Thursday, June 16, 2011

I Am So Surprised!

I had my suspicions about what was driving the positively Nazi Germany portrayal of Jews in Foreskin Man #2--but I thought it best to keep my mouth shut, for fear of being considered a bigot.  But surprise, surprise!  (Try to say it like Jim Nabors would when playing Gomer Pyle.)  From the May 28, 2011 Hollywood Today article about the circumcision ban proposals in Santa Monica and San Francisco:
Schofield joined with a group called “inactivists” that he met while marching in a Gay Pride parade. Together they created an advocacy group called the Prohibition of Genital Cutting of Male Minors. The ban would make it illegal to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years.”
This June 16, 2011 Bay Area Reporter ("Serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities since 1971") article tells us a bit more--and what it doesn't tell us is telling:
Schofield declined to say if he was circumcised; nor would he disclose his sexual orientation, but he will march in this year's Pride Parade and be at the Bay Area Intactivists booth in the Civic Center.

"I don't identify my sexual orientation at all," Schofield told the Bay Area Reporter. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that he lives with his partner near Buena Vista Park. "I'm just a proponent for the bill."
What do you think?  Straight as a rail?  From the June 10, 2011 World magazine:
The moving force behind the proposal is a man named Lloyd Schofield. The San Francisco Chronicle describes him as a “58-year-old . . . who lives with his partner . . . and they have no children.”
These circumcision obsessed sorts seem to be highly tied to gay pride parades such as Chicago, San Francisco, going back some years.  I have seen the claim made that circumcision interferes with men enjoying sex.  All I can think if gay men are complaining that they aren't able to enjoy sex because of circumcision (and oddly enough, straight men don't seem to complain about this), maybe the problem isn't the circumcision.  Maybe they need to confront their sexual orientation.

There are some strong health arguments in favor of circumcision (especially in reducing the spread of AIDS), and the claims that it is equivalent to female genital mutilation are simply absurd.  Yes, a firecracker and an atom bomb both go boom, but most people know the difference. 


  1. I have a feeling that it's the intercourse with an infected partner that has more to do with infection than the presence or absence of a foreskin.

  2. Actually, no. There have been a number of studies that have found that the absence of a foreskin reduced the risk of transmission, probably because the foreskin provides an especially good environment for holding and transmitting the virus.

  3. That may be true, but again, unless one believes in the "Spontaneous Generation" theory of disease, absent an infected partner, foreskin or not, there will be no infection.

    Foreskin or not, if you have sex with a diseased person, chances are you will get a disease. You may be more at risk if you have one, but the determining factor is if you're doing it with someone who is already infected.

  4. "inactivist" is probably a typo on the journalist's/newspaper's part.

    It should probably be "intactivist".