[Strokes Dicey]
Sorry if that last bit's a tangent. The point is...I think I'm wrong.
Bugger me, I don't get to read that very often. :)
So let me be sure I have you right here: You no longer think that LGBT rights are aimed at marginalizing and undermining biological families?
Good then. Let's see if we can make some more progress.
I will agree with you that men sometimes get raw deals in American society. However, they don't get anywhere near the magnitude nor pervasiveness of the raw deals women get. Let me take an example I know fairly well off the top of my head:
I don't own a foreskin. It was chopped off in a barbaric ritual invented by desert savages thousands of years ago and preserved as a part of American society's maniacal loathing of sexual pleasure. My parents didn't know any better. It's just what was done at the time. I was like three days old and have no memory of the procedure, just like most circumcised men in the West.
This is not what female genital mutilation is. To be analogous, male genital cutting would have to take place when you were old enough to remember it and remove the entire glans penis. (That's the mushroom-shaped part.) FGM is generally not performed in a hospital by a professional surgeon, but by a traditional authority. It's also done to girls mostly entering or near to puberty and without any form of painkillers. It's more grotesque and extensive. It's far more painful. It has far more lifelong effects (I can experience a lot of sexual pleasure because I still have my glans penis. A woman without her clitoris is just out of luck there.) and on top of it it's a torturous, terroristic attack on the woman.
These two things may both be wrong, and I think they are, but FGM is way, way, more wrong. So naturally people concerned about human rights are far more incensed about it than they are about the foreskins of Western males just the same way as we are more concerned about stopping genocide than legalizing pot.
Speak for yourself!
[bubble bubble bubble]
I was kind of surprised both the marriage amendment and voter ID amendment failed. Happy, but surprised.Me too, but then Minnesota has had a very liberal leaning for a long time. I remember my high school history teacher, a great guy I deeply respect, who sort of laid the foundation of my disbelief in moral relativism and suspicion of Marxist stuff (I never trusted Marxist rhetoric from the beginning, I only really started looking at it in depth after stumbling on this guy's vlog by chance), saying that if there was ever a second Renaissance, it'd be in Minnesota.
Also, in addressing your previous statement about how there should be evidence that things are crappy in a feminist culture, you do have a point that there are countries where women still are marginalized, particularly in Africa. But then there ARE problems that feminism either exacerbates through misandry or completely ignores as it doesn't fit their worldview:
Unfair child support and custody laws
The double-standard of circumcision
Women get less prison time than men for the exact same crimes and circumstances
Just so I'm clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. There ARE a lot of places in the world where women are badly treated, but the current model of feminism has traded the idea of equality between the genders to an idea of female dominance, where men are viewed as disposable at best and outright evil at worst.
I would actually sees those things as continuation of problems from sexism. Oppression of women has an affect on men too.
Tony Porter talking about how male dominance traps men too.
Look at the double standard that exists some places in regards to pornography and sexual behavior, specifically in regards to same-sex sexual behavior. Two girls at a college bar can probably get a free drink out of kissing each other, because the men who watch will be arroused by the girls display of sexuality and the guys are all imagining getting into the middle of that. You're not going to see the same reaction to two men kissing.
I think part of the anti-homosexual thoughts from me has a lot to do with the sexism I our culture. Men who submit to other men sexually are somehow less manly. Sex becomes an act of power and dominance. Women submitting to each other is less offensive, as long as we imagine them also submitting to men.
This standard of being like a girl being a bad thing traps men. "You throw like a girl" is still a valid insult for a lot of people. So yes, me who are victims of domestic violence is a bad thing. If we didn't live in a culture that made fun of them for it, they might not be so ashamed to go to the police. Feminism didn't cause this domestic violence.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I have to contribute here is that I think it is offensive to equate the consequences of male circumcision with those of female circumcision.
One of those two things is done to inhibit the experience of sexual pleasure. They would be equivalent if male circumcision involved lopping off the whole tip.
Please don't ever use that at as a case for asymmetry in genderism ever again.
