Ugh.

(Nothing more needs to be said, I believe.)

Oy Vey. This is not good. :(

OK. I'm calling shenanigans. There's no way this can be anything other than some kind of troll or parody.

re: #3 Conservative Moonbat

OK. I'm calling shenanigans. There's no way this can be anything other than some kind of troll or parody.

No, this comic is all too real.

Matthew Hess has... issues.

"They hate us because we're blond"

These people do realize that there are non European people who are naturally blonde right? Many Australian Aboriginals as well as many others in the southwest Pacific. I never hear them complaining that people hate them because they are blonde (naturally, unlike many people of mostly European descent) or for that matter claiming they are superior.

Hi guys. At first the intactivism movement may seem a bit odd, people trying to outlaw circumcision? It's been so prevalent and common in the United States that people hardly ever question it, or even give it a second thought. However, circumcision is actually just a nice way of saying forced infant genital cutting, which is a far more accurate term. Almost all circumcisions remove more than half the erogenous tissue on the penis and well over ten thousand fine touch nerve endings that assist in sexual pleasure and climax control. You guys do know that all forms of forced genital cutting for infant girls are illegal right? So why is it so crazy to make all forms of forced genital cutting for boys illegal as well? We should outlaw ALL forms of forced genital cutting across the board! The keyword here is "forced" as anyone should have the right to cut off part of their body once they are mature enough to do so at 18, which is the same age people can decide whether to smoke a cigarette, or get a tattoo. If you guys are going to form an opinion on this topic, do so after researching the whole picture, not just what you have been told or have known your whole life. Check out this non-bias video with lots of facts and suprising information on the topic. :)

I Hate "Superhero" Nazis!

I hate to post this, but the Foreskin Man site has a character list. I'm providing a link to the "Monster Mohel" page. It reads like something out Der Sturmer so be warned.

re: #7 stopcuttingchildren

Hi there, new person with a very specific name who I have never seen on LGF before!!

Do you think Foreskin Man and his creator are a good representation of your movement, or should Mr. Hess perhaps go in for some counseling while the banner is carried on by people who have shown the ability to stop themselves from creating racist cartoons?

re: #5 jaunte

Matthew Hess has... issues.

"They hate us because we're blond"

No, no, that's not actually why...

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

Hi SanFranciscoZionist,

I am here to talk about the very serious risks and ethical problems surrounding the forced genital cutting of infants in the United States. I understand that some people interprete Mathew Hess as "anti-semitic" for portraying the Mohel as a monster in his comic. I can understand how the stereotypes used in the comic could be seen as offensive to Jewish people. I am myself Jewish, as is the rest of my family. However I do not find the comic to be offensive, and find it fascinating that the response to this comic is so largely focused on religion, when that is not even the intended or important issue at hand, which is forced infant genital cutting. You find it offensive that Hess drew a picture of a Mohel looking like a monster, I find it offensive that infant boys are strapped down to a table and half the skin on their penis is cut off against their will. Forced genital cutting has nothing to do with religion, as all that is required to be Jewish is that your mother is Jewish. Furthermore, I don't see any you guys getting upset over the fact that forced genital cutting for females is illegal in the U.S. (since 1997) which is a direct violation of Muslims right to practice that tradition which has been present in their culture for centuries. Where is your outrage for the blatent ant-islamic behavior there?

You can cry about a little cartoon all you want. But I hope that one day you realize that a cartoon never hurt anyone, but forecfully cutting the genitals of children causes pain, suffering, trauma, infections, and death. In fact well over 100 infants die as a direct result of circumcision just in the United States every year. The death rates in Africa are off the charts, where there is far lass medical technology. Forced genital cutting is a barbaric, out of date tradition that has no place in todays world and religions. Judaism is about love, peace, heritage, and respect. Not the unnecessary cutting of genitals, death, and suffering.

Singling out Hess as an anti-semitic messenger only serves as a straw man fallacy to take attention away from the real issue which is the fact that forced genital cutting is risky, unethical, and wrong. Please do some research and find out for yourself! This video is a good start, and if you find it to be a load of crap please let me know and we can have a discussion like human beings over this important issue. :)

re: #12 stopcuttingchildren

Gotcha.

re: #5 jaunte

Matthew Hess has... issues.

"They hate us because we're blond"

re: #11 SanFranciscoZionist

No, no, that's not actually why...

Ummm...This is Matthew Hess:

Image: Hess-20100115-9166-680x453.jpg

re: #12 stopcuttingchildren

Your post is full of lies, both direct and indirect.

There is no resemblance, culturally or physically, between circumcision and female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is done specifically because it has an affect on female sexuality. Circumcision, medical studies find, has a mixed result on sexuality-- some men report better sex with circumcision, others not.

Female genital mutilation leaves behind a legacy of terrible health effects, from raw pain to repeated infection. Male circumcision is beneficial in preventing HIV transmission and has other benefits as well, as well as some negatives.

Comparing the two of them both diminishes the suffering of women who undergo female genital mutilation, and show either an ignorance of a vast cynicism on your part.

The anti-circs pick up the slack where the anti-abortion folks leave off. The anti-abortion crowd only cares about a baby before it's born. Then once it's born, the anti-aborts don't care about it any more, the anti-circs only care about a little piece of penis skin.

re: #15 Obdicut

Have you seen videos of a forced male infant circumcision and a video of a forced female infant circumcision? I can point out some of the obvious similarities for you: Both have a child that is forced down in some way, the cutting of healthy genital flesh, the screaming of the victim from agony and pain, and finally blood from the wound that is inflicted. Now I would agree that the motives for MGM and FGM are different, but the motives to not change what is actually done during the procedure.

