Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health Circumcised is better than uncircumcised because the extra skin hangs there like a "turkey snot"?
Anonymous
At happy hour this was the topic of the evening. Most of my gfs said they preferred circumcised guys because when the uncircumcised guys the extra foreskin just hung there like a turkey snot. Ladies, what do you prefer?
1 2
What Girls & Guys Said
18 27Im circumcised so im happy
There are many people who are not happy with it, though. They just can't do anything but accept it.
As a circumcised man i can say good point! it's healthy too...
it's been proven many times that it's not, or at least the health risks are minimal in a first-world country where you can afford to take daily showers and preserve your hygiene (aka you don't live in a third-world country in the middle of a desert)
in my opinion women like natural uncircumcised penis with lot of foreskin overhang.
Indeed they do, it feels better. "One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing."
thats depressing lol
Yeah, you can't win nowadays. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
lol i like my raincoat
Ohh, that's a good one.
it also aids me in giving a good turkey slap
Don't get too excited...
I am circumcised and several girls and had a big sigh of relief when they see mine... but that might be because I have the perfect penis
It'd be better if you had the foreskin it originally had, but sure :P the propaganda about how "uncircumcised penises are the devil" is surprisingly effective. If only they knew they even said it cures epilepsy at some point and many other irrelevant diseases, lol
What's that
"snot Nasal mucus. example: I am full of snot today." Although that is kinda weird to me because a turkey doesn't really have noses. I don't think they thought this through.
What
How did iknow of they are or not
You can see it. If there is no foreskin, then they are circumcised. If there is, then they aren't :)
3.bp.blogspot.com/.../...sized+vs.+circumsized.jpg
Basically that hole where pee and semen come from are covered up (thus lowering its chances of getting infected) and so is the entire glans is covered up to keep it from desensitization and dryness, and to protect it in general.
I love giving bj but NEVER again to an uncircumcised one. I had 2 of them and they both were smelling, even after shower and the feeling how it alwaxs goes up and down while sucking is gross..
Their hygiene was lacking. Yeah, this is why there needs to be a better health class about it, people have no idea wtf to do with their OWN body either.
First off I'm not circumcised and second I don't have any diseases and third I wash regularly so anyone who says having a non circumcised penis is bad is an idiot.
Idiot, ignorant and also choosing to stay ignorant because they don't want to be proven that their dogma is incorrect... It's kinda like when you tell kids that Santa doesn't actually exist.
Agreed Mesonfielde.
I'm sure glad women are not shallow. LMAO!
It makes it easier to filter out the human waste on the dating scene, don't you think? :P
That may well be the first comment of yours I've read here at GAG with which I agree.
Just as shallow as all the guys rating boobs and behinds here.
No doubt. But women seem to think they are less shallow than men, which clearly is not the case. Women are every bit the "pigs" that men are.
On the level of the individual, being an ignorant entitled shallow douchebag is independent from one's gender, aka there are assholes on both sides. I am surprised you have been disagreeing with me on so many of my other posts, I don't think I am *that* radical :D
And guys talk about how meat curtains/roast beef on a girl looks terrible as well as your miniature penis SORRY! Clit. We wish they didn't have any of those gross features hahaha.
Well they did invent female genital mutilation... I mean circumcision for a reason
Dirt can get under the foreskin and cause an infection if its uncircumcised
You have to be really retarded to scrape your penis in the sand with the foreskin pulled back, like who the hell does that? You just need to shower regularly, once a day is sufficient.
Not to mention, once you're circumcised, dirt can enter the urethral tube and cause inflammation, yet no one is talking about THAT.
Us men evolved to be ugly. We can't help it.
Nah, it's not ugly. As long as it works...
As long as it's clean i don't give a fuck
Always clean feel so good
Or you do :P
Wink wink nudge nudge
Circumcised dicks stand showing their heads, so they are a bold dicks, they feel confident enough to make any vagina prays to get them.
Uncircumcised dicks stand hiding their heads, so they are a coward dicks, they dont feel confident.
it is obvious that vagina prefers a bold dick.
when a vagina sees uncircumcised dick, it points out with its clit and says ironically: oh tortoise where is your head?
just kidding
looooooool turkey snot (y)
Lol that is a perfect analogy
LMAO Turkey snot! I can't even..
I really don't care. I just want it to be clean.
Daily showers are pretty efficient. If you're an extra hygiene freak like me, then you can also use toilet paper to keep the things under the foreskin in check when you're hanging around in the toilet. Luckily, circumcision isn't necessary to preserve hygiene and cleanliness, we no longer live in deserts.
I agree with you Anon.
Although I guess that's not really helpful information for you. Derp.
I prefer natural.
I can't believe how some women are so rude to those that still have their foreskin intact. Really? Turkey snot? Would it feel nice if guys talked like that about your vaginas, being all condescending? I doubt it. Don't be an ass.
I am just repeating what was discussed and asking. As someone else said, as long as it gets the job done, that's fine.
I agree
I have foreskin and it feels great
I love my bfs uncut. I think it's better and easy to please him with it. It helps with hj's. I've never thought it looked like "turkey snot" its just a little extra skin to work with.
Good
Wow, classy ladies! Any man would be lucky to have such a girl -_-
If hygiene is an excuse, better rip your finger nails off. They get dirtier than uncircumcised penis and are less easy to clean
Let me guess... uncircumcised. Right?
Yes. Luckily my parents and doctor didn't inflict genital mutilation on me. And unsurprisingly I haven't wanted to get myself circumcised
scientific research shows that the foreskin plays a major role in absorbing the vaginal fluids which hormonally trigger feelings of emotional bonding in the man. maybe something to think about if you dont care so much about the human rights angle itself...
Show me the research.
Emotional bonding is due to oxytocin levels, not absorption of vaginal fluids. Read true scientific studies, not street sex ed.
LOL that triggered your itnerest. Human rights? Meh. Easier relationships? Yay!
I don't see Jews complaining about being mutilated nor the majority of mankind. The fact that circumcision is routinely offered to all male children born in all US and European hospitals indicates it is not a human rights issue. Only in your narrow world, my friend.
And I don't see the vast majority of Muslim women complain about their second class status in the Muslim world. so I guess that's OK! So anything the West does is OK? And by the way it's NOT routinely offered in European hospitals. The US is pretty much the sole exception outside of the Jewish and Muslim communities. and actually more and more Jews are going the brit shalom route but you probably dont even know what that means. We live in a strange society where men having OPINIONS about womens bodies is viewed as oppression. but people FORCING genital mutilation on baby boys is viewed as OK. many women talk this way and think this way and then wonder why they find it so hard to get lasting committed relationships with men. sigh...