Bugger me, I don't get to read that very often. :)
Speaking as a straight man, I must say I am somehow offended when an admitted gay man says "Bugger me..."[/sarcasm]
And for the record, I must say myself, channelling Jerry Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I interpreted his "Double Standard of Circumcision" in that link list to mean:
"Everyone always decries how horrid it is that girls are involuntarily circumcised in misogynist countries, but we circumcise boys all the time and nobody cares!"
This implies a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is to remove the foreskin vs. what it is to remove the clitoris.
Ask your girlfriend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I interpreted his "Double Standard of Circumcision" in that link list to mean:
"Everyone always decries how horrid it is that girls are involuntarily circumcised in misogynist countries, but we circumcise boys all the time and nobody cares!"
This implies a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is to remove the foreskin vs. what it is to remove the clitoris.
Ask your girlfriend.
QFT. Comparing male and female circumcision is apples and oranges. Male circumcision doesn't remove a man's main sexual pleasure center. Female does.
It's a barbaric way of removing much of a woman's capacity for pleasure, since, as we all know, a woman who enjoys sex can't be trusted, and will be a wanton slut with any man who walks by... [/sarcasm]
[Strokes Dicey]
ZOMG, they'll call us Furries, but goblins have no fur, do we? Fuzzywuzzy had no fur, so fuzzywuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
(Plenty of fun to be had in the Goblin Kennels.)
Some female circumcision only removes the clitoral hood.
Just saying.
That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
Some female circumcision only removes the clitoral hood.
Just saying.
I doubt that makes it okay in either case, as others may have already pointed out.
And if you feel the need to secede. All I can say is repeat the great Willy Wonka."stop, don't, come back."
I want to get on board, but can't. Can you imagine the destruction they'd cause without the rest of us holding them back? There's all kinds of perfectly innocent people in those states kept safe, sometimes just barely, only by national restraints. Talk about a human rights catastrophe.
But I think the petition to strip citizenship from everyone who signed a secession petition is funny. They don't want it anyway, so why would they object? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding circumcision: It is a medical procedure, and should be done to consenting people, for medical reasons, i.e. phimosis. If you have a narrow foreskin opening, there may be problems with fertility due to this, and should be corrected. However: When that surgery is performed, only the tip of the foreskin is removed, only enough that the foreskin can be retracted over the glans penis. There may be other reasons, such as repeated infections of the glans, and circumcision can be done to improve ease of washing the glans.
Every surgery comes with risks. Most critically, about 10% of surgery leads to infections, and some fraction of that is serious. Thus, surgery should ONLY EVER be done on a correct medical indication. Performing surgery "because it is the way it's done" is truly reprehensible. Especially on someone who can't speak for himself about it. You don't need to include female genital mutilation into the deal for infant circumcision to be disgusting.
As for the sensitivity issue, all those who were circumcised as children have this as a frame of reference. Those who weren't have another. Like colours, it's pretty difficult to compare these two experiences, and to claim that sensitivity is not reduced is as bogus a claim as saying it is.
I want to get on board, but can't. Can you imagine the destruction they'd cause without the rest of us holding them back? There's all kinds of perfectly innocent people in those states kept safe, sometimes just barely, only by national restraints. Talk about a human rights catastrophe.
Well look at it this way. Texas is a dessert with lots of oil populated by heavily armed religious fundamentalists. If they secceed then by the the rules Dick Cheney and george bush work under we can invade them and take the oil.
Well look at it this way. Texas is a dessert with lots of oil populated by heavily armed religious fundamentalist. If they secceed then by the the rules Dick Cheney and george bush work under we can invade them and take the oil.
I want to get on board, but can't. Can you imagine the destruction they'd cause without the rest of us holding them back? There's all kinds of perfectly innocent people in those states kept safe, sometimes just barely, only by national restraints. Talk about a human rights catastrophe.
I like it.
That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
You act surprised that I have stated a fact.
No, the original comment was about the double standard of female and genital circumcision. Just saying if it's just a "hood" circumcision, it's probably roughly comparable to the loss of a foreskin.
