I don't 'hate' the people being harmed. I detect a lot of emotionalism in your replies so far which leads me to wonder why. I mean, if you're proud of how your family jewels look, and you're not mad at your dad, why should you care what I thinK? I'm not mad at your dad either. He likely operated under doctor's opinions at the time (or ma…
I don't 'hate' the people being harmed. I detect a lot of emotionalism in your replies so far which leads me to wonder why. I mean, if you're proud of how your family jewels look, and you're not mad at your dad, why should you care what I thinK? I'm not mad at your dad either. He likely operated under doctor's opinions at the time (or maybe a religious dictate) and did what he thought was best, and it's *still* not nearly as bad as FGM.
BTW, I get why a woman would have breast cancer removed, but not why she'd undergo unnecessary surgery - mutilation even - to have bigger breasts to satisfy some patriarchal beauty requirement. She shouldn't be stopped, and she's welcome to get mad at me making, likely, the same arguments you are (without the dad part). BTW, there's no such thing as woman who does it 'for herself' and not to satisfy external beauty requirements. It's to satisfy a male fetish or be more attactive to men, I don't care what she says. OTOH, I understand why she might have a breast reduction - those things are heavy to carry around and very hard on the back, and no baby needs boobs *that* big to feed on.
Honestly, I think the same feeling is more on your end than mine. I'm not trying to make you feel bad about being circumcised - nor do I want to shame your father either. But I wonder whether you'd enjoy sex more if you hadn't been. And you still haven't offered a logical reason for why this needs to be done to males. Just expressed your outrage at my language.
I didn’t say you hate the people being harmed. I said you hate the people doing the harm. Is your emotionalism affecting your reading skills?
There are men who have reported enjoying sex more or less or the same after circumcision. My dad reported no difference. Other than “intactivists” trying to sow FOMO, speculating about it is worthless.
Would you call a woman’s breasts who received augmentation after a mastectomy mutilated? Would you tell a woman who went through a mastectomy for cancer treatment that she was not getting breasts “for herself”, but just to satisfy some “patriarchal beauty requirement” and “not care what she says”? Or would your contemptuous degrading tone change? Would you be able to find sympathy in that arctic heart of yours or would your hatred toward “the patriarchy” blind you?
I think the reduction in the transmission of various infectious diseases, especially HIV is sufficient reason to consider circumcising male babies, specifically in regions where it’s very prevalent. A mother who decides to get a circumcision performed on her male infant rather then letting the risk be greater that he grows up and has sex and gets hiv is not a simple choice. I would empathize with a parent who made the decision to get a circumcision for their male infant. Describing it as mutilation would be wrong. Both because it wrongly disrespectful to the parents but also wrongly degrading to the child.
If you are surprised that I have emotions in response to people expressing degrading language in a way I think is inappropriate I suggest you try to understand human nature better. Humans are emotional. That includes you, even though you seem not to be aware of the “emotionalism” exemplified in the language you are selectively using irrationally. If someone degrades something or someone in a way I think it or they should not be, there is a chance Im going to express my disapproval, aka “outrage”. If a person told me that my cats were ugly I’d tell them to fuk off; it doesn’t matter if I think my cats are some of the cutest beings in the multiverse. And if they continue to do it, and say things like “I wonder why you are getting all emotional about me saying your cats are ugly; why do you caaare? hmmmmm? Is it because secretly you think they are ugly ugly ugly?” I’d infer they were being *malicious* or they were incredibly stupid. But it could also be both— they are being malicious but too stupid to even realize it.
Okay, I've had enough of this conversation. If you want to find my language 'degrading' that's your choice...but I disagree and I still think circumcision, at least of children, is mutilation. Wave you bald boy proudly if you like, but deal with the fact that I'm not the only person who's against circumcising children - there's a whole movement about it, partly grown out of the fact that it's been pointed out that if it's wrong for girls, why not also for boys? I said something about circumcision that had nothing to do with you because I don't know if you're circumcised, and I know a lot of circumcised men wish they hadn't been. Maybe your worry about my 'irrationalism' is your own irrational, personal response to a comment that had nothing to do with you. I'm done. Not blocking you or anything, just done with this thread.
