"Foreskin Man" comic book attacked by Jewish groups for being anti-Semitic
By Jeff MillsJune 5th, 2011, 8:00 amComments (27)
The movement to ban male circumcision in San Francisco continues to build steam, as organizers have collected the requisite number of signatures for a ballot initiative in November — though if the measure were to pass, it would likely be overturned as unconstitutional on religious-freedom grounds. But now the movement of "intactivists" (that cringey-clever portmanteau word) finds itself facing charges of anti-Semitism, thanks to Matthew Hess, president of the Male Genital Mutilation Bill group, and his Foreskin Man comic books.
Hess wrote and created the first Foreskin Man comic, which came out in the summer of 2010, starring Miles Hastwick, retired corporate scientist and head of the Museum of Genital Integrity. In Hastwick's other life, he is Foreskin Man, a blond, ubermenschy "intactivist" superhero who fights his archenemy, Dr. Mutilator. (Subtle, right?)
In the newly-released second issue of Foreskin Man, our hero must contend with the sinister Monster Mohel, a scissors-wielding, Shylock-on-meth character who wears the traditional Orthodox Jewish wide-brimmed hat, and tallis around his neck. And this is what has Jewish groups understandably upset, despite Hess claiming not to be anti-Semitic, but rather pro-human rights. Nancy J. Appel, Associate Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement Friday:
"The comic book portrays mohels as rapacious, bloodthirsty and bent on harming children. Some of the imagery calls to mind age-old anti-Semitic canards such as the blood libel, the accusation that Jews ritually murder Christian children. Another comic in the series also calls up more subtle anti-Jewish themes, such as when a character complains that the pro-circumcision lobby has 'all of the well-connected doctors and lawyers.'"
Whether Hess is truly anti-Semitic in his heart or not, at the very least, the portrayal of the mohel is crude and insensitive. He defended himself in an email to the Jewish Journal, writing: "As far as the anti-Semitism, I might understand such an accusation if our proposed legislation applied to everyone except Jews. That would be like saying we care about all boys except the Jewish ones." (Mel Gibson has reportedly optioned the rights to the comic, and expects to release an all-Hebrew film version in the fall of 2013.)
Commentarium (27 Comments)
Foreskin all the way!... without the antisemitism.
I clicked on this fully expecting it to be a goofy comic someone was taking too seriously, but damn if that doesn't look pretty fucking anti-semitic.
I agree. I didn't really have a strong opinion on circumcision, but the lobbyists for the ban are starting to freak me out.
If Der Sturmer had a comics page, this would have fit right in with Julius Streicher's editorial outlook. Maybe Matthew Hess should change his first name to "Rudolf."
Matthew Hess did everyone a favor by revealing the true motivations behind his unconstitutional ban. Anti-Semitism! Be it homophobic bans on marriage equality or prohibitions on purchasing contraception, it is wrong for a majority to vote on the rights of a minority.
A minority has no right to assault any of its members. Removing body parts on a whim at birth is wrong. I hope this is one prohibition that is enforced and becomes more widespread.
Do California women actually prefer uncircumcised men? Do California moms want grandchildren, or not? I'm from the South, so I guess there are regional differences in women's attitudes toward cut vs. uncut. In college, my friends and I discussed circumcised vs. uncircumcised, and I will tell you straight up (no pun intended) that circumcised is preferred by 4 out of 5 single women (at least in the South). So, keep your foreskin and enjoy your celibacy gentlemen!
That's really sad that you wouldn't date someone because they are uncut. If a guy said he wouldn't date a woman with big labia people would call him a douchebag.
Lynn, this is a horrible argument. Even if your anecdotal evidence were true (and it probably is, actually), it would only indicate an acquired preference due to women in that particular geographic region having never or rarely been exposed to anything different (i.e. uncircumcised men). This is informed by the fact that in places were circumcision is not the norm (e.g. Western European countries) the subjective preference is for uncircumcised men.
