly Penile Papules
I like to think that writing like somebody who has a day job is part of my folksy charm.
But yeah, Tom Wolfe I'm not. Tom Wolverine maybe.
I think the important thing is that those of us harmed by circumcision put our stories out there any way we can. Otherwise myths like "He'll never know what he's missing" and "Circumcised guys don't complain" perpetuate from one generation to the next.
Thanks, Tally.
I have a small spot as well, and I am not sure if this is Herpes (or something else) or a result of stress on the skin from stretching. I'm not sure, and judging that very few other people report this, it might be herpes.
I would think he knew what he was doing: getting people's attention at any cost. Doing something offensive and outrageous was bound to get him and his cause a lot of publicity. It wasn't the good kind, but perhaps he believes in the old axiom that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Although Hess himself may not be able to live this one down, he's at least got people talking about the circumcision issue.
Comparing mohelim to hitmen is silly, and bargaining away anti-Semitism only if we agree to the silly comparison helps no one. That includes the children you claim to want to protect.
I think the flaw in your thinking is that you select an explanation that works for you and then assume that must be the explanation for every case. It's why you assume that Foreskin Man's motives can only be viewed as pure because he seeks to protect a Jewish baby from circumcision. No other interpretation is possible to you, even though I offered one.
The same applies to assuming all mohelim are self-selected pedophiles, an offensive, flawed belief. I think it's exemplified in your assertion that all mohelim perform metzitzah b'peh, To be clear, it's an unacceptable procedure for many reasons, but it's not performed in every case. You seem to think that because a minority of mohelim perform it, they all do. That mistake allows you to then generalize extreme behavior for all involved. Facts matter. You're not using them.
Do I think we could find a mohel somewhere who is a pedophile? Probably. Same with a religious figure from any other faith. But that doesn't impugn every mohel (or priest or ...) for the actions of a small minority. It doesn't excuse holding an offensive position. Most importantly, it doesn't justify you spreading that incorrect, offensive message to others, harming the work of those of us who do not believe such nonsense. If you care about protecting children, you'll behave in a way that maximizes the opportunity to promote genital integrity. Engaging in anti-Semitic drivel is the opposite of what you should be doing as an activist. Either figure out and correct the flaw in your thinking, or stay quiet. Those are the two options for you doing any good in this topic.
I see no point in this thread continuing, but I shall leave you with a thought:
I shall drop believing that mohelim are self-selecting perverts, if you start defending hitmen as morally and ethically good people only murdering for money because they need the money, rather than the murderous self-selecting thugs they truly are.
I truly cannot understand ¿how you cannot see that someone who _“*CHOOSES*”_ a career where he sexually arouses babies, sexually mutilates their genitals, and then fellates them as anything but pervert? You have your head in the sand.
I cannot understand ¿how you can believe that I am antisemitic? Mohelim make up less than < 1% of Jews. The vast majority of Jews are not sexually deviant. Low single digit percent of all people regardless of race and religion have criminal paraphilas. I do not get ¿how you get from me pointing out that less than < 1% of Jews being pædophiles to believing that I believe that all Jews are pædophiles?
I guess that this is where we part company. Please keep up the great work. Although we disagree about the motivations of the mohelim, I have great respect for your efforts for protecting children from sexual genital mutilation. Your blog is a great resource. I wish you the best.
Prejudice describes an unfavorable opinion formed without facts, thought, or reason, often directed toward a racial, religious, or national group. An antisemite is one who has hatred toward Jews, individually and as a group, based on their Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. A pedophile is one with a psychiatric disorder typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. These are simplistic definitions, but they convey the basic meaning of the terms.
Walabio, I do not know you other than through your comments here. But based on what you wrote here, you, sir, are prejudiced and antisemitic. You are painting a picture of a mohel that is not based on reality and you are applying it generally. I find that offensive.
Infant circumcision is a violation of the child's bodily autonomy. But the belief that circumcision is wrong is no excuse to assign unfounded motivations to the practitioners. You make unqualified statements that apply to all mohels (with one minor exception). To accuse every mohel to be a pedophile goes beyond the pale. Without facts, your statements are only opinion that appear to have no foundation in reality and indicate a strong prejudice against Jews.
Based on your strong feelings regarding Jewish circumcision, it would be best if you limited yourself to addressing only secular circumcision. Your assertions that you are not antisemitic are contradicted by what you say. Your statements provide justification to the charge of antisemitism and reflect poorly on all intactivists.
Let us suppose that a hitman tried to get off by claiming justifiable homicide on the grounds that when he took the job, he was unemployed when he took the job. If I would be on the jury I would not buy it because I would rather beg on the streets than be a hitman.
Hitmen market themselves to get the job. They are violent thugs self-selecting themselves for the job.
Another example are dictators. From early childhood, these people want power. As adults, they claw their way to the top by any (and usually violent) means necessary and then do whatever it takes to stay on top.
¿What sort of a man do you beli4eve wants a job where one sexually stimulates infant boy to erection, sexually mutilates their genitals, and then fellates these poor defenseless babies? Please think about that for awhile.
I did not state that all mohelim are pædophiles. I acknowledged that in some small Jewish communities, to insure that they will always have a mohel, they make the job hereditary. I commented about what a terrible job that would be to inherit.
