What...the...fuck (female circumcision)

[Priran]

As if it's any of your business, no, I'm not circumcised.

[archibaldcrane]

Somehow I get the feeling I've just witnessed the most epic and successful trolling in BG history.

[Ivve]

Somehow I get the feeling I've just witnessed the most epic and successful trolling in BG history.

Me too.

[Maguspk]

I think there's a difference between trolling and making an attempt to qualify your posts.

The intellectual gap here is that everybody has their own opinion about it and Priran has his, and it seems 99% of the thread has theirs. Like someone else said it seems he's playing devil's advocate but one can't say that for sure. For what it matters if you think about what Priran posts his argument isn't not well founded.

[Ivve]

I think there's a difference between trolling and making an attempt to qualify your posts.

The intellectual gap here is that everybody has their own opinion about it and Priran has his, and it seems 99% of the thread has theirs. Like someone else said it seems he's playing devil's advocate but one can't say that for sure. For what it matters if you think about what Priran posts his argument isn't not well founded.

I just don't understand the point. Who cares if FGM is worse than male circumcision? This thread was started about legal actions being taken against an act that is considered barbaric. Then Priran has attempted to equate it to male circumcision, which is neither related nor necessary. Regardless of its similarities or differences, it is wrong and it should be stopped. If he wanted to educate people about the evils of male circumcision, the better thing to do would have been to start a new thread dedicated to discussing that. If male circumcision is barbaric, and male circumcision is equally as bad as FGM, then FGM must be considered barbaric as well. Why take the focus off that? You can't further every cause and win every argument all at once.

[Maguspk]

I think there's a difference between trolling and making an attempt to qualify your posts.

The intellectual gap here is that everybody has their own opinion about it and Priran has his, and it seems 99% of the thread has theirs. Like someone else said it seems he's playing devil's advocate but one can't say that for sure. For what it matters if you think about what Priran posts his argument isn't not well founded.

I just don't understand the point. Who cares if FGM is worse than male circumcision? This thread was started about legal actions being taken against an act that is considered barbaric. Then Priran has attempted to equate it to male circumcision, which is neither related nor necessary. Regardless of its similarities or differences, it is wrong and it should be stopped. If he wanted to educate people about the evils of male circumcision, the better thing to do would have been to start a new thread dedicated to discussing that. If male circumcision is barbaric, and male circumcision is equally as bad as FGM, then FGM must be considered barbaric as well. Why take the focus off that? You can't further every cause and win every argument all at once.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they are more similar than they are different at their core, but the argument against him was that "FGM" was more barbaric and more painful and more detrimental etc etc. To make a new thread in what he was perceiving to be on the same topic would be a little off course.

[Ivve]

I think the point he was trying to make was that they are more similar than they are different at their core, but the argument against him was that "FGM" was more barbaric and more painful and more detrimental etc etc. To make a new thread in what he was perceiving to be on the same topic would be a little off course.

I don't think that he was honestly trying to do anything besides start an argument. If you're really going to try to make a serious contribution to a thread, would you lead off with a gross oversimplification of the very argument you're trying to make? This is the first thing he posted in the thread:

Female circumcision: illegal in many third-world countries

Male circumcision: UM LIEK IT DOES VARIUS GOOD STUF SNIP SNIP SNIP

Considering that he lacks rudimentary knowledge of the structure and function of the vagina, lacks any knowledge concerning the actual procedure, and lacks knowledge of the reasons that FGM exists, how is it possible to make a comparison between the two? They are not the same concept at their core. FGM is practiced specifically to oppress and control a woman's sexuality, where male circumcision is a practice that many parents believe is in the best interest of their child's health. It's a lack of knowledge that perpetuates male circumcision, not an act of aggression against men. The root cause is very different, as are the procedures and complications.

[joft]

Last post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cl ... gle+Search
The clitoris is homologous to the entire penis. The part of the clitoris that's accessible is approximately homologous to the glans of the penis. FGM is analogous to beheading your penis, with the exception that women don't urinate through their clitorii.