Yes, it is routinely offered even in Europe. It is considered a public health initiative. It is not mandatory procedure. I know what brit shalom is. Brit shalom is recognized by the Society for Humanistic Judaism, but not by any group generally considered to be a part of mainstream Judaism, so it is not mainstream for Jews. Given your angst about your genitals I doubt you are lasting committed relationship material.
no it's not routinely offered in european hospitals. you looked up what brit shalom is didn't you? because otherwise you wouldn't have made your initial statement. actually orthodox judaism recognizes everyone born to a jewish mother as a jew. so there's no problem not getting circumcised at the liberal end or the conservative end. and even among jews in the middle, it's gaining in popularity. judaism is desperate to keep people in the faith , with half of jews marrying outside of the faith these days shaming language. so predictable. yes a man who cares about the human rights of babies and thinks that that's more important than the whims of a bunch of ignorant women is not relationship material? of course! and yes oh the anxiety! oh its terrible! yes a real man would let women dictate to him that he should have parts of his body hacked off! man, if only i could be like that. but why dont you join in too? don't want to get a boob job? you anxious woman!
Circumcision is not about being a Jew. It's a covenant with God. Being circumcised doesn't mean you are a Jew. Gentiles get it all the time. So your point is? Yes, it is routinely offered in Europe. State the country that does not. Babies are not traumatized by the event. The trauma induced is less than babies getting 6 shots on their pediatric vaccination schedule , but you don't advocate for children not getting their vaccines, do you? Have no need for a boob job. Your point is?
when did i say that being circumcised means you're a jew? muslims do it. jews do it. americans do it. that's pretty much it. but even among jews and americans it's decreasing. the vast majority of men in the world aren't circumcised The UK for example doesn't offer it routinely when did i say babies are traumatized? i dont know how you'd measure that. there hasn't really been many studies. but is that really the standard anyway? you'd allow any abuse that doesn't traumatize the baby? well a vaccination isn't a surgery. circumcision is unique in being the only medically unnecessary surgery that its legal to perform on children too young to consent maybe i think you do have the need for a boob job. but even if i did, at least im not forcing it on you. shame that baby boys dont get the same courtesy huh?
1. To say it's not advocated by Jews from liberal to orthodox is untrue. It is representative of a covenant with God and many do so out of tradition.
2. The UK does offer it. www.nhs.uk/.../Introduction.aspx
3. Vaccination is a medical procedure. Circumcision is a medical procedure. Babies are not asked to consent for vaccinations; parents are. Point is?
4. Baby girls get their ears pierced without their consent. No one considers it a human rights issue. So what makes baby boys special? Your point is.
Tradition does not justify action. Do you know what else is a tradition in some countries? Female genital mutilation.
and by the way covenant with God is not the reaosn Muslims and others do it. Muslims do it as a sign of belonging to the Islamic community and in some traditions because it's believed that Muhammad was circumcised at birth or even born without a foreskin. Non-Jews/Non-Muslims, overhwelmingly Americans, do it because people like John Harvey Kellogg advertised it as a way to stop masturbation
I didn't say non-Jews did it as a covenant. Just bc Kellogg advertised it as a way to stop masturbation would not get it approved to be included in standard L&D/Nursery orders in a hospital. You really haven't refuted anything so far. Your point is?
1. i didn't say it's not advocated. nice try tho. 2. asker you clearly didn't read the article you linked to. 3. asker the article you linked me to contradicts the notion that it has medical value. but anyway it's the only medically unnecessary surgery that's performed on children to young to consent. vaccination is not surgery. and the medical benefits of vaccination are obvious 4. actually many people do consider it a human rights issue. piercing a baby's ears should be illegal but at least it doesn't usually do lasting damage like circumcision. the analogy with circumcision would actually be removing the clitoral hood, which of course is rightly illegal and no one is saying it should be legal. so what makes girls so special?
"Circumcision is not about being a Jew. It's a covenant with God. Being circumcised doesn't mean you are a Jew. Gentiles get it all the time". that's implying that non-jews do it as a covenant with God. but if thats not what you meant, then fine what you're saying is assuming that the medical profession always acts morally and rationally. we know, and all pretty much accept, that that's not always true, whether its lobotomies or labeling sexually unsatisfied women as mentally ill or labeling runaway slaves as mentally ill or performing scientific reserach on non-consenting members of the public i've refuted all your points.
1. Yes, you did imply it. "actually orthodox judaism recognizes everyone born to a jewish mother as a jew. so there's no problem not getting circumcised at the liberal end or the conservative end. and even among jews in the middle, it's gaining in popularity. judaism is desperate to keep people in the faith , with half of jews marrying outside of the faith these days" 2. It is routinely offered if the local population requires or has a need for it. Article states: It is important to note that some CCGs in England do currently fund religious or ritual circumcision on the NHS. The decision is based on priorities that relate to its own local population." 3. Article states that circumcision is recommended for balanitis xerotica obliterans and paraphimosis. So not always optional. 4. You are free to bring clitoral hood up as a legal issue. Good luck to your success.
1. yeah i said it's no problem. for the reasons i gave. i didn't say its not advocated 2. SOME yes. and not routinely offered. 3. i don't think you know what 'routine' means. I never said circumcision never has any medical value ever. 4. thats not an argument. in fact you're just repeating what i said. i acknowledged its illegal, in fact i approved of the illegal status. but that is the correct analogy. clitoral hood is basically foreskin (the clitoris is what would have become the penis if the unborn had developed into a boy not a girl). so why are girls so special? you answer that question
1. No, non-Jews don't get it as a covenant. It is recommended by neonatologists and that's what they go by. 2. All medical procedures undergo a bioethics review by the ethics committee which each hospital is required to have by law. That is why Catholic hospitals do not do vasectomies, tubal ligation or boob jobs unless medically required such as reconstruction after a mastectomy. If you believe the medical profession is so corrupt, consult your local witch doctor then. So far, you have refuted nothing.
Why are girls special? Just because. You have issues with it, undergo sex reassignation surgery.
That won't actually turn anyone into neither a girl nor a female.
1. no it was introduced to stop masturbation. and now so many people have inflicted it, suffered it and authorized it, that new and ludicrous excuses are given to 'justify' it so that the nation doesn't have a mass nervous breakdown by having to admit whats happened. thats why, as i say, it is the only medically unnecessary surgery that its legal to perform on kids too young to consent 2. haha so you admit that the medical profession's 'ethics' are heavily influenced by religion and such factors 3. the people in the medical profession would be the first to admit that there's a shit load of politics involved. in any case, the facts are not in dispute in any way that should sway the argument. routine circumcision is medically unnecessary. no one denies this. therefore it should (like very other medically unnecessary surgery) not be performed on those too young to consent. i've refuted anything
i really do wonder at the mentality of people who think 'aww cute baby. now lets take off his foreskin'. leave the kid alone. its not that hard. if you want to try to persuade adult men to get the procedure voluntarily, be my guest
so your argument is 'just because'. and now you're being transphobic too. way to go, man i'd be ashamed to be as intellectually dishonest as you're being
I really wonder what's on a parent's mind who forces the child to undergo such a procedure against their will... "My son never cried during the circumcision. Like many newborns, my son fell into a deep sleep on the spot. I am convinced that the shock and pain caused him to go into a deep, stressful sleep. Why do I say this? In the nursery, he cried and cried for me. He was unable to be soothed. The mechanical rocker did not work. The pacifier did not work. Nothing worked. The only thing that soothed him was being picked up and held. In fact, that is the only way he could be put to sleep. So why, all the sudden, does he “fall asleep” so effortlessly after a medical procedure? The only explanation is trauma."