FWIW I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.
I mean eew.
Equating male and female circumcision is like feminists decrying the lack of a urinal in the ladies room. No matter how equal you try to make things some things just ain't gonna be the same.
Equating male and female circumcision is like feminists decrying the lack of a urinal in the ladies room. No matter how equal you try to make things some things just ain't gonna be the same.
I have an acquaintance/friend who is pretty hardcore into gender equality. I try not to bring it up, because her and I disagree rather a lot. But she was basically shaking she was so mad at the idea of mens rooms having urinals. Largely because of a FTM trans friend who felt "awkward" in men's rooms.
If seeing a urinal hurts your feelings, you might want to reevaluate some shit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
You act surprised that I have stated a fact.
No, the original comment was about the double standard of female and genital circumcision. Just saying if it's just a "hood" circumcision, it's probably roughly comparable to the loss of a foreskin.
FWIW I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.
I mean eew.
So, you've been socialised into thinking that foreskins are 'eew'?
My foreskin is offended by that remark.
After watching this video, I've become deeply concerned about the state of things here in America. What can I do?
Romney lost... get over it. The country survived 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of Bush. It will survive 4 more years of Obama.
Yes I watch Rachael Maddows, which means I get my news from a Doctoral woman of letters.
You no doubt get your news from Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh... two college dropouts.
And if you feel the need to secede. All I can say is repeat the great Willy Wonka.
"stop, don't, come back."
Hey! I dropped out of college three times!
That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
You act surprised that I have stated a fact.
No, the original comment was about the double standard of female and genital circumcision. Just saying if it's just a "hood" circumcision, it's probably roughly comparable to the loss of a foreskin.
FWIW I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.
I mean eew.
I'm not surprised that you've stated a fact, Meat. Your posts strike me as well reasoned over all.
I just think coming onto the Cultural Marxism thread and arguing in favor of the good kind of female circumcision/genital mutilation is ceding the premise to the reactionaries. I guess their claim is that we shouldn't have government mandated health care because the Cultural Marxists want to circumcise half the population, or something?
|
Gee, I take a day off from the web and this thread is full of even more great advice and insight. Thanks for explaining the circumcision issue a bit more clearly. Up until now, my only real exposure to the issue was through the novel, Possessing the Secret of Joy, which is about a young woman trying to cope with the trauma of that experience, but sort of skirts details of actual physical pain. I still think it should be consensual, like Sissyl said, but having the foreskin removed definitely sounds better than the whole thing being severed.
By the way, I voted for Obama. Why would I vote against an amendment banning gay marriage only to vote for a man who wanted to propose a national Constitutional amendment that would nullify all the currently legal gay marriages in the country? And Rush Limbaugh is a pig, while Glen Beck is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
The bit about circumcision is sort of an outgrowth of RME's vehement opposition to feminists, which he views as negatively effecting public policy through demanding laws that protect women at the expense of men's rights, institutionalizing a lack of responsibility among women for their behavior, and promoting an androgynous view of reproduction, without realizing how dependent on the state they are, which is just how the alleged cultural Marxists want them. That feminists are basically unwitting sleeper agents of the collectivists and social engineers that would trample individual liberty and kill whoever it took to establish their worker's utopia. Or so he claims, at least.
|
|
Equating male and female circumcision is like feminists decrying the lack of a urinal in the ladies room. No matter how equal you try to make things some things just ain't gonna be the same.I have an acquaintance/friend who is pretty hardcore into gender equality. I try not to bring it up, because her and I disagree rather a lot. But she was basically shaking she was so mad at the idea of mens rooms having urinals. Largely because of a FTM trans friend who felt "awkward" in men's rooms.
If seeing a urinal hurts your feelings, you might want to reevaluate some s@~#.
