Letters

Contact us via e-mail

le*****@oc******.com











“>(

le*****@oc******.com











), regular mail (Letters to the Editor, OC Weekly, P.O. Box 10788, Costa Mesa, CA 92627) or fax (714-708-8410). Letters will be edited for clarity and length. By submission of a letter, you agree that we can publish and/or license the publication of it in print and electronically. All correspondence must include your home city and a daytime phone number.

She Hit a Nerve!

Rebecca Schoenkopf doesn't like normal, intact, unshorn male members (“Censor Me All Night Long!” Aug. 31). This is rather sad because 100 percent of newborn boys, 85 percent of the males on Earth, 38 percent of males in America, 64 percent of young boys in California are intact, normal males with a foreskin. Moreover, many adult males who were unfortunate enough to be circumcised as a child have now discovered the joys of foreskin restoration and are happily re-growing mock foreskins to recover their denuded members. Furthermore, more and more women are discovering the pleasures and benefits of the foreskin for the female partner. Foreskins are back in style and don't seem likely to go away soon.

Rebecca's comments are offensive, intolerant and bigoted. They are unacceptable in today's diverse society. An apology is in order.

George Hill
via e-mail

Schoenkopf might be astonished to discover that an intact penis can be a much more fun toy than a cut one. She might not know that liberal use of lubricants is often necessary for the cut penis to function without undue friction, whereas one of those “uncut male members” with that “surplus of foreskin” makes auxiliary lubrication unnecessary, and the ride is a whole lot more comfortable and fun for all involved. It's no wonder Europeans have a reputation for being great lovers: they have foreskins. And it's no wonder the U.S. has such a high divorce rate.

Schoenkopf belies her cultural bias. I have often wondered if this attitude toward the intact penis may not be the reason why the brilliant, beautiful, talented Jewish race has been so “persecuted” through the ages. When you imply that another person—or an entire people—is ugly, filthy or unpleasing (which is the programming she has received), what on Earth can you expect but a fear reaction from those you have criticized? You have provoked them to attack you.

I am not a man, but even I feel much more comfortable in the company of people I know will not cut people. Of course, intact men get worried when you criticize them and talk about cutting penises. Rebecca, you have just put down their most prized possession, the most sensitive part of their body.

For God's sake, woman, the foreskin was the bounty that soldiers brought home with them to prove to the leaders they had actually engaged in battle and won the war. Yes, cutting foreskins is a threat to men. The United States is the only population in the world that cuts its young for non-religious purposes. Other, more civilized cultures where the health index is far superior to our own consider our practice barbaric. So do I. I would urge Schoenkopf to keep her mouth moving in the direction of criticizing art, not people. She has insulted us all.

Patricia Robinett
via e-mail

Schoenkopf is appalled by censorship, yet in the same article, she is a censor for the natural, male penis. She decries the cutting of artist support money, yet she advocates the cutting of foreskin. She says, “I'm not appalled by the naked boy, mind you, just the uncut male member.” (Just a tad sexist, Rebecca?) “But however much I disagree with a surplus of foreskin, I will defend to the death your right to see it.” I'll take her stance one step further: no matter what Schoenkopf's issues with male genitalia are, I will defend to the death a man's right to keep his foreskin.

Dan Bollinger
via e-mail

HEYWATCH

I commend the writer of the “Hey You” column (“I'm Not Laughing Yet,” Aug. 22) for his brave rescue of a near-drowning victim. And I share his disgust with the insensitive racial remark he heard from official personnel on the scene. But I don't think the guilty person was a lifeguard. I know allthe lifeguards at Salt Creek, and I am at a loss to find one who matches the description (middle-aged white guy, dark moustache) provided by the “Hey You” writer. The only men who do fit that bill (and there are a few of them) are the sheriffs roaming on their four-wheel sand quads. They are often mistaken for lifeguards because they ride similar vehicles and wear plain clothes. But they are not. In this case, it may be possible to give discredit where discredit is due: the sheriffs.

J.B. Holan
via email

SEMI-CONSCIOUS

The small patch of black text in the upper-right-hand corner of the Weekly's July 27 cover read, “CHOCK-FULL OF SEMICOLONS!” It was a bold stance to take on behalf of a punctuation mark that, let's face it, few of us know how to use—unless it's as part of that winky emoticon we use when flirting on the Internet. But I couldn't get past the nagging possibility that the promise of abundant semicolons was a cheap ploy to attract the interest of more readers like me, who remain fans of this neglected and underrated component of the English language. After hours of scanning your paper, page by page, line by line, circling each and every semicolon with a blue pen, I came up with a grand total of 955 semicolons. Spread over 112 pages, this is an average of 8.5 SPP (semicolons per page). Not bad. But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts we'd find more semicolons on one page of the LA Times or Orange County Register than in five of your lousy Calendar sections combined! And that is a pretty sick thought.

Scott
via e-mail