Well said, Mesonfielde.
My son never cried during the circumcision. Like many newborns, my son fell into a deep sleep on the spot. I am convinced that the shock and pain caused him to go into a deep, stressful sleep. Why do I say this? In the nursery, he cried and cried for me. He was unable to be soothed. The mechanical rocker did not work. The pacifier did not work. Nothing worked. The only thing that soothed him was being picked up and held. In fact, that is the only way he could be put to sleep. So why, all the sudden, does he “fall asleep” so effortlessly after a medical procedure? The only explanation is trauma." This is a medical opinion... please.
1. that new and ludicrous excuses are given to 'justify' it so that the nation doesn't have a mass nervous breakdown by having to admit whats happened. " Really? So if your information about it being unnecessary is already out there and not hidden on some conspiracy webstite, how come the public isn't having a nervous breakdown about it as you say? Because it's not that big of a deal, only in your mind it is. 2. Nope, never said the medical profession is corrupt or held to religious standards. Religiously owned hospitals have that as their modus operandi. Non-religious do not. You did not read the statement correctly. I hold the medical profession to the highest standard as does the public opinion. Go see what the professions are considered to be most trustworthy. Nurses, pharmacists and doctors rank amongst the highest.
we've established that your mentality is: 'just because' mixed with a bunch of misandric and transphobic and god-knows-what-else shaming. there's nothing more to say is there? i would say 'the mask slipped' but i dont think anyone was under any illusions given your original statement/question
3." the people in the medical profession would be the first to admit that there's a shit load of politics involved." Really? Prove it. Back up your statement. If not it's an opinion. No doctor is willing to leave himself wide open to a medical lawsuit. He can always decline to offer the procedure. Don't see it being done. Argument not valid. Why is saying go have sex reassignation surgery transphobic? Actually, I am giving you that as an option. Delusional? As usual no refutes, just hot air.
even some of the girls on this thread are shocked!
even some of the girls on this thread are shocked! Really? Like who? And your point again is?
you really have no shame. i'd be so ashamed of myself if i'd said 'just because' and then made a transphobic slur.
Anon girl says "I prefer natural.
I can't believe how some women are so rude to those that still have their foreskin intact. Really? Turkey snot? Would it feel nice if guys talked like that about your vaginas, being all condescending? I doubt it. Don't be an ass."
why are you being so aggressive about your alleged right to remove part of someone else's genitals, seriously?
just google 'politics in medicine' or 'politicized medicine'. since you're apparently incapable, here are some results. www.ahrq.gov/.../rodwin.html
harpers.org/.../
and LOL at someone demanding evidence when she rejects the need for evidence. 'just because'. you can't appeal to a principle which you reject
I don't read shock. Stating I prefer natural is a statement. One girl out of ten who states disgust not shock, translates to 0% for shock. Zero points for you. Didn't make a transphobic slur. Gave you an option. Zero points again for you. People don't care about removing their appendix which serves no function why do you care so much about extra skin? The article simply states what is the basis of medical practice today. Insurers will not pay for procedures that are not founded on EBM (evidence-based medicine). If it does not follow EBM the doctor must justify in the medical record why the procedure is medically necessary and the claim will be submitted to a medical audit. If the insurer does not find it to be medically valid, then the procedure will not be paid. Circumcision is routinely paid by insurance companies with no prior auth being necessary. Zero points again. Nothing refuted again. YAWN...
i think it's fair to call anon girl's statement a statement of shock. but if you disagree why not ask her yourself? yes you did. you used gender reassignment surgery as an insult and implied that only a transgender person would hold certain views. thats transphobic hahaha. how ignorant of you. if you had a foreskin, you would know how useful it is. heck if you'd even had sex with a guy with a foreskin you'd probably know how useful it is. while the appendix has no use. and yet despite that, doctors don't do routine appendix removal on kids, but they do do routine circumcision on kids, and you're trying to justify the hypocrisy? read the articles i linked to you properly. i'm sorry if you think that human rights when they apply to baby boys are boring. i guess i should expect that from someone whose attitude is 'just because' followed by a transphobic slur
" i think it's fair to call anon girl's statement a statement of shock. but if you disagree why not ask her yourself?" That's personal interpretation and overly exaggerating. Sorry, but no buying it. You can say it's transphobic but I was the one who made the comment and know it's intent. So if we apply your above argument about shock, then I know my intent and your argument is invalid. Girls have stated here that as long as it get done, they don't care. So your opinion about it being more pleasurable for females not being a female yourself, is assumption and not fact. No score. I did. You obviously don't know much about how the medical profession practices or works otherwise you would know better than to try and use EBM as an argument since that is the principle used today in determining whether procedures, drug regimens, physical and occupational therapies are beneficial or not. No score.
If this really was such an issue about baby boys' rights, it would have long been addressed by medical ethics review boards just as they do for organ donations and investigational drugs and general research. Guess the entire medical community doesn't really think it's that important. Contact your local doctor.
'condescending... rude... ass'. i think that's an expression of shock. but as i said ask her. yes of course it's personal interpretation. you're personally interpreting it too. no because you have an interest in not coming across as transphobic. i doubt anon would particularly care whether her statement is viewed as one of disgust or one of shock. it's clearly negative toward you and she made no attempt to hide that. also no, because meaning can be objectively decoded. if someone says "i hate blacks", they are racist or they're lying. its not really up for debate whether that statement itself is racist. saying "You have issues with it, undergo sex reassignation surgery" is belitting or perhaps even denying the state of being transgender. that is transphobic. so either you were being transphobic or you were being dishonest. but the statement itself is transphobic. when did i say it's more pleasurable for females? no you didn't read the articles
I posted multiple times information that shows that the foreskin has multiple functions, and so did you - decrease the chances of inflammation as it protects the penis among many things. Making a comparison to the appendix is extremely ignorant. The reason why circumcision is still practiced is because of the financial gain and profit they gain from it.
Asker i've given you plenty of examples where the medical community hasn't approached things properly. this is one of those. it's an anomaly in modern medicine: the only medically unnecessary performed on kids too young to consent. having defended it, you're now sticking your head in the sand. accept that its going to hurt you emotionally to accept that routine circumcision is wrong. its what almost all of america is going to have to deal with sooner or later. have a little empathy.
You want to use as an argument personal interpretation we could be here all day. Stick to facts. So far you have none. " heck if you'd even had sex with a guy with a foreskin you'd probably know how useful it is" your implication is that is promotes pleasure during sex, because otherwise what is sex really about? The girls have stated that either way is fine. So again your argument is null and void. 3. I know what the article is about. You have not been able to refute the medical claim and payment process based on EBM Nor have you been able to refute why circumcision is an approved procedure and claim via EBM. It is you who have not fully grasped the implications of EBM and the process involved nor the intent of the article. YAWN...
