(October 8, 2016 at 11:03 am)vorlon13 Wrote: One of the funnier circumcision incidents is the Bizarre Foods episode (Madagascar I believe) where the host, Andrew Zimern feared he might have to eat the anchovy.

•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.
•  I won't look it up.

At least some of the irony here, as I see it....is that we all find MRAs to be odiuous pieces of human waste...right?    

So why load their pistol for them?

(October 8, 2016 at 10:24 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 6:01 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Well that would be a good parallel if they were threatening to remove the best/most sensitive bits.

That's exactly what circumcision does.  It even makes the remaining sensitive bits less sensitive.  

Umm .. no.  The remaining bits may be less sensitive but that isn't a bad thing.  Given the hair trigger I had in my early twenties I can only imagine how much fun sex with me would have been if I hadn't gotten it sharpened.

(October 8, 2016 at 10:24 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 6:01 pm)Whateverist Wrote: But more to your point, no I don't think modern law should respect tribal custom in the area of clit removal.  Do you know of any countries that attach the same injunction to circumcision?

Yeah, actually, and most of the civilized world are about a hair away from banning it...with public sentiment behind them and legal propositions on the table.   You'll notice that the religious objection to such laws is ever present.  When it's legal, it's all about "cleanliness"... but put their peckers in a vice and all of a sudden they acknowledge that they do it for religious/cultural reasons.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

So none yet?  Wonder if we'll see any in my life time?


So Germany, Sweden and Denmark?  I stand corrected.  Do what you want when I'm dead but I want to see lots of wieners mutilated just like mine until then.

(October 8, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Irrational Wrote: Another relevant link to check out:

http://mondofown.blogspot.com.au/2012/06...efits.html

People who protest against all forms of female circumcision but don't disapprove of male circumcision are being hypocritical.

F-a-l-s-e  e-q-u-i-v-a-l-e-n-c-e.

&

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.."

Circumcision insanity.

https://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/...turbation/
When circumcision was introduced, it was believed that masturbation caused a lot of different illnesses. It was considered extremely immoral and many children, both male and female, have been circumcised through the years because parents found them “in the act.”

It was already known at the end of the 1800s that the removal of the foreskin, which is the only moveable part of the penis would reduce sexual sensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.

It was believed that masturbation caused blindness, mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and several other ills. It therefore made sense to some physicians that circumcision would stop masturbation and prevent the onset of these illnesses.

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision, Karen Erickson Paige writes: “In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control ‘masturbatory insanity’ – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the ‘polluting’ practice of ‘self-abuse.'”

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/milos-macris2/

Noted Rabbi Moses Maimonides, in the Guide of the Perplexed, explains a rationale for circumcision that merits attention when circumcision is considered relative to human sexuality.

As regards circumcision... [s]ome people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning.




So now instead of the sensual man, we have a bunch of insensitive dicks running around. To hell with circumcision.

(October 8, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 8, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Irrational Wrote: Another relevant link to check out:

http://mondofown.blogspot.com.au/2012/06...efits.html

People who protest against all forms of female circumcision but don't disapprove of male circumcision are being hypocritical.

F-a-l-s-e  e-q-u-i-v-a-l-e-n-c-e.

&

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.."

Correct

To be the same, the entire head of the penis would have to be cut off, and the other way around, the outer labia of the vagina would have to be cut off letting the inner labia and clitoris dry out and harden....

(October 8, 2016 at 3:03 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: So now instead of the sensual man, we have a bunch of insensitive dicks running around. To hell with circumcision.

Jizzing at first contact.  Sounds great.

(October 8, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 8, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Irrational Wrote: Another relevant link to check out:

http://mondofown.blogspot.com.au/2012/06...efits.html

People who protest against all forms of female circumcision but don't disapprove of male circumcision are being hypocritical.

F-a-l-s-e  e-q-u-i-v-a-l-e-n-c-e.

&

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.."

No it's not false equivalence. Not all FGM is as extreme as removing the labia. Read well what I said.

(October 8, 2016 at 3:07 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 8, 2016 at 3:03 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: So now instead of the sensual man, we have a bunch of insensitive dicks running around. To hell with circumcision.

Jizzing at first contact.  Sounds great.

Mind compartmentalizing/dissociating trauma brought on by extreme pain of mutilation on your most intimate sensitive part your first day on this planet. Sounds great.

Imagine kissing without lips or touching without finger tips.

(October 8, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 8, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Irrational Wrote: Another relevant link to check out:

http://mondofown.blogspot.com.au/2012/06...efits.html

People who protest against all forms of female circumcision but don't disapprove of male circumcision are being hypocritical.

F-a-l-s-e  e-q-u-i-v-a-l-e-n-c-e.

&

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.."

The most common form of fmg is to remove the labia, not the whole clitoris.
Since all zygotes are female, a penis is literally an extended female sexual organ. The labia is much like the part that turns into the foreskin on a male.

And so.....it's really nearly exactly the same thing. It's even done originally for the same reasons, to make sex and maturation less appealing.