Doi? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Now how can anyone talk about labial cutting in women as a "good thing", while we argue about cutting men as bad....
We had some thread about this at the other place, that surgeons would do this to "make their patients happy". But we weren't talking about surgical procedures to repair their bladder so they didn't have to wear adult diapers....
:mad:
The real issue isn't the cut itself, but that the choice should belong to the Snipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, if some [adult] guy wants to skin his dick, it's his right to make that stupid choice. Likewise, women should also be afforded the right to be stupid, and voluntarily hack off bits of their genitals too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowheart
What's stupid, but fair for the goose is also stupid, but fair for the gander, after all.
a l'orange
Not inherently, no. But it doesnt look quite as nice as a neatly shaved puss. Of course, i dont shave or trim my bush, but thats either cultural or personal. I know a lot of the mafia trim. Personally, if my GF wanted me to, i wouldnt have much of a problem with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
As for big tits, only sometimes, and it depends on the kind of girl you like, naturally. In conversation, most guys ive ever talked about such things with seem like they prefer amateur(ish) models, i.e, natural. Almost no one i know likes the typical brawny peroxide blonde with a hypertan and big fake tits.
No, obvs. But thats no ideal, surely. If you have only ever drunk budweiser and have no scope for comparison doesnt make bud a great beer. It just makes you miss out on the beauty that is a Kwak.Quote:
Shaving, in fact, is what makes hair course and feel like sand paper, since it grows out every day. From men's 5 o'clock shadows to women's legs. And really, if people weren't broadcasting pictures of genitals that looked like pre-teens, or commercials for hair removal, would you really think it's "bad"? No, you wouldn't even have a comparison, to compare.
Pretty much. :)Quote:
What's next? Some fashion statement that eyelashes and eyebrows are ugly too? We already have the manly men shaven head, or the stubbly 3 day beard is sexy thing going on.... and "hairy men" getting waxed before they go to the beach.
The day everyone does that is the day all the cool kids will start growing long hair and beards, viking-style. Such is fasion.Quote:
Should we all just use depilatories to bare our whole bodies and go around that way because it makes sex "more enjoyable"? Slathered in smelly sunscreen lotions and wearing hats? Really?
Well, how would you know that? I mean, as far as "comparing landscape"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
You've either spent way too much time looking at groomed bush meant to look like little girls, or little girls. (Not YOU per se, but men in general ;) )
I suppose sex is now a fashion. After all, being fashionable means being sexy?Quote:
The day everyone does that is the day all the cool kids will start growing long hair and beards, viking-style. Such is fasion.
Hair and vikings makes me think of fish and the sea....
Like fishing for a shallow moving target but you can't make up your mind, because you want the catch to be fast. Well, minnows are easy and shallow, just cast a wide net. Deep sea fishing is much harder. That's not a very good analogy for women, because the catch is either eaten, mounted on a wall, or thrown back.
Maybe that's why mermaids are such a romantic myth....or why fishnets...and pirates.... are considered sexy.
:noob:
While you're here Spawnie, and we're talking about sex and stuff......help me remember who wrote to his lover before they would meet, "Don't bathe". I figured you being our resident poet, that you'd know that. My memory sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Comparing the two is sorta as apples to apples is sorta pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Considering that circumcised men don't have impaired functions (unlike circumcised women), why the vitriolic conclusions?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Your logical fallacy, not my problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Perhaps, in the future, you could not say that it's OK to forcibly skin one body part because it's not the same as another one. :bored:
No, no, we're not going to consider that because it's blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Even when it goes well, and doesn't result in forced sex change surgeries, suicide and/or a wang that doubles you over in pain anytime you get an erection, it results in a large reduction in sexual pleasure. (As a result of whacking of a fifth of the nerve endings on your dick.) And, I don't know about you, but sexual pleasure *is* the function of *my* genitals.
I'm not being vitriolic, that would be your bias in reading what I wrote. It's a touchy topic but not sure how else to post this question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If Jewish law said a rabbi should cut a female baby's clitoris, would you be okay with that?
How do you know it results in a reduction of pleasure? Our brains interpret the signals we receive and what we're used to receiving. As I'm sure some of the medheads here know, sensation is not the sum of aggregated nerve endings.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
My orgasms are quite nice. And I'm sure yours are too. None of us could ever really know what the other's feel like, but the fact that we both orgasm and want to keep on orgasming whenever we can get it back up suggests things are going dandy.
