Disqus - Friends of Talos

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 01:25:09 -0000

Sorry, but you're wrong, there. There are SIGNIFICANT health (and not to mention aesthetic) issues at in play when it comes to the male-version. EVERY doctor I've spoken to has agreed. Furthermore, for "hetero"/"bi" (etc) men, having being uncircumcised can significantly increase the risk of cervical cancer for your partner. Not to mention, EVERY SINGLE woman I've slept with has extremely adamant about their ardent (if not ZEALOUS) preference for partners who have been circumcised (both aesthetically, and physically-speaking). My parents certainly didn't decide to do it for religious reasons. My mom is Catholic and my dad is Lutheran, though as of late, both seem to be struggling to reconcile certain things in life with their faith, but I digress…In any event, all I know is that there isn't a single experience I've had, or information I've come across, that has made me ANYTHING but THANKFUL to my parents for making that decision…odd as that may seem. I'm absolutely, positively CERTAIN that if they hadn't, I would be wishing they had, as I don't think I could have ever gone through with it by the time the choice would have been legally mine under most modern proposals (18). And, UNLIKE the female version, it is not, by ANY MEANS, what I (or any women I've been with) would EVER consider "mutilation". It certainly doesn't keep me from fully enjoying sex, whereas that is PRECISELY what FEMALE mutilation not only DOES, but it's the INTENDED PURPOSE of it! The two things are not even REMOTELY comparable. Sorry. Also, are you even a male? You seem rather disproportionately angry if you're not…Or is this related to some sort of anti-semitism? And WHAT NEXT? "Those tonsils aren't your tonsils! You should go to jail!" And, ONCE AGAIN, you simply *CANNOT* compare it to female genital mutilation. They are not even REMOTELY close. One is barbaric, malicious, and based on a "primordial" misogyny and general hatred (and fear) of women. The other, is a practice that BEGAN as a religious tradition, but grew to general (and, more importantly, MEDICAL) acceptance. The latter does not impede sexual activity or please, whereas the former DOES. One is a matter of cleanliness and general health, while the other does actual HARM. Bottom line: the latter is appropriately called "male circumcision", while the former is PROPERLY described as "female genital mutolation". PERIOD.

P.S.—I'm gonna' take a shot in the dark here and guess that there is, most likely, AT LEAST a 50/50 chance that you're an Onision "fan". For your sake, I REALLY hope you're not, ESPECIALLY if you are, indeed, female. I could go on for DAYS about how INSANELY, DANGEROUSLY manipulative and misogynistic that "guy" is. I sincerely HOPE I'm wrong on that count.

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:45:20 -0000

WOW. NICE. You're right, though. How DARE they have a PREFERENCE?! So, what, women are shallow if they have turn-ons and/or turn-offs? Or are they only shallow if their turn-ons and turn-offs apply to a penis? Or perhaps, more likely, they're shallow if they have preferences that differ from yours? How dare you condemn them for such a thing. The fact that you would say that would make a woman shallow says a great deal about who YOU are. And I'll tell you this, every one of them have been kind, loving, caring women who would NEVER condemn another person for such a thing, EVER. Even if they somehow found it completely counter to their own preferences, or their "sensibilities", for want of a better word, they would never have the gaul, or the sheer feeling of entitlement and superiority, to judge another person for such a thing. Furthermore, I fail to see how it's much different than a person preferring a certain color of eyes or hair in a prospective mate. No-one ever said it would be a "dea-breakerl" if they were interested in someone who didn't fit their preference. Because that's what it is: a PREFERENCE, not a "dis-qualifer". Plus, as I mentioned in my previous post, it is a HEALTH ISSUE. Uncircumcised men have been proven to greatly increase a female sexual partner's risk of developing cervical cancer, in addition to the fact that it increases the risk of transmission for several sexually transmitted diseases/infections (HIV, being one of the foremost). One way or another, the only REAL question is the following: who are YOU to pass judgement upon THEM?

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:47:20 -0000

LoL. Well done, sir!

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:52:26 -0000

Actually, the studies indicating that men receive less sexual pleasure later in life have recently been almost completely disproven. They may experience sexual pleasure a BIT DIFFERENTLY, and I stress the words "a bit". But it does not increase or decrease sexual pleasure, one way or the other. In fact, for many years, it was simultaneously a popular claim in many circles that male circumcision actually enhanced sexual pleasure. This too, however, has been disproven.

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:09:08 -0000

Your own link almost ENTIRELY disproves your argument! EVERY ONE of those examples occurred in mid-late adolescence or adulthood, when the risks (both physical AND psychological) are FAR, FAR GREATER! So, what you're advocating may SOUND nice ("NO 'FORCED' CIRCUMCISIONS!") is ACTUALLY a prescription to cause a GREAT DEAL MORE trauma and medical issues. If THAT were to happen, how long would it be before your anti-circumcision friends started the rallying cry to BAN it, outright? I mean, be honest, that's what you REALLY WANT, anyways; you just know it sounds much more "liberal" and "reasonable" to say the whole "it's not your penis" thing. Also, once again, you are ONLY getting so riled up about this because it has to do with a sexual organ! When it comes to nearly ANY other issue regarding parent choice, I'm quite sure you're in favor of THAT. Like it or hate it, some decisions MUST be left up to PARENTS, and in the end, you're trying to come between them and what they believe is best for their child. If you look it the situation calmly and objectively, that's the truth. I don't like the fact that some men really wish they hadn't been circumcised. But that's an issue to be death with between them and their parents (and perhaps a plastic surgeon, as there are ways to at least very closely simulate foreskin, if it means THAT MUCH). I, for one, am DAMN GLAD my parents had me circumcised as a baby. No memory the experience WHATSOEVER, just the way it should be: no memory of pain, no trauma, no more potential health issues for me or my mates.

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:25:01 -0000

Why do you say that? Did it go wrong? Or did the procedure go properly/as planned, but your son is angry at you about it for some reason? No offense intended, but is your son gay?

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:52:33 -0000

Talos, Elder Scrolls fan, or just coincidence?

Re: Undercover reporter ‘had sex’ with dentist during female circumcision sting operation

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:23:54 -0000

But that's what they are doing: speaking for everyone by attempting to illegalize a matter of personal AND parental choice.

Re: Poll Debunks Media Claims: Most Americans Back Obamacare—Or Want It Expanded

Poli_Scivant — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:33:03 -0000

Most bills are a few thousand pages long, even extremely minor/insignificant ones. ALL major legislation is comprised of SEVERAL thousand pages, be it "jam-packed with bureaucracy/[regulation]" or no. You're not even judging a book by its COVER, you're judging it by its LENGTH! A new era of ignorance is upon us. Though you were right about one thing: You obviously have ZERO knowledge OR understanding of this law (or, likely any other).