Indeed, Mesonfielde. also bear in mind the fact that almost everyone in america is implicated as victim, authorizer or inflicter. accepting that it's child abuse is going to cause a massive nervous breakdown nationwide. people dont want to deal with it. but they can't put their heads in the sand forver
" its what almost all of america is going to have to deal with sooner or later. have a little empathy." IT's been done for almost 2,000 years and nobody has had an emotional and physical breakdown because of it. I doubt America will either. Get a spine.
i told you, ask her. but you don't wanna ask her. have little imagination. no you don't. you couldn't even properly interpret a short government health fact sheet on circumcisionn. now you're just going off on a tangent. thats ok, asker. stick your head in the sand. unfortunately the pain is going to be all the worse when you finally face reality and accept that circumcision is child abuse. 'just because' isn't going to sound very convincing forever even to you and interesting that you just quietly sweep my points under the carpet when you feel youve been defeated on them haha. what happened to "i'm not transphobic"? what happened to defending "just because"?
oh here we go. more shaming. you're so shameless that you use misandric and transphobic shaming. then you whine that you got caught out. and then you go back to the shaming! slavery existed for a long time too. as did rape. before they were finally labeled as being wrong. those are just two examples.
appealing to the past isn't a very good idea. unless you care about your alleged right to mutilate a baby boy's genitals more than you care about pretty much anything else
I don't have to ask her. It's your interpretation versus mine to prove a point that at best would leave you with one girl out of ten. Majority rules, it's a moot point from a female perspective. Imagination... please... circumcised men do just fine without it. I did interpret it. You still haven't been able to explain beyond posting a link what EBM is all about and how it plays into determining how unethical and unnecessary circumcision is. Posting a link and not being able to define your argument nor refute the argument presented based on the info contained, means nothing. You have not been able to explain why circumcision is not brought to medical ethics review beyond the statement of "the US will be horrified" If we can deal with slavery, racism, abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, it can certainly deal with a puny issue as circumcision.
I'm not whining. I have refuted each of your statements and explained why they are invalid. All you do is whine about transphobic and misandric comments which are based on personal interpretation and not facts. You really don't have an argument, do you?
"It's been done for almost 2,000 years and nobody has had an emotional and physical breakdown because of it"
Ignorance. It's easy for you to claim things having done zero research. People have felt suicidal and have committed suicide because of the thought of having been irreversibly mutilated www.foreskin-restoration.net/.../showthread.php
Research has been done on it too.
www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/.../...06.html
"Social Effects
discussed above. Goldman (1997) argues extensively that the result of having so many emotionally and sexually injured males in a society would produce undesirable social effects He suggests that men who were neonatally circumcised would be more likely to suffer from low self-esteem, to avoid intimacy in relationships. Moreover, he says neonatal circumcision may cause higher incidence of adult violence, including suicide, rape and murder. Baker (1996) also identifies connection between sexual violence, rape, and neonatal circumcision. DeMause connects it with increase in teenage suicide and social violence."
People have committed or have tried to commit suicide for all types of reasons, some which will appear to be valid and some invalid. So? Considering those articles and statements are almost 20 years old and the medical community thinks they don't bring up enough evidence to support a reversal of current practice, it means the issue is not that important.
no when you're asking about someone's feelings (unless that someone has a vested interest, as you do with your transphobic slur) that person is the authority. ask her. besides the base of her feeling on the matter isn't in dispute: negativity toward you so you don't know what i'm talking about... i never said circumcised men don't have imagination i never said EBM had anything to do with circumcision. we were talking about politicized medicine, remember? we couldn't deal with those things for the longest time. unfortunately circumcision is even worse in terms of the numbers of people being implicated. virtually everyone is implicated. that wasn't true of slavery etc you're the one who doesn't have an argument and who actually rejects the need for an argument. 'just because'. aren't you ashamed of yourself? saying 'just because' to the question 'why are girls special' is being misandric. belittling or even implicitly denying transgender is being transphobic.
Stick to circumcision. Your whining about a supposedly transphobic slur has no weight. I didn't say anything about circumcised men's imagination. The statement was about their ability to have a healthy sexual life. You obviously don't know how to read or interpret statements. Allow me to explain it to you in simple terms an idiot would understand. The way to remove politicized medicine is to ensure that only those practices which have shown to be beneficial are used to construct best practices in medicine, not those which the doctor believes are beneficial but which scientific research does not support. The current mo in medicine is to use EBM to determine standard and accepted medical procedures permitted in a medical institution. Circumcision falls into the EBM approved medical procedure category hence the no need for prior auth.
If society can deal with controversial medical issues such as autism "caused" by vaccines and abortions, it has enough stomach to deal with circumcision. It is just deemed irrelevant by bothe the medical community as well as society. Maybe you should come to grips with the fact that society really doesn't care. Still waiting on facts...
you bring up issues and then whine when i address them. don't wanna talk about transphobia? don't be transphobic. I've explained to you why belittling and even implicitly denying transgender is being transphobic. you clearly have no empathy if you can't see that. "Imagination... please... circumcised men do just fine without it." no it doesn't. routine circumcision is the ONLY medically unnecessary surgery that is allowed on kids too young to consent. it's a HUGE anomaly and falls right into the tradition of bad practices based on politicized medicine. and what was your response? 'just because' followed by a transphobic slur. circumcision affects virtually everyone in america. not true of abortion, especially back when it was illegal. you're right about one thing... finally. 'society' (if by that you mean most people) doesn't care. but how is that an argument? why do you want the right to remove part of baby boys' penises? why can't you just leave kids alone?
You do realize your arguments make no sense. You can continue to argue about your interpretation of a transphobic slur. All you show is that you don't have the emotional stability or rationality to interpret a statement. Continue to go for it. I stand by my statement. Imagination... please... circumcised men do just fine without it (foreskin). They have a perfectly healthy sex life. You are no longer using your article to support your claim. That's because you never understood it in the first place. You thought I wouldn't grasp it's concept while it sounded pretty to you. Pathetic. Wrong. Circumcision affects people all over the world not just America. And abortion mainly affects women not men and not everyone whether it's legal or illegal. So your point is? Again, circumcision affects the whole world not just America. And apparently they don't think it's that big of a deal either. I think it's time you come to grip with reality.
Haha. emotional stability? Says a woman who gets so angry about her alleged right to genitally mutilate baby boys that she spits out misandric and transphobic slurs like there's no tomorrow. it's good that you finally admit it's a transphobic slur tho. "Imagination... please... circumcised men do just fine without it." If by 'it' you meant foreksin and not imagination you should have made that clear. you don't mention the word 'forekin' in that sentence you're pathetic, Ms 'Just Because'. i didn't say it affects just america. as we both said it affects the islamic world in greatest numbers. dont you remember? you shut up about that point when i raised the fact that most muslim women dont complain about being second class citizens, so by your standard women being second class citizens is ok you need to get a grip with reality. you'll have a nervous breakdown the longer you keep defending child abuse. what a total lack of empathy
you need to spread the word to your friends too. cause clearly they also totally lack empathy. i hope none of them are parents
Hehehe... I have always stated that it's "Your interpretation of a slur". You still don't get it... Nice trying to backtrack on a statement you obviously couldn't interpret correctly the first time. You still aren't supporting your article since you didn't understand it in the first place. "circumcision affects virtually everyone in america". Nice trying to backtrack but what is written is written. We are not talking about Muslim women, we are talking about circumcision. Off-topic, irrelevant, non-sequitur. Who says it's child abuse? The medical community and society doesn't. Only you.