I don't 'hate' the people being harmed. I detect a lot of emotionalism in your replies so far which leads me to wonder why. I mean, if you're proud of how your family jewels look, and you're not mad at your dad, why should you care what I thinK? I'm not mad at your dad either. He likely operated under doctor's opinions at the time (or maybe a religious dictate) and did what he thought was best, and it's *still* not nearly as bad as FGM.
BTW, I get why a woman would have breast cancer removed, but not why she'd undergo unnecessary surgery - mutilation even - to have bigger breasts to satisfy some patriarchal beauty requirement. She shouldn't be stopped, and she's welcome to get mad at me making, likely, the same arguments you are (without the dad part). BTW, there's no such thing as woman who does it 'for herself' and not to satisfy external beauty requirements. It's to satisfy a male fetish or be more attactive to men, I don't care what she says. OTOH, I understand why she might have a breast reduction - those things are heavy to carry around and very hard on the back, and no baby needs boobs *that* big to feed on.
Honestly, I think the same feeling is more on your end than mine. I'm not trying to make you feel bad about being circumcised - nor do I want to shame your father either. But I wonder whether you'd enjoy sex more if you hadn't been. And you still haven't offered a logical reason for why this needs to be done to males. Just expressed your outrage at my language.
I didn’t say you hate the people being harmed. I said you hate the people doing the harm. Is your emotionalism affecting your reading skills?
There are men who have reported enjoying sex more or less or the same after circumcision. My dad reported no difference. Other than “intactivists” trying to sow FOMO, speculating about it is worthless.
Would you call a woman’s breasts who received augmentation after a mastectomy mutilated? Would you tell a woman who went through a mastectomy for cancer treatment that she was not getting breasts “for herself”, but just to satisfy some “patriarchal beauty requirement” and “not care what she says”? Or would your contemptuous degrading tone change? Would you be able to find sympathy in that arctic heart of yours or would your hatred toward “the patriarchy” blind you?
I think the reduction in the transmission of various infectious diseases, especially HIV is sufficient reason to consider circumcising male babies, specifically in regions where it’s very prevalent. A mother who decides to get a circumcision performed on her male infant rather then letting the risk be greater that he grows up and has sex and gets hiv is not a simple choice. I would empathize with a parent who made the decision to get a circumcision for their male infant. Describing it as mutilation would be wrong. Both because it wrongly disrespectful to the parents but also wrongly degrading to the child.
If you are surprised that I have emotions in response to people expressing degrading language in a way I think is inappropriate I suggest you try to understand human nature better. Humans are emotional. That includes you, even though you seem not to be aware of the “emotionalism” exemplified in the language you are selectively using irrationally. If someone degrades something or someone in a way I think it or they should not be, there is a chance Im going to express my disapproval, aka “outrage”. If a person told me that my cats were ugly I’d tell them to fuk off; it doesn’t matter if I think my cats are some of the cutest beings in the multiverse. And if they continue to do it, and say things like “I wonder why you are getting all emotional about me saying your cats are ugly; why do you caaare? hmmmmm? Is it because secretly you think they are ugly ugly ugly?” I’d infer they were being *malicious* or they were incredibly stupid. But it could also be both— they are being malicious but too stupid to even realize it.
Okay, I've had enough of this conversation. If you want to find my language 'degrading' that's your choice...but I disagree and I still think circumcision, at least of children, is mutilation. Wave you bald boy proudly if you like, but deal with the fact that I'm not the only person who's against circumcising children - there's a whole movement about it, partly grown out of the fact that it's been pointed out that if it's wrong for girls, why not also for boys? I said something about circumcision that had nothing to do with you because I don't know if you're circumcised, and I know a lot of circumcised men wish they hadn't been. Maybe your worry about my 'irrationalism' is your own irrational, personal response to a comment that had nothing to do with you. I'm done. Not blocking you or anything, just done with this thread.