See, it's feminists like THIS that I take issue with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, it's feminists like THIS that I take issue with.Equating male and female circumcision is like feminists decrying the lack of a urinal in the ladies room. No matter how equal you try to make things some things just ain't gonna be the same.I have an acquaintance/friend who is pretty hardcore into gender equality. I try not to bring it up, because her and I disagree rather a lot. But she was basically shaking she was so mad at the idea of mens rooms having urinals. Largely because of a FTM trans friend who felt "awkward" in men's rooms.
If seeing a urinal hurts your feelings, you might want to reevaluate some s@~#.
Yes but the left keeps that level of whacko consigned to the dark and shady corners of the internet.
The right gives that level of whacko their own radio show, TV show, and network.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, it's feminists like THIS that I take issue with.Equating male and female circumcision is like feminists decrying the lack of a urinal in the ladies room. No matter how equal you try to make things some things just ain't gonna be the same.I have an acquaintance/friend who is pretty hardcore into gender equality. I try not to bring it up, because her and I disagree rather a lot. But she was basically shaking she was so mad at the idea of mens rooms having urinals. Largely because of a FTM trans friend who felt "awkward" in men's rooms.
If seeing a urinal hurts your feelings, you might want to reevaluate some s@~#.
Yes but the left keeps that level of whacko consigned to the dark and shady corners of the internet.
The right gives that level of whacko their own radio show, TV show, and network.
And elected office.
Well look at it this way. Texas is a dessert with lots of oil populated by heavily armed religious fundamentalists. If they secceed then by the the rules Dick Cheney and george bush work under we can invade them and take the oil.
I want to get on board, but can't. Can you imagine the destruction they'd cause without the rest of us holding them back? There's all kinds of perfectly innocent people in those states kept safe, sometimes just barely, only by national restraints. Talk about a human rights catastrophe.
Getting back the same people we're supposed to gain by being rid of doesn't seem like progress.
That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
You act surprised that I have stated a fact.
No, the original comment was about the double standard of female and genital circumcision. Just saying if it's just a "hood" circumcision, it's probably roughly comparable to the loss of a foreskin.
FWIW I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.
I mean eew.So, you've been socialised into thinking that foreskins are 'eew'?
My foreskin is offended by that remark.
I guess I've been socialized to not like being vivisected too. Some opiniNions people come to naturally. Like I like pie despite everyone around me preferring cake.
Heretic!!!
The ultimate irony. the state that prattles so much about individual freedom rebelled from Mexico because the latter had just abolished slavery.
South Carolina, already one of the most slavingest of colonies, rejected British rule on the grounds that they would not see slavery instituted in their lands.
That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
You act surprised that I have stated a fact.
No, the original comment was about the double standard of female and genital circumcision. Just saying if it's just a "hood" circumcision, it's probably roughly comparable to the loss of a foreskin.
FWIW I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.
I mean eew.
Same here. I've no idea how to clean behind it, and all the stories I've heard make it seem..unpalatable..to me. Should I have a son, he will be circumcised as well.
Regarding circumcision: It is a medical procedure, and should be done to consenting people, for medical reasons, i.e. phimosis. If you have a narrow foreskin opening, there may be problems with fertility due to this, and should be corrected. However: When that surgery is performed, only the tip of the foreskin is removed, only enough that the foreskin can be retracted over the glans penis. There may be other reasons, such as repeated infections of the glans, and circumcision can be done to improve ease of washing the glans.
Every surgery comes with risks. Most critically, about 10% of surgery leads to infections, and some fraction of that is serious. Thus, surgery should ONLY EVER be done on a correct medical indication. Performing surgery "because it is the way it's done" is truly reprehensible. Especially on someone who can't speak for himself about it. You don't need to include female genital mutilation into the deal for infant circumcision to be disgusting.
As for the sensitivity issue, all those who were circumcised as children have this as a frame of reference. Those who weren't have another. Like colours, it's pretty difficult to compare these two experiences, and to claim that sensitivity is not reduced is as bogus a claim as saying it is.
Also, it can be next to impossible to determine who is going to develop/have phimosis and who won't.
I doubt that makes it okay in either case, as others may have already pointed out.Some female circumcision only removes the clitoral hood.
Just saying.