No, not at all. It's obviously wrong and has a real, discernable negative impact (unlike male circumcision). There's tons of stuff in Jewish law I don't follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Can you acknowledge that recent reputable medical data shows male circumcision can cause real problems in mens' sexual health, and it's not just about *edit* orgasms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Cain linked to some things, but you seem to ignore it. Why?
Cain linked to botched circumcisions, which probably represent a tiny fraction of all circumcisions. Shall I link to botched ear baby piercings or something?
What other problems are you referring to?
Excuse me, why don't you have the foreskin you were born with again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They're probably not in some study I can link to, but often the circ ring isn't placed quite right. Every baby boy is born with varying amounts of foreskin, and sometimes a "smooth side effect free" procedure can mean a grown man, years later, with a strictured erection (too much foreskin was removed, so when the penis is erect it's forced to take a "bend")Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I suppose you could use this as an argument that a rabbi with a scalpel is better than a circ clamp device. But the human hand's error is why the circ ring/clamp was designed in the first place.
That all means that cutting off an infant's foreskin probably isn't the greatest idea. For any reason.
Is there some Judaic reason the bris is performed on an infant, instead of waiting until his bar mitzvah and asking if he consents?
Entirely subjective. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
I find the shaved look to be quite a turn-off. Looks like cold plucked chicken.
Whereas an entirely unattended-to bush is the biggest turn-on I can think of in terms of womanly nekkid aesthetics. Doesn't have to be a big or particularly hairy bush, but the fact that it hasn't been shaved or Brazilianned or trimmed back is what turns me on.
Agree with you here though.Quote:
As for big tits, only sometimes, and it depends on the kind of girl you like, naturally. In conversation, most guys ive ever talked about such things with seem like they prefer amateur(ish) models, i.e, natural. Almost no one i know likes the typical brawny peroxide blonde with a hypertan and big fake tits.
~
Probably because by the time the poor joo reaches bar mitzvah age, there is no way in hell he'd consent. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Indeed. And most subjective things are learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Or a little girl you'd baby sit, change her diaper or put her in the tub if things got....really messy.Quote:
I find the shaved look to be quite a turn-off. Looks like cold plucked chicken.
You're a hippie at heart. And probably a great lover. :heart:Quote:
Whereas an entirely unattended-to bush is the biggest turn-on I can think of in terms of womanly nekkid aesthetics. Doesn't have to be a big or particularly hairy bush, but the fact that it hasn't been shaved or Brazilianned or trimmed back is what turns me on.
That's what I was thinking, too. It's one thing to baptize an infant with some water and words, it's another thing entirely to cut off part of their body as a religious initiation rite. It's probably even worse to do it for cultural aesthetic reasons.Quote:
Probably because by the time the poor joo reaches bar mitzvah age, there is no way in hell he'd consent. :o
I've been feeling bad about circumsizing my boys for YEARS now. But they wouldn't talk about it with their mom, and I don't expect them to, that's just a bit creepy. So I let it go and come here instead :(
The problem where the babies had no choice in the matter where a permanent, physical change was done to them, instead of waiting until they could make an informed, adult choice for what happens to their own body,....that's a bit of a stickler, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Not to mention that ear lobes aren't the same as genitalia.
Pierced ears can heal over just fine. In fact, there's a procedure done by plastic surgeons on the other end of the scale---women who wore heavy earrings for years and made their lobes droop over time can have it repaired. They cut a diagonal section of tissue and bring it taut, a few sutures and you'd never know.
There's no way to restore tissue that was removed during infancy.
Um, arithmetic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If you don't believe me, you are free to prove me wrong by skinning another 20% of your cock and reporting back that you don't feel any difference.
So then you're agreeing to get another 20% of your cock skinned, since your argument is that it won't make a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Seriously, I'll put whatever amount it costs in escrow, to be released on documented evidence of you getting another 20% of your dick skinned. Hell, I'll even throw an extra 5 grand on top of the cost of the surgery, for "pain and suffering." If that's not enough, let's negotiate. You seem to think it's not a big deal to force people to get their genitals skinned, so I will pay you to back up your bullshit with actual action.
Well, 5 grand in profit for you to find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
So, again, 5 grand for you to get another 20% of your dick skinned, which should be no big deal if you really believe what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Works for me. Mutilating any part of a baby is wrong, and bonus points if you can link to cases of botched infant genital piercings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Will respond after work. But Cain, you know I won't respond to the sentence-by-sentence breakdown like that. Paragraphs, man. Don't shave off the tip of the point you're trying to make.
