|
How do you like your pen0r? (pg. 26)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| 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. |
This was already addressed a while ago. The analogous procedure is the removal of the clitoral hood alone, which can be done if the hood is too long or thick and inhibits clitoral stimulation.
| quote: | ...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? |
Nail-trimming is (a) easily reversible (b) not painful if done properly.
You are awfully dense to distinctions and slow on the uptake for a doctor. I hope I'm never treated by someone who slipped through the stupid-elimination hurdles of college and med school the way you apparently did. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
lol you are all cracking me up.
Again - no, because I have been to several celebrations and have been raised in the religion my whole life. At no point, has any Rabbi or parent said "we're gonna cut his penis so we can discourage sexuality".
Whether or not you believe in religion, the Old Testament, any of the "religious" or "mythical" stories or not - don't make blanket statements like that when that is not the foundation of the reasoning behind the procedure. I'm not asking you to believe in it; I'm not even saying that I believe in EVERY story and myth, I'm simply saying that it is NOT the foundation of WHY it is done. |
So what reason does a Rabbi give for completing circumcision?
I suspect that your answer will be something along the lines of 'for religious purposes', or 'for tradition' - which correlates exactly with what BoJingles has been trying to tell you. The practice of circumcision may originally have been for decreased sexual pleasure, which was seen as a sin in more prudish times. Or, more likely, as with non-consumption of pork or kosher food preparation, as a way of maintaining hygiene in simpler times. However, although they are no longer necessary, these practices have continued as tradition, and the original reasons for them lost.
It's ridiculous things like this that have made me reject religion altogether. "God says you're not allowed to eat pigs. You can eat cows, ducks, chickens, rabbits, snakes, crocodiles, kangaroos, grouse, quail, hare, turtle and fish, but never pigs. That would be wrong." |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
Cutting a baby's umbilical cord is a required procedure, circumcision is not. But yes, they are technically both mutilations semantically.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
I get your point and agree. What I am saying is that female genital mutilation is equivalent to male genital mutilation in terms of severity in my opinion. They were both practiced *initially* for the same reasons and they are both unnecessary procedures that affect the function and enjoyment of the organs.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
Well, the argument from what I understand is that the foreskin creates a barrier that permits a warm and moist environment, (which in turn produces smegma) and is therefore bacteria friendly. This is similar to the function of the labia majora in females. If we are going to use the medical reasoning most go with for circumcision, then I propose we start removing the labia majora in women for the same reasons.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
Woot! My fingers are sex toys!! That is both entertaining and funny :) Common dude, you have seen porn. Are you telling me that you haven't noticed women fingering themselves?
The vaginal canal still has feeling without the labia majora, or even the clitoris... what's your point? And the foreskin doesn't contain any important nerve endings?! Where is astroboy?
| 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 |
*sigh*
Definition again:
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
Cutting nails and hair is not injuring, nor irreparably damaging parts as they grow back.
Not sure how female and male mutilation aren't the same. Can you clarify? I would like to make a point that there are many different ways of mutilating the female genitalia, not just one.
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
This was already addressed a while ago. The analogous procedure is the removal of the clitoral hood alone, which can be done if the hood is too long or thick and inhibits clitoral stimulation. |
In terms of function (protection and the production of warm/moist/smegma friendly environment,) I would guess that the labia majora would be more analogous to the foreskin. In terms of nerve-endings/pleasure receptors, I don't really know. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Good lord, some of you people need some Valium.
Anyway...the female analogy to the foreskin in the clitoral hood, as said before. Clitoropexy, which is analogous to male circumcision, is done, and is usually indicated either for aesthetic reasons or to increase sexual sensitivity.
Also, the definition of "mutilation" given says "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts."
"Disfigure" and "imperfect" are both subjective. The last portion says "removing" OR "irreparably damaging." If I believe that short nails are "imperfect" and I see someone "remove" a length of nail, why does that not make it mutilation? How does that not fit the definition? Is it simply because it can grow back? If I remove a sliver of skin from the length of your back, is that not mutilation since it will grow back? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Nail-trimming is (a) easily reversible (b) not painful if done properly. |
|
|
|
| Rose |
| Lol this thread is a mess. Who the cares? As long as the guy can work it :o |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rose
Lol this thread is a mess. Who the cares? As long as the guy can work it :o |
all these uncut guys better know how to work it since they prolly aint gettin it sucked. :o |
|
|
| kadomony |
| aint nothin like a good penis discussion to get TA goin, boy howdy |
|
|
| Rose |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
all these uncut guys better know how to work it since they prolly aint gettin it sucked. :o |
Why wouldn't they? |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rose
Why wouldn't they? |
unattractive wing dingers? |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
all these uncut guys better know how to work it since they prolly aint gettin it sucked. :o |
ahem |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Schadenfreude
ahem |
:stongue: |
|
|
|
|