i hope none of them are parents... actually they are. I hope you don't breed. We don't need more mentally challenged, emotionally frustrated individuals in this world.
no again you typed one thing, but meant something else, right? no you just need to write more clearly. i addressed the article. you said medicine isn't politicized. i showed you it was by giving you many examples including that article. case closed. circumcision does affect virtually eveyrone in america. that isn't to imply it doesn't affect anyone outside. right at the beginning we mentioned jews and muslims but you dont remember? no your point was most muslims dont object to circumcision therefore its ok. well most muslim women dont object to being second class citizens. therefore surely its ok. medically unnecessary surgery on a child too young to consent is child abuse. its illegal. thats established. the ONLY exception is routine circumcision. its a false exception. routine circumcision is in reality child abuse. child sex abuse in fact because its of a sexual nature. and you're a defender of it
haha. well i feel sorry for the kids, especially the boys and especially any children that grow up to be transgender. you and your friends have a serious lack of empathy. how did you become so cold? yeah opposing child sex abuse is so bad, right? i do find it frustrating that you and most other people support child sex abuse yes.
"We don't need more emotionally frustrated individuals in this world" You say that and you advocate circumcision despite the evidence for the increased risks it imposes? I'm sorry about this question, but how stupid can you get?
No, for the millionth time, it's your perception. Which is greatly impaired. No, I write clearly. You just can't interpret. Medicine isn't politicized. It follows EBM. You still don't understand the process. Not that I am surprised considering all your statements so far. No, circumcision doesn't affect everyone in America. The majority of the women don't even care as evidenced in the female response here in GaG. Mesonfielde's poor attempt of an article states that 62% of the women didn't care about the partner's genitalia or preferred a circumcised partner. So it doesn't affect everyone. If it affected enough men, it would have also been addressed since we still live in a male dominant/chauvinistic society. Not an argument. If this were child abuse it would have long been addressed in legal courtrooms. No legal validity beyond your point of view. Anything else?
"You say that and you advocate circumcision despite the evidence for the increased risks it imposes? " If the "supposed" risk were intolerable to human well-being they would have been addressed by now given the advancements in modern medicine and highly litigious society we live in. And your point is?
so you base your evaluation of a statement entirely on what the speaker says? so if someone said "i hate whites" and then claimed he didn't hate whites, youd say that that original statement wasn't racist. i gave you a way out. i gave you the option of saying that you were dishonest or joking or something like that. but you chose to stick to your guns. your statement about gender reassignment surgery would make no sense unless you meant it as an anti-trans slur. Where does the word 'foreskin' appear in the following sentence? "Imagination... please... circumcised men do just fine without it." medicine is politiczed. the ebm article backs that up. i never said it affects everyone in america. i said it affects virtually everyone in america. virtually everyone is a victim or knows a victim personally or has inflicted or has authorized it. haha male chauvinistic society? right... a society that protects girls' genitals but not boys' genitals is male chauvinistic?
as i said before it took ages for slavery all the other many injustices to be dealt with by the law. and slavery for example didn't affect nearly as many people as circumcision
The only reason why they don't ban it like they did in germany under the term child abuse www.open.salon.com/.../bodily_harm_german_court_bans_male_child_circumcision is because of the muslims and jews who feel that their savage religion is threatened.
you can't find it in your heart to think "how would i feel if someone had removed my clitoral hood? i'd feel bad. so i guess it's pretty bad to get your foreskin removed" or "puberty is tough anyway. imagine how much tougher it would be if i thought id been born the wrong gender". total lack of empathy. and yet you whine about some alleged male chauvinist culture
I never said I hated transgender individuals. I told you you can have the surgery. If that's how you interpret it, then that's your problem. You can continue to grasp at straws for all I care. Nice try, but you still can't interpret things. No, it doesn't. It explains why the medical community has pursued EBM practices and made it the standard ethically, legally and financially versus politicized medicine. The article says no such thing. You can't interpret your own article. Yes, it is a male chauvinistic society. For years the medications that received the most money in R&D were not for cancer, mental illness or pediatric diseases. It was for erectile dysfunction. Anything else?
you used gender reassignment as an insult. you belittled or perhaps even denied the notion of transgender. total lack of empathy. so you take everyone at their word, however unlikely their word is. haha "versus politicized medicine". great. so you acknowledge that medicine is oftentimes politicized. that was my only point on the matter. you got there in the end. haha. even if thats true you dont have the right to other peoples labor. and why do men worry about dysfunction anyway? cause they want to please women. none of that compares to not having the right to have your genitals intact: a right that baby girls have and baby boys dont. and what was your response? 'just because'. does that sound like a male chauvinist society to you?
boo hoo. researchers (most of whom have been men) aren't spending enough time on the things you want. you have the right to boss them around, right? and if they dont do what you want, you and the rest of womankind are oppressed? so very entitled, you are. oh but those baby boys having their genitals violated? who gives a shit about that right?
I don't consider it an insult. It is what it is. Finally medicine has advanced enough that it has recognized the emotional and physical need that these individuals have in needing this type of surgery. The only pediatric clinic in the world that addresses this issue for children is in the US, Children's of Boston to be specific. I made the statement since you whine so much about male genitals, maybe you would prefer the "luxury" of having female genitals since you apparently can't cope with your own equipment. Nope. You still don't know how to read. So? It's your issue, not mine. You obviously know nothing about medicine because then you would know how much EBM is enforced by the medical insurance community as well as hungry lawyers vying for the chance of a class-action lawsuit. Nice try, but once again you prove your ignorance regarding the workings of the medical community.
you don't consider it an insult because you lack empathy when did i say i can't cope with my equipment? if i had been so unlucky as to have had mine violated, yeah i wouldn't be able to cope with that. and whats the shame in saying that? you're intellectually dishonest yet again you admit that politicized medicine exists. that was my only point.
does that sound like a male chauvinist society to you?" No, that is a feminist comment. It is individual. It does not reflect society's view. You obviously can't tell the difference which once again proves your lack of ability in interpreting statements. You really have a lot of self-hate in you. I would seek therapy.
why do i have self-hate? yes i know you're a feminist. it was pretty clear when you started insulting natural penises. it became even clearer when you went transphobic (transphobia is rampant in the feminist community). 'just because' pretty much sealed the deal
you don't consider it an insult because you lack empathy. No, the fact that I know what modern medicine is doing for these people and can even state the hospital where children can seek treatment shows knowledge and empathy for their plight. A lot more than yours, where you don't even know what options are available to them. I'm not being intellectually dishonest. You don't have proper perception. That's not my problem. Politicized medicine did exist. So did slavery. So did bans on same sex marriage. So did homophobia. So? Saying politicized medicine did exist is not the same as saying it is current practice. Please focus on the present. EBM has replaced politicized medicine and circumcision is still considered EBM. Again your point is?