Even if you are completely correct and it has no downsides, what about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That's the real problem with it. It's irreversible after all (as mentioned before, pierced earlobes heal, but this won't grow back).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowheart
And that's even besides the fact that even if the circumcision itself has no downsides (which I doubt, but okay), it is still surgery, and surgery comes with risks. I'd say it's pretty unfair to a baby who has no choice in the matter to give him unneeded surgery, for no medical reason whatsoever, just because the parents like it. I don't give a damn if a consenting adult chooses to get it, but a baby? It's unneeded and irreversible, man.
It reduces the number of nerve endings, but as Dread was quick to point out, he can jettison spunk like the rest of us
I think that was what he was saying ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Maybe ive seen and experienced both and have a preference. A big part of that preference is not enjoying plucking pubes from between my teeth or feeling like a wet steel wire bush has just been scrubbed across my face for the last half-hour... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Ah yes, the old ", or your a paedophile" dichotomy...Quote:
You've either spent way too much time looking at groomed bush meant to look like little girls, or little girls. (Not YOU per se, but men in general ;) )
Not my favourite, i have to say.
Napoleon to Josephine. <3Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
First, its warm. Second, a chicken covered in hair isnt exactly a big improvement, if thats the angle youre taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Third, of course it subjective :D.
I always wondered who the "hairy" section of the porn sites i visit were for...Quote:
Whereas an entirely unattended-to bush is the biggest turn-on I can think of in terms of womanly nekkid aesthetics. Doesn't have to be a big or particularly hairy bush, but the fact that it hasn't been shaved or Brazilianned or trimmed back is what turns me on.
Also, it could be pointed out that your preference is clearly a kink. Its not the hair itself or the look of the genital area that turns you on, its something else.
Yeah, ive already said i dont agree with the "if you dont like a big haiy snatch you must be a paedo angle. For this to be true you would have to have a worldwide conspiracy of pornographers aiming at subtly releasing paedo-like movies and pictures while staying within the law. Unlikely. Maybe they just think it looks better.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Why do women shave their legs? Or their armpits? Is it because they (or men) love little girls' armpits and legs and want their women to look the same?
Why do almost all bosses require a man to shave? Does my boss want me to look like a little boy or does he want me to look smart? Is latent paedophilia the reason behind my companies acceptable appearance policy?
You agree with me so you must be great in bed? Yeah right ;)Quote:
You're a hippie at heart. And probably a great lover. :heart:
It's subjective. :)
But I was thinking how self-conscious it'd feel to know your lover thinks "my god this is like a wet steel wire brush scrubbing my face". Probably not condusive to uninhibited sex. :(
The other part isn't a comparison to pedos so much as knowing grown women and men have pubic hair, and it's perfectly normal.
Adults being out of shape, wrinkly and gassy is normal too, but i dont usually make "normal" my highest aim.
She can always shave it :)Quote:
But I was thinking how self-conscious it'd feel to know your lover thinks "my god this is like a wet steel wire brush scrubbing my face". Probably not condusive to uninhibited sex. :sad:
I hold myself to the same standard. If it was deemed necessary for my current luxuriant bush to go in the aid of receiving more enthusiastic and frequent oral sex then, with all due respect to being "normal", id have the weedtrimmer fired up faster than you can say "ride-on lawnmower".
First of all, it was only two points, really (repeated several times), so I find your refusal to address any of it (not to mention the chance to make $5,000) pretty weak and disingenuous. Secondly, you've pretty much ignored the "paragraphs, man" posts I've made too, which further convinces me that this latest objection is really just a cheap cop out - you don't want to address my points, because you can't satisfactorily defend the idea of forcibly mutilating an infant's genitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As has been pointed out repeatedly, no one has a problem with consenting adults voluntarily choosing to mutilate themselves, or their genitals. But forcing infants to undergo genital mutilation surgery, for *no* reason other than aesthetics or social inertia or... whatever... is just reprehensible. If *you* want to demonstrate your commitment to and love of Yahweh by having your junk skinned (when you're old enough to make that decision), that's fine. Good for you... I guess. But it's not OK to show your faith by skinning a helpless fucking infant, Goddammit.
Ride-on-lawnmower, you're a hoot Spawnie. :D
Josephine and Napolean, huh? I was thinking Cleopatra and Marc Antony. :noob:
It is, in a way, more romantic. Josephine was significantly older than Nappy and not especially attractive. Being the big dick in europe means he could have had anyone, but there is (iirc) no evidence he ever loved anyone but Josephine. The famous "dont bathe" is seen either as disgusting or delightful depending on your fancy. Personally i fall on the side of delightful.
Other unresearched opinions by spawnie - most of the romance of ant & cleo is from the shakespeare. Their actual intimacy seems best read either politically or sordidly, depending.