Sandra Bullock under fire for controversial beauty treatment – involving babies’ foreskin

The Daily Star

May 21, 2018

Sandra Bullock under fire for controversial beauty treatment – involving babies’ foreskin

by Nadia Mendoza

During an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show last week, Sandra Bullock spoke about ‘penis facials’.

As the interview unfolded, host Ellen, 60, pushed Sandra, 53, on what exactly she meant by this.

The Speed actress went on to explain that beauticians are now using “an extraction from a piece of skin that came from a young person, far, far away, and they somehow figured out how to extract… ”

As she began to stutter, Ellen jumped in: “It’s foreskin from a Korean baby. That’s what it is.”

The episode caught the eye of YouTube star and documentary maker, Riyadh Khalaf, who annihilated the Hollywood star’s laid-back approach to the gravity of the situation.

Tweeting to his 46,000 followers, he wrote: “Rich woman laughs while she admits using the circumcised foreskins of non-consenting baby boys in facials so that she can look good.

“Can you imagine if she said she used the clitoral hood of baby girls? Would it get the same lol-tastic response?”

Riyadh, who has an impressive 365k YouTube subscribers, continued: “Self elected circumcision: Fine. Circumcision for medical reasons: Also fine.

“Circumcision without the baby boy’s consent is never right.

“Several studies show physical and psychological damage including PTSD symptoms, sexual dysfunction and unrepairable mutilation of the penis.

“The trivialisation of infant male circumcision is troubling and the misinformation that it’s a ‘useless flap of skin’ is simply wrong.

“It contains thousands of irreparable nerve endings, protects an incredibly delicate part of the body and is the boy’s CHOICE to keep or not.”

Within moments, the tweets received praise from fans agreeing with Riyadh’s point of view.

One social networker tweeted: “Why does she stress the point that they come from far far away?? Is it okay because they are not American kids?”

While another blasted: “YES. Some people throw a hissy fit if a baby’s ears are pierced but don’t bat an eye at an irreversible cosmetic procedure on an INFANT. We are quite hypocritical, considering how up in arms we do be re: FGM [Female Genital Mutilation].”

And a third said: “Omg YES. I’ve tried bringing this up a lot in discussions and people seem to have really accepted it as normality. Nuts. Pun intended.”

ITV This Morning’s resident doctor Dr Ranj Singh also jumped in, tweeting a link to his blog on the non-medical circumcision of male children.

In the piece for Guys Like U, he wrote: “It’s not as harmless as some people may think. I’ve seen cases where it has gone horribly wrong leading to permanent disfigurement.

“I’ve seen instances where babies have almost bled to death, or even worse, died because of severe infections as a result.

“However, some of my medical colleagues will still justify it.”

He continued: “And for those people who may question what the big fuss is about, ask why being ‘cut’ or ‘uncut’ is even an issue amongst certain groups.

“There’s a reason certain hook-up apps ask about it. It’s not just about appearance or preference. It’s part of a person’s sexual identity. [Good point!]

“It’s not just a redundant bit of skin, but part of a sexual organ. There are whole movements of men internationally who feel like they have been mutilated, and it has affected them psychologically and socially, as well as the obvious physical results.

“They would agree that this practice is totally uncalled for and socially unjust.

“I think it’s about time we had some serious debate around this issue. Why do we refer to FGM as unacceptable, but are willing to tolerate ‘MGM’?”

Back in 2013, Oprah Winfrey came under fire for endorsing SkinMedica face creams as the controversial lotion is made from using foreskin fibroblasts.

The penis facial, popular with Cate Blanchett, is the colloquial name given to a beauty treatment that uses epidermal growth factor (EGF) serum.

The EGF uses stem cells are indeed from Korean babies’ foreskins.

Stem cells are often used in beauty products to brighten and regenerate skin.

The Grapevine

April 26, 2018

Politicians selected via sexist all-women short-lists are 12 times more corrupt than those chosen on merit

Politicians selected via sexist all-women short-lists are 12 times more corrupt than those chosen on merit


The 15th of June 2018 saw a depressing new low for British politics with the election of Labour’s Janet Daby in Lewisham East. Daby made history as the first ever candidate selected by not only sexist means but racist ones too, with Labour imposing an all women and all BAME short-list, thus denying not just every single man, but even white women from contesting the seat for Labour too. Bizarrely, the hustings events for the election were protested by a large mob protesting against supposed “racism” by UKIP, yet the blatant and totally undeniable racism and sexism of Labour in their selection of candidate for that very seat went totally ignored.

Misandrist all-women short-lists were first used 21 years ago by Labour at the 1997 election. Thankfully we had a brief respite from them in 2001 due to the small matter of the short-lists being recognised as illegal sex…

View original post 1,068 more words