It should be noted that there are different types of FGM, and removing the clitoris is on the lighter end of the spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FGC_Types.jpg

[Priran]

I don't think that he was honestly trying to do anything besides start an argument. If you're really going to try to make a serious contribution to a thread, would you lead off with a gross oversimplification of the very argument you're trying to make? This is the first thing he posted in the thread:

Female circumcision: illegal in many third-world countries

Male circumcision: UM LIEK IT DOES VARIUS GOOD STUF SNIP SNIP SNIP

Considering that he lacks rudimentary knowledge of the structure and function of the vagina, lacks any knowledge concerning the actual procedure, and lacks knowledge of the reasons that FGM exists, how is it possible to make a comparison between the two? They are not the same concept at their core. FGM is practiced specifically to oppress and control a woman's sexuality, where male circumcision is a practice that many parents believe is in the best interest of their child's health. It's a lack of knowledge that perpetuates male circumcision, not an act of aggression against men. The root cause is very different, as are the procedures and complications.

You're an idiot.

Cite 1 time I made a mistake on rudimentary function or structure of the vagina. Then, find 1 time I made a mistake about the actual procedure. This one should be pretty hard, because I don't remember actually ever mentioning the process. Then, find 1 instance where I'm wrong on reasons why female circumcision exists. Then, realize you're taking these all out of context.

Both procedures are done to repress sexuality. Whether or not it's veiled under the guise of "religion" or "cleanliness", this motherfucker is responsible for the repopularization of circumcision as a way to keep boys from masturbating and keep them focused on God.

I don't plan on convincing idiots to change their way of thinking. My first post was made only as a cheap shot at archibald's worry over shit that doesn't effect him, when something comparable does. In case you hadn't noticed, the first page was mainly jokes. I wasn't planning on starting an argument.


Guy above: I mentioned that.

The glans is part of the penile tissue responsible for erection and carrying the urethra. The clitoris's analogous structure for this tissue does nothing mechanically useful

[Beckwin]

...except you keep seeming to ignore the consequences of scar tissue on the vagina, especially in relation to intercourse and childbirth. A circumcised dick still functions properly.

[Ivve]

I don't think that he was honestly trying to do anything besides start an argument. If you're really going to try to make a serious contribution to a thread, would you lead off with a gross oversimplification of the very argument you're trying to make? This is the first thing he posted in the thread:

Female circumcision: illegal in many third-world countries

Male circumcision: UM LIEK IT DOES VARIUS GOOD STUF SNIP SNIP SNIP

Considering that he lacks rudimentary knowledge of the structure and function of the vagina, lacks any knowledge concerning the actual procedure, and lacks knowledge of the reasons that FGM exists, how is it possible to make a comparison between the two? They are not the same concept at their core. FGM is practiced specifically to oppress and control a woman's sexuality, where male circumcision is a practice that many parents believe is in the best interest of their child's health. It's a lack of knowledge that perpetuates male circumcision, not an act of aggression against men. The root cause is very different, as are the procedures and complications.

You're an idiot.

Cite 1 time I made a mistake on rudimentary function or structure of the vagina. Then, find 1 time I made a mistake about the actual procedure. This one should be pretty hard, because I don't remember actually ever mentioning the process. Then, find 1 instance where I'm wrong on reasons why female circumcision exists. Then, realize you're taking these all out of context.

Both procedures are done to repress sexuality. Whether or not it's veiled under the guise of "religion" or "cleanliness", this motherfucker is responsible for the repopularization of circumcision as a way to keep boys from masturbating and keep them focused on God.

I don't plan on convincing idiots to change their way of thinking. My first post was made only as a cheap shot at archibald's worry over shit that doesn't effect him, when something comparable does. In case you hadn't noticed, the first page was mainly jokes. I wasn't planning on starting an argument.


Guy above: I mentioned that.

The glans is part of the penile tissue responsible for erection and carrying the urethra. The clitoris's analogous structure for this tissue does nothing mechanically useful

Why should I bother? So you can continue to tell me that the clitoris is not important to orgasms? In a good discussion, both sides can concede a few points. You refuse steadfastly that anything you have said is inaccurate in any way, when you have been told by both men and women that you are incorrect. You also continue to preface pretty much every response with "You're stupid" or "You're an idiot" directed at any person you respond to. That is not the tactic of someone trying to have a discussion, but of someone who is losing an argument so desperately that their only hope left is to piss off the other participants.

