Quantcast

"Intactivist" Fight Takes Anti-Semitic Turn With New Comic Book

6411foreskin.jpg As we learned this spring, "intactivism" is the belief in the right of baby boys to keep their foreskins intact. And in San Fransisco, there's a particularly polarizing movement to legally ban circumcision altogether, a fight which has started to turn ugly. As part of the campaign to ban the practice through ballot initiatives, the group MGMBill has created a series of online comic books featuring "Foreskin Man" fighting the "Monster Mohel." How could anyone possibly have a problem with that? "'Foreskin Man,' with its grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes, reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive," said Nancy J. Appel, Anti-Defamation League Associate Regional Director.

"Foreskin Man" was the creation of Matthew Hess, the president of the Male Genital Mutilation Bill group. You can follow along with all of the adventures of Dr. Mutilator and Nurse Jenny Sparklett here. Appel said the imagery in the comic, including pictures of the Mohel waving bloody scissors over a screaming baby, invokes the "age-old anti-Semitic canards" such as blood libel, the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals (also, the accusation that Sarah Palin might use when she's feeling particularly hated).

Here's the, uh, colorful description of the "Monster Mohel" on the site: "Nothing excites Monster Mohel more than cutting into the penile flesh of an eight-day-old boy. And after the glorified brit milah is complete, the delicious metzitzah b'peh provides the icing on the cake. Inactivists have been pressuring Monster Mohel to retire, but that will never happen. They will have to pry the scissors from his cold, dead hands." FYI: Metzizah b'peh is a tradition where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound; a sterilized glass tube is used for it however, so the icing comment really is just gross. But at least he wasn't bitten by a radioactive Yarmulke!

Ultimately, Appel says that the ADL's objections aren't about the issue of circumcision, but rather the way the group has decided to depict their argument: "We would have hoped those backing the anti-circumcision effort in San Francisco would know better than to use this type of anti-Semitic imagery to advance their cause. No matter what one's personal opinions of male circumcision, it is irresponsible to use stereotypical caricatures of religious Jews to promote the anti-circumcision agenda." But at least MGMBill can take comfort in knowing that their comic book has reached the crucial 8-12 year old crowd, inspiring them to vote in the ballot initiative next November. No holes in that plan!

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • Bronwyn Millar

    ugh, idiocy abounds! i have seen and experienced the horrors of circumcision gone wrong. one boyfriend had such a tight circ that the skin from his scrotum was pulled more than half way up the shaft when he was erect. he also used to sometimes tear and bleed during sex. another boyfriend had NO  surface feeling in his dick and very seldom managed to cum. and to top it all, my best friends son had the tip of his penis accidentally sliced off during his 'routine' circ - which was done by supposedly the BEST pediatric surgeon in the city... whatever your religion, this is a dangerous, cruel, barbaric procedure and needs to STOP!

  • GregGi

    "I'm a Jewish American. I'm not easily offended by cartoons.

    What I am offended by is people cutting the genitals of non-consenting infants and children."

    Jews Against Circumcision Bris Shalom Requires no genital cutting www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.or... Keep your babies whole

    Info: www.wholenetwork.org www.tlctugger.com   

  • JackBrat

    Mutilating the genitals of infants- MALE OR FEMALE. . . is a barbaric ritualistic practice, and should be banned here in the United States of America!  
    If member of the Jewish community want to continue the practice- they should wait until their male offspring turns 18- and then give him the option of having his genitals mutilated to preserve some religious 'rite'!   
    The 'god-wants-it-done' argument is ridiculous bullshit, and belongs in the 7th Century! Infants, todlers and children must be protected by the law against child molesters and even their parents as is necessary.
    Genital mutilation is just that- and should not be practiced by anyone- parents or other adult sadists!

  • The arguments comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation while numerous and varied are moot, because the two are incomparable. It is an effort to sensationalize the argument and thus gain support for a law that would undermine the religious freedoms of many. The argument wants my heart to go out to women who are abused in the most indelicate and unsanitary of circumstances and it does. But I am also moved as much, in my heart and in my soul, by the thought of the tragic possibility of a Jewish man deprived of a bris.

  • JackBrat

    You're just another religious asshole.
    The 'infection' thing is bogus! Mother Nature just doesn't work that way!!
    100-years from now- no one will be getting the foreskin of his dick cut off-!
    So Hey, numb-nuts. . . -where do you stand on honor-killings- vis-à-vis 'religious freedom'! (Schmuck-putz!)

  • ml66uk

    The only people that see a fundamental difference between cutting boys and cutting girls are those that practise one, but not the other.  The people that cut girls don't see a difference (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"), and neither did the US doctors that promoted female circumcision up until the 60's.

    Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves if they want parts cut of their genitals or not.  It's *their* body.

  • Yeah, if only there were an Aryan superhero to us tell what to think! 

    Many laws are designed to save us from ourselves and to this I say, if you dislike the practice of circumcision, you find it wrong or inappropriate then don’t practice it. But don’t interfere with a religious obligation that you do not understand. And I know there will be arguments that people do understand…so let me say that if YOU are not obligated to have your child circumcised then don’t. But don’t force your options on the people who practice this for religious reasons and view this practice in an entirely different light.

  • ml66uk

    That's kind of like saying that people who cut their daughters for religious reasons are the only people qualified to comment on female circumcision.

    Or do you think that since no-one has to have their daughter cut, then it was wrong to ban female cutting?

    There are plenty of Jewish people against circumcision btw.

  • zombie_cakes

    Non Jews get circumcised as well shit-for-brains. And it's not always because "God wants it done", maybe it's because uncircumcised dicks are even more gnarly looking than circumcised dicks and the kid won't haveta grow up thinking he has a fucked up dick? There's also risks of infections in leaving it uncircumcised. 

  • JackBrat

    here's also risks of infections in leaving it uncircumcised.

    ey Dick-head- The way dicks come O.E. is Mother Nature at her best. . .
    and the infection bullshit- is just that: BULLSHIT!
    Do you actually think that Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom
    is delivering boy babies to planet Earth with
    pre-eminently infection-prone dicks. . . you asshole!!

  • ml66uk

    How about letting the dick owner decide how he wants it to look?  About 99% of intact men seem to prefer it that way.

    The supposed medical benefits don't hold up either.  In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim, but Europe has lower rates of all the bad stuff.

    If cutting girls reduced the risk of some infection, would that make it acceptable?  (female circumcision seems to protect against HIV).

  • Gee, is anyone surprised...?

  • ufffff

  • MermaidFornicator

    what the hell does this have to do with nyc??

  • angry_pickle

    that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals

    I can't imagine anyone believing this myth except those stuck in the Middles Ages.  And I don't see how "pictures of the Mohel waving bloody scissors over a screaming baby" is related to this since I assume the Mohel is there to circumcise.

    a tradition where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound

    What the heck????

    Although this comic book seem a bit offensive, it is no more offensive than the Dutch cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

  • " In metzitzah b'peh, the mohel places his mouth on the freshly circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut".  

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/ht...

    No kidding.  In this day and age.

  • HassanCHOPP

    Fo SHO, a little virology knowledge goes a long way.

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com