yeah you hold typical feminist views. men not following the career paths and doing the specific work you want them to = male chauvinism baby boys having their genitals violated = meh
You really have self-hate and self-esteem issues. Please seek therapy for you and your genitals' sake.
how does knowledge necessarily equal empathy? you make fun of transgender
nope. you're being intellectually dishonest.
no. politicized medicine does still exist. since you apparently can't read detailed articles, maybe wikipedia will help: en.wikipedia.org/.../Politicization_of_science
you want to elaborate on my self-hate? i know you hate men and hate transgender people, which is typical for feminists. but i dont see how im hating anything, apart from your opinions
I'm not making fun of them. Again you have perception issues. I don't care for Wikipedia. Get yourself something intellectually valid. Wikipedia references are not valid in a scientific or university-level publication. Feminists don't hate transgenders or men. Show me your scientific proof where it states that feminists hate transgenders and men. Grasping at straws?
you're not making fun of them. you're just belittling gender reassignment... right? you can find many articles via wikipedia though hate isn't subject to scientific testing. but generally yes feminists hate men and transgenders. you certainly do and what about my alleged self-hate? i think you're a selfhater actually. if you believe that you live under a male chauvinist system, why are you dating men? that reeks of low self esteem. imagine if a jew dated a nazi. or a black dated a white slave owner. thats basically what you're doing if you really mean what you say. that self hatred surely
CIRCUMCISION ISN'T BANNED BECAUSE OF POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF "SUPPRESSING THE JEWISH RELIGION"
Not because it's not child abuse. It's because the jewish minorities think it's the frickin' second holocaust.
www.jta.org/.../u-s-intervenes-in-europes-circumcision-wars
Nope. If I did belittle gender reassignment I wouldn't have bother to acquire knowledge of the subject. Zero points for you. Wikipedia is not allowed in scientific publications nor in universities due to the lack of accuracy or relevancy in the articles cited. Very lame excuse. If it hasn't been proven scientifically, then you cannot make a statement of fact. It is perception. Again, you fail. If you think I hate myself, then that's your perception. You really don't know how to distinguish fact from fiction and fact from perception. Not very bright.
once again how does knowledge necessarily equal respect? how is that a lame excuse? i noticed that you were unable to digest longer articles, so i helpfully linked to wikipedia, on which you can find many different scholarly articles via the citations no, you fail. you asked me to scientifically prove something that isn't a matter of scientific testing. you're not very bright. and you're a hater of trans people and of men. and you hate yourself and thats why you're dating your alleged oppressors. exercise some self control, will you? or is your self respect not worth that much to you?
you: "men are oppressing me. but oh im so obsessed with getting it on with men that im going to discuss the explicit details of the male body with my gal pals"
Knowledge does equate to respect because in order to acquire knowledge I must invest my time in acquiring it. My time is valuable to me, therefore it must be a topic I deem worthy. I obviously considered it worthy enough. I did digest longer article which is why I dismantled your article and you have not been able to refute it yet. You have proven various times in this argument you didn't even understand the point your article was trying to make. Doesn't matter if Wikipedia cites articles. A lot of them are not relevant. They are cited to support the article. Doesn't mean they are valid. So? You initially made the statement of feminists hating men and transgender and stated it as a fact. I challenged you. You were not able to provide evidence. Therefore your argument was null and void. Who are the oppressors? Men who don't give a damn about whether they are circumcised or not and know how to have a sexually health life-style regardless? Learn how to be one of them.
"men are oppressing me. but oh im so obsessed with getting it on with men that im going to discuss the explicit details of the male body with my gal pals" No, they are not oppressing me. No different than the guys here rating boob and ass pictures. Get a life.
are you serious? so an anti-semite who learns all about jewish history just to attack the jews respects the jews, does he? you've been going off on weird tangents. i merely used it as an illustration to show that politicized medicine exists, which you finally conceded and then you withdrew the concession they are valid you hate men and transgenders. many feminists do. but its not something which can be scientifically tested. so your statement is meaningless you said we lived under male chauvinism. that means oppression by men. well as i have said many times, many muslim women don't care about how they live in the muslim world. does that mean thats ok? besides you're not saying men can be circumcised if they want to be. i'd agree with that. you're saying men and women should be able to force circumcision on boys that dont consent
why dont you get a life and stop trying to interfere with the genitals of baby boys?
i know the genital integrity of baby boys is 'meh' to you but remember that empathy thing we talked about?
You are so far gone with your hate that now you resort to anti-semitism, transphobia, male chauvism, child abuse accusations. Get a life worth living, because you obviously don't have one that does...
i didn't say you're anti-semitic! but you said if someone takes the time to learn about something, it's out of respect. i gave you the example of the anti-semite who learns jewish history the better to slander the jews. he's not doing that out of respect surely male chauvinism means oppression by men. so if you believe that we live under a male chauvinist system, it means you believe that men are oppressors. routine male circumcision, like any other medically unnecessary surgery on kids too young to consent, is child abuse i think it's very worthwhile to try to help stop the mass abuse of children. maybe you don't think it's worthwhile if those children happen to be boys not girls
Like I said... get a life...
you get a life and stop defending child abuse. i'm not asking you to do anything. i'm asking you to STOP doing something. it requires literally no effort by you
It's not child abuse... get a life... and a brain while you are it.
it's not child sex abuse to remove a part of a baby boy's genitals even though it's not medically necessary to do so? hahaha. you get a brain. and get some self esteem
Medically and legally, no. So until it is deemed so, it's not child abuse. You may want it be considered as such, but until then it is simply a medical procedure. But that concept goes beyond your metal faculties, right?
ah, so we get back to the law defines what's right? so why do you go quiet when i mention the muslim women?
Because Muslim women are not the topic of discussion. Circumcision is. So muslim women is off-topic, irrelevant and non-sequitur. I already pointed this out to you. You must have juvenile dementia.
so the law defines what's moral only when it comes to circumcision? so back when slavery was legal, it was OK or wasn't?
Slavery, just like Muslim women... off-topic, irrelevant, non-sequitur. Grasping at straws?
"Rarely if ever, would there be a valid medical indication to perform a newborn circumcision. With rare exception, routine infant circumcision is "cosmetic surgery" in its truest sense."
The only reason why circumcision hasn't been banned yet is because the muslims and the jews feel that their religion and culture is "threatened". Obviously it's kinda hilarious from an objective standpoint that what defines them as a culture is the mutilation of their newborn sons, but whatever.
That's an opinion. So?
It's not an opinion, it's a fact by definition.
i'm asking you a simple question. is routine circumcision the only thing whose morality or immorality depends on law? and anyway if routine circumcision is moral because its legal, why are you arguing with me? im not saying routine circumcision IS illegal. Im saying it SHOULD be illegal
im not saying routine circumcision IS illegal. Im saying it SHOULD be illegal. And that's your opinion. So?
"Medically and legally, no. So until it is deemed so, it's not child abuse." Does that apply only to routine circumcision or does that principle also apply to other things?
And why are you arguing with me if that's where you get your morality from?
I don't consider it to be immoral. Neither does the medical community nor the legal system. So your point is?