Although mohelim and other circumfetishists would construe my statements as antisemitic, they are not. I simply point out that both violent criminals self-select a career of violent crime. Unfortunately, this is how the world works. This has implications for strategy of convincing Jews to not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children:
As a policy, we should not bother trying to convince mohelim to not sexually mutilate the genitals of babies unless the mohel is 1 of the unfortunate mohelim who inherited the terrible job. A mohel who chose the job of mohel chose the job specifically for sexually assaulting children and will not give up the job willingly. Instead, we should target the Jewish parents:
The Jewish parents, although they dare not admit it publicly, are probably not happy about letting someone sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, but allow it because they feel that it is a requirement of Judaism. If we can show it is not a requirement of Judaism, many, if not most, can be persuaded to stop.
The only way we can get the mohelim to put down the knife is to convince the Jewish parents not to hire the mohelim.
I'm stunned. All mohelim are pedophiles? One should expect no better from a mohel? Both of those statements are offensive and suggest otherwise when you write against charges of anti-Semitism. If you insist on believing or stating that, please do the boys you want to save from circumcision a favor and stay out of the debate. That kind of garbage is the problem here, and is unacceptable. You damage our cause with that nonsense and make it harder for those of us who don't hold such beliefs to debate and convince others.
Just remind yourself that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ius a mohel and the mohelim are self-selected pædophiles. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach knows perfectly well that if we would be antisemitic, we would have a religious exception in the bill so that when the time is right, we could identify all of the male Jews for the final solution. You are reluctant to call people liars, but I am not:
¡Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is a liar!
I know a little about self-selecting assholes —— Excuse my French —— because my mother is the site-manager for some factory-outlet-malls:
Some people applying for security are on power trips. They go to customers doing nothing wrong interrogate them, and order them to leave. These customers never return. These sorts of guards must be identified and fired before they cost the mall too much money. These little Dictators make up about 10% of applicants.
About 10% of applicants are perverts:
They pat down teenaged boys or girls depending on what floats their boats on the grounds of catching shoplifters. While patting, they grope. Mall-Security is not the TSA. Not only does this cost business, but it causes expensive lawsuits and terrible publicity. These perverts must be fired as soon as identified.
About 10% of applicants are both perverts and dictators. They must be fired too.
The Founding Fathers understood about self-selecting people:
Although most cops are are alright working Joes trying to protect us from criminals and helping people in need (to protect and to serve), a few bad apples who are little dictators would arrest people and go through their property for shits and giggles —— excuse my French —— even though they do not suspect these citizens of doing anything wrong. That is why we have the 4th Amendment. Police need probable cause for arresting and enough probable cause for a judge to grant a search-warrant for searching property.
Do not let the lies of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach get you down because one should expect no better from a mohel anyway.
The gist of what I'm getting at is exemplified in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's Huffington Post essay today. Every time he uses the word "lie" to describe those who oppose circumcision, does it make you angry because that's incorrect? We know we're not lying, that we're stating what we believe. If some of what we state is wrong (emphasis on "if"), is that an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead others into choosing genital integrity?
His essay makes me angry because I know that I'm honest in what I state and am capable of comprehending the argument made for circumcision, even though I recognize that argument's fatal weaknesses. The overwhelming majority of genital integrity activists are the same. Regardless of that, the word "lie" is too loaded and does nothing but inflame the conversation if we let it. I'm not interested in letting it because I'd rather get dinged temporarily on unfair assumptions that I can disprove with logic and reason than get bent out of shape and demand that my view be accepted, period. This is all "hearts and minds". We need to leave the flamethrower mentality out of it whenever possible.
It was definitely a mistake to publish Foreskin Man # 2, but Hess was truthful about the Mohelim:
Certainly, Foreskin Man # 2 was cartoonish, but the way Monster Mohel thinks is typical of Mohelim:
Some small Jewish communities sometimes results to making the job of mohel hereditary so that they will be assured of having a mohel —— ¡that is a terrible job to inherit! —— but most mohelim are self-selected. That is ¿why mohelim fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) babies?:
Mohelim like to fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) babies because they are sick perverts. In 2005, a mohel killed babies with herpes from fellating them (Metzitzah B'Peh). He probably got the herpes from practicing Metzitzah B'Peh on some teenaged runaway in a filthy back alley in the dead of night after giving the boy 20.00 U$D. Only perverts would want a job where they sexually stimulate babies, sexually mutilate their genitalsa and then fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) them.
I shall condemn Foreskin Man # 2 as being easily misconstrued, but when pushed, I cannot condemn the truth. I shall have to defend it on the grounds of Foreskin Man saving a Jewish baby and mohelim as being perverted pædophiles like Monster Mohel. I shall point out the guests, half of whom were Jewish, and the Jewish mother are fine with a Brit Shalom, but oppose a Brit Milah.
I shall only expand mine answer if pressed on the subject. Otherwise, I shall condemn Foreskin Man # 2 was being easily misconstrued and leave it at that. That is what I shall do.
Tony makes some very good points.
Many who are not involved in the circumcision issue recognize the antisemitic imagery in the Foreskin Man comic. The Foreskin Man comic does not represent what I believe as an intactivist. I believe in genital integrity and bodily autonomy for all children. Intactivism is about protecting children's rights, not religion.
Intactivists should condemn the comic. The comic is indefensible. If pressed, we need not defend it. The Foreskin Man comic is the work of one man who does not speak for everyone. He definitely does not speak for me.
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.