Why Get Pissed at the Prayer for Peeing?

Some people just can't handle any reference to urination and defication, even if it's in the siddur. One of the the early morning prayers, "Asher Yatzar", has us thanking God for the various orafices and cavities in or bodies. The prayer goes on to get descriptive (quoting the ArtScroll Siddur): "If any one of them (our cavities or orafices) were to be ruptured or blocked, it would be impossible to stand here before You. Anyone who's ever had trouble urinating or making a bowel movement can appreciate this prayer.

In my book, the Comic Book Siddur", I illustrate this particular prayer with a guy sitting on a box, in an artistic reference to Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker". I pointed a word balloon to his mouth, with the text of the prayer reduced to: "Thanks God, for making me regular!"

Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly) some people find that illustration offensive. "You've got a guy sitting on a toilet!", a woman explanined to me; "I just think that it's in poor taste!" What baffles me is that my illustration of the prayer, and my english translation of it ("thanks for making me regular!") is much more tame than the actual english translation as found in the Art Scroll siddur. The "Asher Yatzar" prayer explicitly talks about bodily cavites being obstructed making it impossible to relieve oneself. That imagery gets into your head just by reading the prayer right out of the Art Scroll siddur. But in the Comic Book Siddur, it's all sanitized and euphemized, while still getting across the same idea. I don't show someone who's bodily orafices have been obstructed, who'd having an impossible time urinating or defacating. That imagery sprung from the original authors of the siddur. But when I come up with some counter-imagery, namely, a superhero sitting on a soapbox, musing about life (ala Rodin's "Thinker") suddenly I'm the one being offensive. And to think that the big problem with a comic book version of the siddur in the first place had more to do with the fact that it had illustrations. Some people are comfortable describing disturbing graphic scenes with language, but illustrating them -- even in a sanitized and euphemistic way --suddenly makes them objectionable? Go figure...