Of course, this is no argument for circumcision. The fact that you or "4 out of 5 single women" in the South wouldn't sleep with a man unless he voluntarily or involuntarily had a portion of his genitals surgically removed speaks less to the need for circumcision and more, perhaps, for the need to leave the South.
Circumcision damages boys' penises. Leaving aside the (albeit relatively small) number of boys whose genitals are irreparably mutilated each year from this entirely unnecessary procedure, circumcision removes or damages sensitive Hooksexup endings in the penis. The fact that we allow this procedure to be forced upon infant boys who cannot choose for themselves whether to have this procedure is disgusting.
Being a circumcised Jewish man, I say with certainty my penis is not "irreparably mutilated," and I greatly abhor the implication that our rituals are "disgusting" to you.
Mikef, my statement about irreparable mutilation was not saying that all circumcision was mutilation. Rather, it was to call attention to those infants whose genitals are severely mutilated during botched or improperly conducted circumcisions. There are well documented cases every year of boys whose penises are permanently deformed due to circumcision-related complications. However, this makes up a relatively small proportion of total operations. Hence why I prefaced it with the qualifier about it being a small number of total circumcisions. Sorry if my intent was unclear.
As to your second statement, I maintain that circumcision of young boys without their consent is disgusting to me, just like circumcision of young girls, regardless of whose rituals it is part of. If this opinion causes you offense, I couldn't care less.
Don't forget the lovely tradition where the mohel sucks the blood out of the cut penis. How is this not considered pedophilia?
Cicumcision is a common practise in western europe , by the way. And an option given to all parents.
Common, but not the norm. According to the WHO, less than 20% of men in European countries are circumcised.
Yes, this looks antisemitic. I don't understand why circumcision equals mutilation though, I mean it doesn't usually impair function...and looks so much better. I don't mind sleeping with a man who has a foreskin, but a man without one is much more likely to get a blowjob from me!
I consider myself mutilated because there has never been a time in my life that I did not wish to still have my foreskin.
You don't understand why it equals mutilation? You are cutting off part of the human body. Needlessly. Or even worse, to satisfy the aesthetics of people like you.
I'm more interested in the function than the looks of a penis (they're not sunsets, folks). I totally prefer an intact penis, because the motion while fucking is more fluid and less jackhammer-like. I guess some women like the pounding, but I don't get off on it. As far as blowing a guy, I'm much more likely to enjoy doing so for a guy who makes me come, which generally is a guy who has foreskin. And no, I don't live in the American South.
What does circumcision have to do with technique? Some cut guys are amazing lovers, while some uncut guys pound away. I haven't seen any correlation between function and circumcision.
Let the parents decide whether their child should be circumcised.
Let the person who is having the surgery decide if he wants part of his dick cut off.
What other parts are the parents allowed to remove?
I'm a Jewish woman, and if I have any boy babies, I don't plan on circumcising them. I really don't have any preference when it comes to partners and will love giving you a blowjob regardless of the presence or absence of your foreskin. I do think it is wrong to cut off part of a child's genitalia without them being able to consent, and I think this is an issue that should be reformed within the Jewish community. But this comic is really fucking anti-semitic.
Whatever happened to "our bodies, our choice"? I guess when it comes to peoples right to control their bodies, womens' aesthetics trumps mens' rights.
I am uncircumcised and grew up with kids who were circumcised and I was ridiculed for it when we'd inevitably see one another naked. Of course now that I'm older and have been having sex with women who are a lot smarter than the kids who I grew up with, I've realized how stupid some women and men can be. Apparently, according to some of these comments, there are still some who prefer to be childish and immature without knowing how ugly they act. To those people: Grow the fuck up! If you can't stand living in a world with differences and variety then I don't know what to tell you.
This article is a home run, pure and spimle!
The comic parody, Smegna Man Gets Circumcised, (published at Smegmaman.com) is a lot funnier; has a great plot; and passes along sound information about the medical and cosmetic benefits of the procedure– and, in the end, the villains meet a very appropriate end.
Ed Margolis
Now you say something