|
How do you like your pen0r? (pg. 25)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| squirrelly |
| Deserve it based off of who's morals and personal beliefs? Yours? Are you not seeing the irony in that statement at all? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
Deserve it based off of who's morals and personal beliefs? |
It has nothing to do with morality. I don't treat religion as a separate and sacrosanct category, because I don't see why its historical claims should be held to a different standard of evidence than any others. |
|
|
| DimaShibby |
well mine is pretty fine in size and shape, it satisfies mostly everything that it comes in contact with
*** image removed |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Remember what you said at the start of this argument. You asked why society tolerates one form of mutilation and not another. If you're going to be a semantic robot for the sake of argument, I'll simply reply that society tolerates it because almost everyone on Earth is already mutilated anyway, and so mutilation clearly isn't an important issue.
So unless you're going to realise it's a question of relativity and not absolutes, the argument is over and the problem is solved.
A bit of enquiry revealed that Astroboy has discredited different studies to the ones I've seen. The issue is not cut and dried, but there remains evidence for medical benefits, which is far more than you can say for female circumcision.
Because she'd find it very difficult or near impossible to masturbate through natural means? The clitoris exists purely for sexual pleasure. It really is just a collection of nerve endings. Remove it and there is no sexual pleasure from that part of the body. It's a lot more severe than removing a foreskin. |
Being a 'semantic robot' is necessary in order to have a logical discussion. If we don't clarify the meanings in the words used, then we get the problem where you are arguing one point, and I another.
As for it not really being an important issue - I disagree and it seems based off of the very small sampling of people on TA that a lot of people would disagree with you.
I would guess that some type of mutilation of the female genitalia could somehow be construed as medically beneficial and aesthetically more pleasing. Who likes meat curtains anyway? :haha: But seriously, if you were to remove the part of female genitalia that promotes smegma (as the foreskin does for males), then it could be argued that it would have the same benefits, could it not?
Near impossible to masturbate?! Are you kidding? A woman can masturbate without touching the clitoris and be able to thoroughly enjoy it, trust me... I know. Admittedly, the stimulation of the clitoris adds to the pleasure, but it has been argued that the same could be said for foreskin too. "Remove it and there is no sexual pleasure from that part of the body" is true for the foreskin as well. |
|
|
| bas |
| quote: | Originally posted by DimaShibby
|
You ing idiot. Week suspension. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
You ing idiot. Week suspension. |
LOL! And yet the photo remains. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Being a 'semantic robot' is necessary in order to have a logical discussion. If we don't clarify the meanings in the words used, then we get the problem where you are arguing one point, and I another.
As for it not really being an important issue - I disagree and it seems based off of the very small sampling of people on TA that a lot of people would disagree with you. |
Most of TA would not care about things like scarring or dental work, but this is still semantically "mutilation". Semantically the word means any physical alteration to the body that alters the appearance or function through removal of tissue, but cutting a baby's umbilical cord is "mutilation" by that definition.
The reasons why people care, don't care, condone one form of "mutilation" and not another go beyond the dictionary definition. That is my point, but it's one you don't seem to grasp. People don't give a about mutilation as a base, raw concept. They give a about particular kinds of mutilation, because of the severity. There are two levels of meaning in language: semantic and pragmatic. "Mutilation" semantically means something simple, but in practise it generally means something more.
| quote: | | But seriously, if you were to remove the part of female genitalia that promotes smegma (as the foreskin does for males), then it could be argued that it would have the same benefits, could it not? |
No on two counts. Firstly, the medical benefits in question have little to do with smegma so that's a false comparison. Secondly you'd be altering the definition of female circumcision.
| quote: | | Near impossible to masturbate?! Are you kidding? A woman can masturbate without touching the clitoris and be able to thoroughly enjoy it, trust me... I know. Admittedly, the stimulation of the clitoris adds to the pleasure, but it has been argued that the same could be said for foreskin too. "Remove it and there is no sexual pleasure from that part of the body" is true for the foreskin as well. |
Keep in mind I said "by natural means", which means without using sex toys. And you're wrong about that last part. The glans still has feeling without the foreskin, and the actual foreskin itself doesn't contain any important nerve endings. Removing the clitoris means removing the actual nerves. Removing the foreskin just means a slight thickening of the skin above the nerves. There is still plenty of feeling there. |
|
|
| Theresa |
I am not going to read that. I saw cheeseburger and smegma and I thought to myself "whatever this story is about, I suspect it will make me want to vomit or never eat a cheeseburger again." And then I closed the window.
:haha: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I'd just like to add that female "circumcision" is in no way anatomically or physiologically analogous to male circumcision.
...and since we're toying around with the idea of "mutilation"...
Nail biting is considered self-mutilation (onychophagia). Does that mean trimming the nails of children is mutilation? What about cutting their hair?
:D |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Does that mean trimming the nails of children is mutilation? What about cutting their hair?
:D |
The argument is quite good, but nails and hair grow back :p |
|
|
| bananas |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'd just like to add that female "circumcision" is in no way anatomically or physiologically analogous to male circumcision.
...and since we're toying around with the idea of "mutilation"...
Nail biting is considered self-mutilation (onychophagia). Does that mean trimming the nails of children is mutilation? What about cutting their hair?
:D |
You're stupid. |
|
|
|
|