I also think it's worth noting that there is no worldwide movement to ban male circumcision everywhere, but there is a large scale movement against FGM. Either you're the most enlightened person on this planet at this time, or there truly is a difference between the two.

P.S. You haven't said anything directly about FGM because you don't know anything about it.

P.P.S. Did you seriously imply that archibald shouldn't care about FGM because it doesn't affect him? As someone who is not circumsized, circumcision does not affect you, and yet you still care. How does that make any sense?

[Priran]

Why should I bother? So you can continue to tell me that the clitoris is not important to orgasms?

Never said that. See what I meant about context?

In a good discussion, both sides can concede a few points. You refuse steadfastly that anything you have said is inaccurate in any way, when you have been told by both men and women that you are incorrect.

I've nothing to concede because a man or woman who wasn't incorrect on multiple counts is yet to post.

You also continue to preface pretty much every response with "You're stupid" or "You're an idiot" directed at any person you respond to. That is not the tactic of someone trying to have a discussion, but of someone who is losing an argument so desperately that their only hope left is to piss off the other participants.

Did you get your Ph.D in psychology from the same cracker jack box joft did?

I also think it's worth noting that there is no worldwide movement to ban male circumcision everywhere, but there is a large scale movement against FGM. Either you're the most enlightened person on this planet at this time, or there truly is a difference between the two.

There's no popular movements to ban a lot of harmful shit. On the other hand, most large movements are for trivial, benign shit. And here's something I find interesting; you provided links to anti-circumcision groups, and at the same time, joft was denying that female circumcision got press.

P.S. You haven't said anything directly about FGM because you don't know anything about it.

Don't let trivial matters like proof stop you, feel free to continue trying baseless insults.

P.P.S. Did you seriously imply that archibald shouldn't care about FGM because it doesn't affect him? As someone who is not circumsized, circumcision does not affect you, and yet you still care. How does that make any sense?

Female circumcision is not a problem in the western world. Male circumcision is.

[archibaldcrane]

Stop feeding the troll.

[Devek]

Can we start talking about shit that is HOT again?

Any girls want to sit on my face?

[Ivve]

Can we start talking about shit that is HOT again?

Any girls want to sit on my face?

Where is SB when you need her?

[Oxyminus]

Can we start talking about shit that is HOT again?

Any girls want to sit on my face?

Where is SB when you need her?

sitting on someone else's face?

[poland]

It's too bad that not one of you has actually proved priran wrong

[Ksandra]

It's too bad that not one of you has actually proved priran wrong

He hasn't proven us wrong either. >.>

He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I asked some guy friends who are cut and they laughed at how much he's flipping out over this. I don't need to prove him wrong about anything, I've seen enough to believe it's not that serious as he's trying to make it out to be.

If I ever get to have boys they're probably getting cut he has yet to sway me to change that idea.

[Priran]

He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I asked some guy friends who are cut and they laughed at how much he's flipping out over this. I don't need to prove him wrong about anything, I've seen enough to believe it's not that serious as he's trying to make it out to be.

If I ever get to have boys they're probably getting cut he has yet to sway me to change that idea.

My face is buried in my palm. It really is. You feel like performing cosmetic surgery with long-lasting developmental and psychological effects on an unconsenting individual, go ahead. Female circumcision hasn't been stopped at all.

Speaking of psychological effects, the next time you're casually chatting to your guy friends on the subject of their dicks, refer them to this paragraph of this study I quoted:

Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss. The first stage of grief is denial of the loss... the thought of permanent loss of sensory function is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality... persons in denial may minimize their loss. Circumcision causes the loss of a body part and all of its functions including a drastic loss of erogenous sensory function, so denial of loss is not uncommon in circumcised males.

[Palin]

To feel grief over loss you have to have a point of comparison of presence. I highly doubt the guys she was talking were circumcised during a point in which they remember, so I highly doubt they went through stages of grief.

If you your grandfather before you're born and get to know him, you don't go through the stages of grief when you get older. You can miss and regret the idea, but you have no memory and cognitive processes which relate to that person in which you can miss.

I will agree with you that circumcising a child "just because" is a stupid reason. Ksandra you should really look into the research before going through such a process out of tradition, there is virtually no conclusive evidence that shows it is a suggested process.