Almost all circumcisions remove more than half of the erogenous tissue on the penis, including the most sensitive part. A recent study found that the most sensitive part of the penis is in fact the ridged band and frenulum area, which is completely removed by circumcision. I personally was circumcised as an infant and now experience major sexual issues. So much skin was removed from my penis that upon erections I experience sharp pain, and sexual activities such as intercourse or masturbation are very dull and sometimes I find it impossible to reach orgasm from the lack of physical sensation.

The fact is, FORCED infant circumcision is completely unnecessary, and results in death in some cases. Forcefully cutting the genitals of children results in unnecessary deaths. What have you to say about the one life that is snuffed out by this procedure? Was it worth it to make this child's penis smaller and kill him for a procedure that is unnecessary and not recommended by a single medical organization? Religious reasons? Every individual has the right to choose their own religion, so forcing this operation onto a child "marks" him as Jewish or whatever religion is being represented. I was circumcised by my Jewish family and now resent it as my personal religious beliefs surrounding genital cutting are different than that of my parents. Is that fair?

If you open your mind and take a look at the overall picture, you will find some major ethical problems with circumcision. Please check out the video I have posted 3 times now, it contains a lot of great information. If you think the video is full of crap, let me know and we can discuss the points we disagree on like adults. :)

Christopher Benedict cannot possibly be a real person...no one is this delusional or stupid. Everything you said in that last statement can be refuted in this video. Actually watch it and tell me what you think! If it is a load of crap, tell me why and we can have a conversation like adults.

"Christopher Benedict cannot possibly be a real person...no one is this delusional or stupid. Everything you said in that last statement can be refuted in this video."

Woops, I copy and pasted that sentence from another random thread I was posting on. You guys can discard that haha.

re: #17 stopcuttingchildren

Have you seen videos of a forced male infant circumcision and a video of a forced female infant circumcision?

Yes. They bear no resemblance to each other.

Using the word 'forced' in that context is dishonest argument, by the way, unless you refer to nearly everything that's done to babies as 'forced', which you don't.

Both have a child that is forced down in some way, the cutting of healthy genital flesh, the screaming of the victim from agony and pain, and finally blood from the wound that is inflicted.

Well, here are your distortions:

1. In circumcision, it's a baby. In female circumcision, it's pubescent girl. "Forcing" a baby-- i.e., holding it-- is rather different than 'forcing' a pubescent girl. Again, this is your obvious and dishonest use of language.

2. Saying 'healthy genital flesh' makes no distinction between the clitoris and the clitoral hood and the foreskin. The foreskin certainly has nerve endings, but the metareview of medical literature is entirely inconclusive on how erogenous it is. The largest study had men rate it as slightly less erogenous than the taint, and that's pretty damn low. Cutting out the clitoris, part of the clitoris, the clitoral hood, sewing together of the vaginal lips, or-- in the most tame but still terrible version of female genital mutilation-- removal of the outer labia all have incomparably significant results in terms of physical trauma, affects on sexual pleasure, removal of erogenous zones, infection, and likelihood of re-injury. By comparing the two you are comparing cosmetic orthodontics with the forced extraction of teeth using a pair of pliers.

Almost all circumcisions remove more than half of the erogenous tissue on the penis, including the most sensitive part.

That is a lie. One study found that. The results have not been replicated by anyone else, and other studies, as I said, had men rate it as very insensitive compared to the rest of their penis.

You are presenting a biased view of the medical research, and you probably know it.

So much skin was removed from my penis that upon erections I experience sharp pain, and sexual activities such as intercourse or masturbation are very dull and sometimes I find it impossible to reach orgasm from the lack of physical sensation.

Your personal issues are an anecdote, no matter how painful and sympathetic they may be. They do not form data.

The fact is, FORCED infant circumcision is completely unnecessary, and results in death in some cases. Forcefully cutting the genitals of children results in unnecessary deaths. What have you to say about the one life that is snuffed out by this procedure?

The cause of death is infection afterwards, not the circumcision itself. The 'not even one death' point of view is ludicrous, because if we went by that then we'd ban all contact sports-- a non-zero number of children die during them, and far more get concussions, etc-- outlaw cars, etc. You're applying a standard to circumcision that's applied to nothing else, not even cosmetics.

Was it worth it to make this child's penis smaller and kill him for a procedure that is unnecessary and not recommended by a single medical organization?

Both of these are lies. Saying that a foreskin makes the penis smaller is untrue except in the most literal way-- mass is removed. The length of the erect penis, the functional penis, is not affected, and the girth is affected to the point of about a millimeter. And WHO indeed recommends circumcision in order to lower HIV transmission rates.

You are lying an awful lot in a way that's fact-checkable. You should avoid that.

If your case is so strong, why lie?

re: #18 stopcuttingchildren

Woops, I copy and pasted that sentence from another random thread I was posting on. You guys can discard that haha.

So you signed up here just in order to spam this forum with copy pastes?

Fuck off, dickbreath.

re: #19 Obdicut

Spammers never "fact check," they just keep spamming the same crap over and over again.