Glen Callender and his foreskin have a bone to pick with Oprah Winfrey. The founder of the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project has launched a protest against Winfrey, for her endorsement of SkinMedica anti-wrinkle cream…which contains HUMAN foreskins! Callender has called Winfrey a hypocrite, saying that her use of foreskin-cream habit contradicts her work speaking out against female genital mutilation.
What Winfrey describes as the “magic fountain of youth” is really a concoction containing foreskin fibroblast, skin from babies’ foreskins used to grow other skin or cells. Winfrey has endorsed SkinMedica endlessly, on her show and in print.
Parents everywhere would probably be shocked to find out that the foreskins they have removed at their child’s birth are not thrown away, but instead used for scientific purposes- or worse…sold to make face cream. Callender also brings up the point that infant boys do not have the choice whether they want to be circumcised or not, further complicating the ethical use of the foreskins.
Callender has been quoted saying “How would Oprah respond if a men’s skin cream hit the market that was produced with tissue extracted from the genitalia of little girls?” This thought may sounds extreme or shocking, but Callendar’s comparison is totally valid.
He and his supporters staged a protest a sold out appearance by Winfrey at Rogers Arena in Vancouver yesterday, urging the cultural icon to come to her senses.
+ Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project
[Via Toronto Sun]
7 Responses to “Oprah Draws Criticism for Endorsing Face Cream Made From Foreskins”
-
Welcome to Ecouterre.com, your online guide
to the best ideas, innovations and emerging
trends in eco fashion, sustainable style,
organic beauty and ethical apparel.get the free Ecouterre newsletter
-
follow ecouterre on:
-
Ecouterre Featured Stories
-
-
Ecouterre on Facebook
-
Ecouterre Video
-
-
while i think both forms of circumcision are wrong, i think it’s also wrong to put them on the exact same footing the way this article does. FGM is FAR more invasive and traumatic than male circumcision. with females it’s almost akin to removing an organ, with males it’s foreskin. there is a difference. you’re not helping the cause by not acknowledging the difference.
Oprah would never use the clitoral hoods of baby girls to make a face cream. There are women who are circumcised (clitoral hood removed) rather than excised (clitoris removed). the guest above me and Oprah herself are unaware of this fact. I think Callendar needs to make certain people know that male circumcision is the equivalent of removing the hood of the clitoris. It should also be noted that women who have been circumcised (excised and infibulated) often want it done to their daughters and say that not having a clitoris makes them cleaner and makes sex better. These are the same ignorant things americans like Oprah use to justify genital mutilation.
IsaacW – as you correctly point out, many people have the idea that “female circumision” is the removal of the “clitoral hood”.
Yes, this procedure is carried out in some countries, for various reasons, but generally the word refers, somewhat euphemistically, to *clitorectomy*, the COMPLETE REMOVAL of the glans, hood and ajacent labia minora, often left until puberty or even later. Very, very nasty.
As for the idea of putting baby parts in “skin cream” and this woman’s endorsing it ………
How do you know how traumatic it is for either one?
You have no clue regarding that and never will.
Ask a male infant and get a full report for us.
One would assume that Oprah did not know that she is rubbing baby penis on her face.
Oprah knows full well what this skin cream is made from. It was revealed on her show.
Male and female genital cutting of any child is a sick form of child abuse. Female genital mutilation has varying degrees of severity, just as male circumcision does. To condemn one while turning a blind eye to the other is sexist.
The idea and use of such practices only strengthen the decline of our culture’s morals as a society today. Such uses of human flesh for such purposes as to beautify our outward appearance unfortunately does nothing to beautify our inward beauty. I find this to be an abomination as, I no doubt, believe God does.