Female genital mutilation okay in small doses, says American Academy of Pediatrics

[GGT]

As much as I agree (generally - there is something hot about a little hair above the vag... like a landing strip, guiding me in... ) there's been a recent deal made in the press about cosmetic surgery some older women are getting - to trim back their genitals, so that their genitals do actually look pre-pubescent. Ewww. So maybe there is something to GGT's idea... other than the basic, biological reality that pubescent women are biologically attractive to men, because they represent the best chance to have the most kids in a monogamous relationship (since they have the largest number of available years of fertility).

Doi. Just like women are biologically attracted to older men, who are more suitable to help raise children (more stability, economic resources, etc.), but this mere fact of biology doesn't make all women gold-digging perverts with father issues, any more than all men are pedophiles for being attracted to younger women.

Doi?

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....

[Crowheart]

Doi?

Now how can anyone talk about labial cutting in women as a "good thing", while we argue about cutting men as bad....

The real issue isn't the cut itself, but that the choice should belong to the Snipped.

[CitizenCain]

The real issue isn't the cut itself, but that the choice should belong to the Snipped.

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.

What's stupid, but fair for the goose is also stupid, but fair for the gander, after all.

[GGT]

a l'orange

[Spawnie]

Hi Spawnie I asked because I really don't know. I don't look at porn routinely, but I know it's mostly all about hairless flesh and size of boobs or dicks. I'm sure my porn 'exposure' is limited (and someone will come along to tell me what I'm missing)....but there's nothing inherently WRONG with hair.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty much.

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?

The day everyone does that is the day all the cool kids will start growing long hair and beards, viking-style. Such is fasion.

[GGT]

Not inherently, no. But it doesnt look quite as nice as a neatly shaved puss.

Well, how would you know that? I mean, as far as "comparing landscape"?

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 )

The day everyone does that is the day all the cool kids will start growing long hair and beards, viking-style. Such is fasion.

I suppose sex is now a fashion. After all, being fashionable means being sexy?

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.

[GGT]

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.

[Dreadnaught]

And?

Your head is different than your arm (different shape, different functions, different mechanics), so... therefore, it's OK to skin someone's arm, but not their head? Yeah, that makes sense.

A penis is different than a vagina. Different shape, different functions, different mechanics.

Comparing the two is sorta as apples to apples is sorta pointless.

Yes, the people who think it's okay are Jews (for religious reasons) and other men who've been circumsized (for cultural reasons).

I admit to regret (and guilt) that I let my ex decide that our sons would be circumsized. I should have followed my gut instinct and said No, but even the pediatrician said "looking like daddy and other boys in the locker room is more important than you realize".

Are you asking me? Circumcission = Male Genital Mutilation.

Considering that circumcised men don't have impaired functions (unlike circumcised women), why the vitriolic conclusions?

[CitizenCain]

Comparing the two is sorta as apples to apples is sorta pointless.

Your logical fallacy, not my problem.

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.

Considering that circumcised men don't have impaired functions

No, no, we're not going to consider that because it's blatantly untrue.

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.

[GGT]

Considering that circumcised men don't have impaired functions (unlike circumcised women), why the vitriolic conclusions?

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:

If Jewish law said a rabbi should cut a female baby's clitoris, would you be okay with that?

[Dreadnaught]

No, no, we're not going to consider that because it's blatantly untrue.

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.

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.

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.

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:

If Jewish law said a rabbi should cut a female baby's clitoris, would you be okay with that?

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.

[GGT]

....
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.

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?

Cain linked to some things, but you seem to ignore it. Why?

[Dreadnaught]

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?

[EyeKhan]

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?

[GGT]

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?

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")

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?

[Timbuk2]

Not inherently, no. But it doesnt look quite as nice as a neatly shaved puss.

Entirely subjective.

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.

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.

Agree with you here though.

~

Is there some Judaic reason the bris is performed on an infant, instead of waiting until his bar mitzvah and asking if he consents?

Probably because by the time the poor joo reaches bar mitzvah age, there is no way in hell he'd consent.

[GGT]

Entirely subjective.

Indeed. And most subjective things are learned.

I find the shaved look to be quite a turn-off. Looks like cold plucked chicken.

Or a little girl you'd baby sit, change her diaper or put her in the tub if things got....really messy.

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.

You're a hippie at heart. And probably a great lover.

Probably because by the time the poor joo reaches bar mitzvah age, there is no way in hell he'd consent.

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.

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

[Crowheart]

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?

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?

[GGT]

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.

[CitizenCain]

How do you know it results in a reduction of pleasure?

Um, arithmetic?

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.

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.

So then you're agreeing to get another 20% of your cock skinned, since your argument is that it won't make a difference?

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.

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.

Well, 5 grand in profit for you to find out.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[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.

[Flixy]

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.

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.

Even if you are completely correct and it has no downsides, what about this:

The real issue isn't the cut itself, but that the choice should belong to the Snipped.

That's the real problem with it. It's irreversible after all (as mentioned before, pierced earlobes heal, but this won't grow back).

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.

[Nessus]

It reduces the number of nerve endings, but as Dread was quick to point out, he can jettison spunk like the rest of us

[Crowheart]

Don't shave off the tip of the point you're trying to make.

I think that was what he was saying

[Spawnie]

Well, how would you know that? I mean, as far as "comparing landscape"?

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...

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 )

Ah yes, the old ", or your a paedophile" dichotomy...

Not my favourite, i have to say.

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.

Napoleon to Josephine. <3

Entirely subjective.

I find the shaved look to be quite a turn-off. Looks like cold plucked chicken.

First, its warm. Second, a chicken covered in hair isnt exactly a big improvement, if thats the angle youre taking.

Third, of course it subjective .

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.

I always wondered who the "hairy" section of the porn sites i visit were for...

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.

Or a little girl you'd baby sit, change her diaper or put her in the tub if things got....really messy.

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.

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're a hippie at heart. And probably a great lover.

You agree with me so you must be great in bed? Yeah right

[GGT]

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.

[Spawnie]

Adults being out of shape, wrinkly and gassy is normal too, but i dont usually make "normal" my highest aim.

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.

She can always shave it

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".

[CitizenCain]

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.

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.

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.

[GGT]

Ride-on-lawnmower, you're a hoot Spawnie.



Josephine and Napolean, huh? I was thinking Cleopatra and Marc Antony.

[Spawnie]

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.