So what's moral is what's determined by the legal system and the medical community, at least when it comes to circumcision? So why waste your time arguing with me? Nothing I could say could ever convince you then. you kept talking about 'arguments' and 'evidence' but the truth is you didn't want any of that... if you're telling the truth. it's difficult to know if you're telling the truth because you refuse to answer about whether you'd feel the same way about things other than circumcision My guess is you're just making it up as you go along
No. You have yet to prove it's child abuse. You have yet to prove it is immoral, unethical and illegal. You have yet to prove your argument about politicized medicine via your article. You have yet to prove how feminists hate transgender and men. You have yet to prove anything you have argued tonite is valid. And I'm making up things as I go along? Don't think so.
But you don't want me to prove any of that. You've just said the morality of routine circumcision is determined by the legal system and the medical community.
Oh, yes I do want you to prove it. I want you to back all the claims you made tonight. Gives some semblance of validity to your inane arguments.
No, you've just said that the morality of routine circumcision is determined by the legal system and the medical community. Therefore all argument is irrelevant to you.
No, I want you to prove all your arguments because so far you haven't proved a single one.
Whats the point? No argument could ever convince you because according to you the morality of routine circumcision depends on the legal system and the medical community
though I don't know why you just didn't say that from the beginning
It is child abuse: www.youtube.com/watch
"though I don't know why you just didn't say that from the beginning" When you engage in a debate the rules are for you to support all your points with valid arguments, documentation and/or proof. If you do not understand the basic precepts of debate, don't engage in one. Especially if the topic of debate far exceeds your intellectual capacity as this topic does.
for a woman who uses the word 'precepts', you sure don't seem to understand the notion that there is no point in debating if you believe that routine circumcision's morality depends on the legal system and the medical community. i am not the legal system and i am not the medical community. there is therefore literally nothing i could even theoretically say to convince you that routine circumcision is immoral
Debate allows for changing one's opinion if a successful argument is brought forth. A debate has points accorded for discussion items conceded. You have failed to do so because you have not been able to validly substantiate your discussion items. It's not a lack of my unwillingness so much as the fact that you have nothing to base your arguments on except your own opinion and opinions are worth naught in debate.
But you've just said that the morality of circumcision depends on the legal system and the medical community. I am not the legal system or the medical community. Therefore I could never even theoretically convince you. Therefore there's no point in debating you Or are you changing tracks yet again?
No, I am not changing tracks. I said I didn't consider it immoral. Didn't say my opinion wouldn't change if the right argument was presented. The fact that the medical and legal community don't agree with your moral discussion just demolishes your argument for immorality. Do you even know what goes on during a debate?
Yeah you did say you wouldn't change your mind based on any argument. "Medically and legally, no. So until it is deemed so, it's not child abuse." For once you were quite clear about what you meant
I still stand by that argument. If the experts in the subject do not consider it to be child abuse, then it is not. Anything else is an opinion. Even if you do not pertain to the legal or medical community you can still use their experience and knowledge to substantiate your arguments. The fact that you have not been able to substantiate your arguments for immorality and child abuse, lay your discussion points null and void. Do you even know what you are talking about or how to engage in an intelligent conversation?
Hey Asker if you don't have me blocked (considering you seem to be ignoring the opinion I posted which probably means I was able to post due to you being anonymous but you being unable to post because you've blocked me, whoever you might be), I've posted a relevant question here: www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1111444-circumcision-is-child-abuse-do-you-agree
Right, so what's the point in debating you? I am not the legal system. I am not the medical community. Therefore you will never be convinced by me. The end.
Thank you for conceding the argument based on absolute lack of proof and knowledge. Glad to know you finally realized you know nothing of the subject beyond your personal opinion.
I never conceded any such thing. I rebutted all of your 'arguments'. but you finally admitted (or opportunistically decided to take the position) that your view is based solely on what the legal system and the medical community say. which makes debate between us pointless.
Asker, may the hypocrisy be with you, lol. The only thing you've said in favor of circumcision is that "it's not illegal and is accepted as a medical practice". They've tried banning it multiple times but the religious wingnuts get too bitchy about it so they didn't.
You haven't refuted anything. You have yet to prove it's child abuse. You have yet to prove it is immoral, unethical and illegal. You have yet to prove your argument about politicized medicine via your article. You have yet to prove how feminists hate transgender and men. You have yet to prove anything you have argued tonite is valid. "But you don't want me to prove any of that" You admitted you weren't able to prove anything.
If you take the view that your position on routine circumcision is determined only by the legal system and the medical community, then I will never convince you, so debate between us is pointless. Why bother? are you so desperate to talk to someone that you will engage in literally pointless debate?
You still can't prove anything can you. "are you so desperate to talk to someone that you will engage in literally pointless debate?" Actually, I think this is you given your misogynistic and unfounded views.
haha. typical feminist accusing people of misogyny. why are girls special? "just because". Remember that, misandrist? Remember the cruel joke about gender reassignment, transphobe? I didn't know the debate was pointless. I thought you were open to being convincing. but, if you are now telling the truth, all this while you weren't open to being convinced at all
are you really so self-obsessed that you think that male circumcision is a women's issues?
*issue
Please... you don't even know how to debate. You offer your opinion as evidence. Please...
Look, this debate is pointless, because the Asker is incapable of comprehending the concept of causing pain to others because she's a sociopath. It's been proven multiple times in this discussion.
Sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. Comprehending the concept of pain is not part of the definition of sociopath. Grab a dictionary once in a while, mesonfielde.
A debate in which one side is not open to being convinced is not a debate. and i'd still like to know how im misogynist. considering that i haven't said anything misogynistic and male circumcision has nothing to do with women anyway. and considering your earlier rule that the person who says something can define the meaning behind it. so even if i had said something misogynistic (which i havent) you couldnt call it misogynistic unless i agreed
You weren't opened to being convinced that circumcision is not child abuse or immoral. Hypocritical? You hatred towards feminists and the belief that all feminists hate men and transgenders is misogynistic. How quickly we forget...
if it were to be proven that routine circumcision is medically necessary, then i'd be for it. i already accept that circumcision is in a few cases medically necessary. so yes i am open to being convinced. feminist doesn't equal woman. there are many male feminists. and many female non-feminists. and i didn't say all feminists hate men and transgenders anyway. no. how quickly YOU forget.
on the other hand what did you say? to the question why are girls special, you replied "just because". thats misandry right there. and then you joked about gender reassignment, because it must be so damn funny right to not feel at home in your own body? thats transphobia right there
"i know you hate men and hate transgender people, which is typical for feminists." hate isn't subject to scientific testing. but generally yes feminists hate men and transgenders." The beauty of Gag... is all there in black and white.
