If you'd actually engage your brain and explain your position, rather than making yet another pronouncement from on high, then I'd chill out.
-
Would you have your child circumsized?
-
I just explained my side of it...
-
Well you can compare it. However, when I said "don't compare the clitoris to the forskin", I said it because the clitoris is comparable to the glans on the guy and that was a bit too much.
-
Note to whom that post was in response.In reply to:Cutting of the clit has absolutely NO relation to foreskin, nor has it ever been.Not sure what the "ever" been part adds, but I explained that they are both a form of mutilation, and both unnecessary surgery, with surgical risks, for the vast majority of people who get them. And there is strong evidence that both procedures permanently damage sexual sensation.In reply to:Especially since Kids DONT remember when they were circumsizedIt doesn't mean that they don't feel anything, especially in the ritual version. If an infant undergoing circumcision were put into an fMRI (brain scan) machine during the procedure, and it showed that pain was felt, then would you change your position?In reply to:and you cant get the clit till puberty, cause it isnt visable till thenSo mutilation during puberty is bad, but mutilation during infancy is OK?
-
They wont remeber the pain they felt when they are grown, when your 15, you will remember it. You dont have to deal with the cleaning issues of a foreskin or the streching either.
-
Yes, but I'm comparing them vis-a-vis the idea of mutilation, not anatomical structures.no1sexpotinusa, if you'd get as engaged by ideas as you do by personal attacks, the world would be a better place.
-
In reply to:
They wont remeber the pain they felt when they are grown, when your 15, you will remember it.
So if they don't remember the pain they felt when they grow up, does that mean that you can beat them? After all, they won't remember that pain either.
You can torture someone, but administer versed (an anesthetic drug) while you're doing it, so the victim won't remember what happened. Does that make their torture OK?
In reply to:
You dont have to deal with the cleaning issues of a foreskin or the streching either.
This argument has been addresses in a number of threads (in fact, all of the circumcision arguments have). The cleaning issue is trivial, and most males don't have any major problems with their foreskins. I would certainly rather risk a bit of inconvenience than lose the sensation that they drying of the mucus membrane of the glans, and the mechanical wear and tear it sustains.
Imagine if your clitoral hood were circumcised, and the glans of the clitoris were popped out of the vulva, so it could dry out and rub against your pants all day? Do you just dismiss the loss-of-sensation argument out-of-hand?
-
Don't you love it whan a "female" comes here and argues with you that it's OK to cut a piece of your dick off?
-
(Ouch!) No!
-
I never said clitoral removal was good or even comparable to male circumcisions. Get it straight.
-
If male circumcisions were done under the non-sterile conditions under which the analogous female process is commonly done, there would be a lot of babies with infected penises. In fact, infection does sometimes occur after circumcision.I'm not sure that it's absolutely true that a woman can't experience orgasm without a clitoris (or clitoral hood?), but even if a circumcised man can experience orgasm, what is the point of diminishing his sensation? I mean, if you have a handicap, you might still be able to function at a high level, put what's the point of intentionally inflicting a handicap on someone?
-
Besides the point, in any case.
-
OK, I just (re)read through all your posts on this thread. Either you go to an easy school, or you put a lot more thought into your school assignments than you did here. You'll have to be a pretty good writer to fit a pity analysis into five words.In reply to:All you do on here is just pick apart poster's statements and make some hypothetical reply to make it seem like you are "thinking." You aren't fooling anyone.So even though each fact may be bogus, your argument is all good, taken in its entirety? Do you thing a better case can be made by making sweeping generalizations, rather than analyzing each point?From the get-go, this thread has been a debate. Appartently you don't grasp the concept.
-
NO1SEXPOTNTHEUSA......I cant believe a liberal feminist who is against femail genital mutilation, would mutilate her own son. I know its a hypothetical thread, but even a medical emergency does not require total amputation of the pleasure nerves of the penis, that are contained in the foreskin. The answer has to be let him decide for himself,
-
In reply to:Also, do you have to sink so low to criticize my intelligence?I'm not criticizing your intellegence; I'm criticizing your laziness. If you're going to answer complex issues with fatuous 8-word responses, why bother? It takes a greatly inflated sense of self importance to think that things like "No, you're wrong." adds much value.To be clear, this is what I mean: you state a position, then you support it with research, facts, or logic. I don't expect St. Augustine or René Descartes...just a little effort.If you were an uninformed 14-year-old, I'd cut you a lot more slack. You sig alone makes people expect more than that.
-
That's like a wife beater asking, "You mean I'm a bad husband because I don't buy you a big bouquet of flowers for you every day?"Hyperbole, in other words.I don't know how I can make this any clearer. If you post a response of a few words to comment on a complex issue, then why bother? Show me your PhD in a relevant area and I'll shut up. Here's the key point: no one cares what you think. No one cares what I think. Most people don't care what Britney Spears thinks. None of us is George Bush or the Pope.If you're going to state an opinion, you ought to at least put a little effort into explaining your reasoning. That may not be necessary if someone asks, "Is water really made of hydrogen and oxygen?", but it kind of is necessary if someone asks a philosophical (e.g., "Is the death penalty wrong?"), or a controversial question (e.g., "Is Britney Spears talented?"). If you're just going to say "The death penalty sucks." or "Britney Spears sucks.", then why bother?
-
You have to explain why first.
-
Yeah not all of us can sit here all day and be professional internet forum posters...there's this thing called life that comes into play.
-
In reply to:Now, are you happy?No, not at all. Getting you emotionally wrought up is not the point. It means we're not communicating.In reply to:I don't sit here for 30 minutes and think of a response.It shouldn't take you 30 minutes to come up with a reasoned response. But in a serious thread, if you don't have time to post anything beyond "You're wrong", then why bother posting anything at all?In reply to:Some people have lives other than being an "Internet Forum Poster."You did start your own message board on non-trivial news and political topics. You must be a little serious about this stuff. But you're not going to get the Pulitzer prize just for showing up.In reply to: I'm stupid.I did not say that you're stupid. "Lazy" does not equal "stupid". If you were stupid, you'd pretty well be stuck, and there would be no point having this discussion.
-
In reply to:Yeah not all of us can sit here all day and be professional internet forum posters...there's this thing called life that comes into play.Then you became a moderator for the adulation? no1sexpotinusa is also a moderator, elsewhere.You seem to be unable to see the difference between taking more than 15 seconds to go beyond "You're wrong", "You're stupid", or "That's disgusting", and taking a couple of minutes to stop and think first. It'd be better to see more thoughtful posts to fewer threads.But you're making believe you don't understand what I'm talking about. As you wish.