I've heard this too, but I've yet to see it. I'm not sure if it's tarring all of the name of a practice with one brush or what. It certainly seems possible to remove the clitoral hood, however.
I interpreted his "Double Standard of Circumcision" in that link list to mean:
"Everyone always decries how horrid it is that girls are involuntarily circumcised in misogynist countries, but we circumcise boys all the time and nobody cares!"
This implies a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is to remove the foreskin vs. what it is to remove the clitoris.
Ask your girlfriend.
I've heard ghoulish tales of male circumcision that did include this practice, however. Whether or not they are to be believed is anyone's guess.
|
The video blogger found in the OP is a bit nutty. Myself and another youtube poster were having a calm conversation about why people still endorse communism. I gave a few reasons that people, not myself, give and the blogger attacked me, called me a sociopath, and threatened to block me and delete my comments.
Same here. I've no idea how to clean behind it, and all the stories I've heard make it seem..unpalatable..to me. Should I have a son, he will be circumcised as well.That's true, Meat, you've stated an actual fact there
But once you start arguing about the moral values of various sort of circumcision, you've sort of ceded the argument to a higher court, right?
You act surprised that I have stated a fact.
No, the original comment was about the double standard of female and genital circumcision. Just saying if it's just a "hood" circumcision, it's probably roughly comparable to the loss of a foreskin.
FWIW I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.
I mean eew.
Assuming you already bath and clean your junk, it's not difficult or time consuming. Maybe 5 seconds.
I'd equate it to being as difficult to cleaning behind your ear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd equate it to being as difficult to cleaning behind your ear.
Hey, it can be hard getting your back foot up there.
@Smarnil
The best DM I ever had (3.5e campaign) happens to be an Australian woman.
And I meant the snakes and spiders. What makes you say that the women are venomous?
Oh, please... All serious talk and no jokes makes Icyshadow a dull boy.
Oh, please... All serious talk and no jokes makes Icyshadow a dull boy.@Smarnil
The best DM I ever had (3.5e campaign) happens to be an Australian woman.
And I meant the snakes and spiders. What makes you say that the women are venomous?
All work and no sleep is what's making me dull.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it can be next to impossible to determine who is going to develop/have phimosis and who won't.Regarding circumcision: It is a medical procedure, and should be done to consenting people, for medical reasons, i.e. phimosis. If you have a narrow foreskin opening, there may be problems with fertility due to this, and should be corrected. However: When that surgery is performed, only the tip of the foreskin is removed, only enough that the foreskin can be retracted over the glans penis. There may be other reasons, such as repeated infections of the glans, and circumcision can be done to improve ease of washing the glans.
Every surgery comes with risks. Most critically, about 10% of surgery leads to infections, and some fraction of that is serious. Thus, surgery should ONLY EVER be done on a correct medical indication. Performing surgery "because it is the way it's done" is truly reprehensible. Especially on someone who can't speak for himself about it. You don't need to include female genital mutilation into the deal for infant circumcision to be disgusting.
As for the sensitivity issue, all those who were circumcised as children have this as a frame of reference. Those who weren't have another. Like colours, it's pretty difficult to compare these two experiences, and to claim that sensitivity is not reduced is as bogus a claim as saying it is.
Phimosis does not need to be corrected unless there are repeated infections or the person in question wants to have children. Hopefully the person is an adult by that time.
I am sorry, I have a very difficult time trying to see what would make circumcision necessary in infanthood, unless there are infections... And most never get those. "Ewww" usually isn't a good reason to make a surgical procedure on someone who can't agree to it.
I am sorry, I have a very difficult time trying to see what would make circumcision necessary in infanthood
The best parenting reason there is: they did it to me, and now I'm going to do it to you!
Srly though, Parents, break the cycle of trauma and abuse. Stop circumcising your boys.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what I gather from this thread after skimming through the first and last pages is that Greek philosophers, who like to mix pies with cake, are using circumcision to promote a LGBT Cultural Communist agenda, and all because men's bathrooms have urinals.
Interesting, interesting.
I think that about covers it.