'typical' doesn't equal 'all'. 'generally' doesn't equal 'all'
Nice try but your views "in general" are misogynistic. The fact that you consider it a "typical' and "general" feminist trait is sufficient.
and feminist doesn't equal woman
no it's not. 'all' doesn't equal 'generally'. 'all' doesn't equal 'typical'
yout total shamelessness is hilarious
"and feminist doesn't equal woman". So? It's a term for female empowerment which you associate with hate of other social groups. Not a positive connotation with regards to the concept of female empowerment. Therefore you have misogynistic views.
no it's not. 'all' doesn't equal 'generally'. 'all' doesn't equal 'typical' I used your terminology... so it's not valid. Gee, I guess then your opinion isn't either.
misogyny is hatred of women. feminism is an ideology. therefore hatred of feminism is not hatred of women. besides you're not allowed to label me. remember that rule?
what do you mean you used my terminology?
"and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Thanks for being a person who adheres to the definition, Asker. It makes it easier to prove that it's a true accusation through merely analysing the definition. :P
man, i can just feel the empowerment! empowered to dictate baby boys' genitals! empowered to label as male chauvinism a situation where men pursue their own career goals and do the work they want to do even when that work benefits women! girl power yeaaah! empowered to bash transgender people! yes!!! you gotta fight for your right to mutilate babies' genitalllssssss!
besides you're not allowed to label me. remember that rule? Let's see I was labeled feminist, transphobic, misandric, self-obsessed, self-hater, immoral, etc. Hypocritical?
empowered to label as male chauvinism a situation where men pursue their own career goals and do the work they want to do even when that work benefits women! completely non-sequitur, inconsequential and irrelevant. Anything else?
sure and you said that was wrong. so which is it going to be? you want the rule, or you dont want it? actually you label yourself a feminist. i label you transphobic because you made an insensitive, mocking joke about gender reassignment. i label you misandric because of your 'just because' response. i label you self-obsessed because you think that male circumcision is a women's issue. i labeled self-hater because you claimed that we live under male chauvinism and yet you still date guys. and i label you immoral because you advocate what is immoral
that was in repsonse to your comment about researchers (most of whom are male) allegedly spending more on erectile dysfunction research than other kinds of medical research. you labeled that male chauvinism. if you dont like the subject, dont bring it up.
I never said it was a rule, you did. I just stated you had no valid argument for your perceptions of transphobia, misandry, morality and self-obsession and self-hate. You really don't know how to debate, do you?
but you tell 'em asker. men need to get with the program, we really do. 'my body, someone else's rights'... that's how the old, famous feminist slogan goes right? you go, girl.
yeah you said that it's based on self affirmation. tho then you weirdly refused to ask Anon girl about her feelings
This discussion just deals with your low self-esteem issues as evidenced by your continuous argument against feminism. All you have done is spew hate because you have no constructive argument to offer. You stink at debating, have absolutely no intellectual capacity for it. Good night. It's been an absolute waste of my time.
you don't want to debate tho. you've said that no argument will convince you you have low self esteem, which is why you're scared of intact men. i realize that I've wasted your time :-) from now on, every time you see your gal pals there will be a little voice inside your head that whispers 'misandry'. you'll never see your friends the same way again, no matter how hard you try!
LOL!!! You really have issues!!!
says the woman who makes fun of gender reassignment, says 'just because' to why baby boys allegedly dont have the right to be genitally intact, and who claims to live under male chauvinism and yet obsesses about little details about guys, and who enters a debate while knowing that she is 100% non-open to being convinced
I want substantiated proof to convince me. You have not provided it, so I am not convinced. All you have provided is your opinion, which is worth nothing. Big deal. Don't know why a piece of hanging skin affects my self-esteem. I think it's affected yours actually. I have no issues with uncircumcised men. It's not aesthetically pleasing but if it works, I am fine. So no misandry either. You are everyone's waste of time, not just on GaG. Most likely in bed too.
No you don't. You said its the medical community and the legal system that determine your position not argument. Well the foreskin clearly obsesses you. i dont generally think about it except when someone's demanding the right to take it away. same as i don't think much about my fingers or my eyelids, but i certainly would if someone wanted the right to remove them You are misandric because you said 'just because'. According to you, females have more rights than males 'just because'. What is that if not misandry? I feel so upset. I really want the approval of a misandric, transphobic, 30-something, foreskin-obsessed feminist who thinks that men making career choices she disapproves of is misogyny. Now what shall I do? i'm heartbroken :-(
The medical community and the legal community were my substantiated proof. Proof you were never able to provide beyond your opinion. Since you are not an expert in anything, your opinion of me is worth nothing. So?
no you said until they change their mind you're not changing yours. therefore i could never even theoretically convince you. therefore debate is pointless. "misandric, transphobic, 30-something, foreskin-obsessed feminist who thinks that men making career choices she disapproves of is misogyny." unless you're lying, that's all factual, not opinion
no you said until they change their mind you're not changing yours. " Exactly, they are experts in their fields. You are a nobody offering an opinion with no proof. unless you're lying, that's all factual, not opinion... perception, just perception... can't differentiate fact from fiction.
with that point of view, debate is pointless. which is what i've been saying. nope. fact. misandric remarks. transphobic remarks. self-labeling as 30something. obsessive discussion of foreskin with gal pals. self-labeled feminist. your own self-professed view about researchers not doing what you want them to do
And you never had any intention of changing yours. That's called being a hypocrite. It still is your opinion, it's not a fact. And you are still a nobody. A hypocritical nobody.
i said prove that routine circumcision is medically necessary and ill support it. i already accept that a few circumcisions are medically necessary yeah its a fact. the view that females have more rights than males 'just because'? what would you call that if not misandry? laughing at gender reassignment? what would you call that if not transphobia? oh no :-( i want your love so much :-( i feel so ashamed by this empowered woman!
It's still an opinion. As much as you would for it to be a fact, it's still a nobody's opinion. Doubt anyone in the Supreme Court or NHI is interested.
this empowered woman is shaming me... oh noes :-( i feel so in awe of her power, jesus. you've taught me so much thank you. i now know: 'my body = your rights'! thanks, empowered woman :-) i didn't really get it before, thanks to male chauvinism. now i can see the truth. how could i have been so, like, self centered and misogynistic to think that my body and my life belonged to me?
this empowered woman is shaming me... oh noes :-( i feel so in awe of her power, jesus. you've taught me so much thank you. i now know: 'my body = your rights'! thanks, empowered woman :-) You are so welcome.
great :-) my rights end where your feelings begin. i get that now. anything less than total submission is misogyny. any disagreement is misogyny, there are no men's issues. only women's issues. male circumcision is a women's issue that men can talk about if theyre on their best behavior and take their cues from the ladies
Yup.
great. now i'm gonna send some hate mail to these nerds out there that are spending way too much time on fullfilling their own goals and not enough time fullfilling your goals. those misogynistic slaves!
Sure. That would be great.
and we should reallly find a way to speed up this circumcision process. can you believe that sometimes the mom ends up seeing the baby boy before he gets circumcised. gross right? totally misogynistic as usual from this male chauvinist society which only cares about males. and can you believe that these boys oftentimes have the nerve to cry afterward? like theyre the victims? why can't they just man up and feel grateful that theyre fullfilling their very important role?
Sounds like a plan.
great isn't it? bunch of little misogynists
Whatever floats your boat...
No asker this is your boat really. My boat, your rights... right?
Yeah...
yeah!
Don't even realize when you're getting played...
Don't even realize when you're getting played...