Why does there seem to be a stigma attached to advocate for Men's Rights?

DwnWthVwls · 05-03-2017, 05:50 PM

Is there a difference between the way human babies heal compared to human adults that makes that anecdote "relevant"? Other than the fact that adults can vocalize their pain.

Pet_Sounds · 05-03-2017, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

PS: If you send me a pic of yours, I'll send you a pic of mine. (mine will be more manly looking. I have an awesome hood.)

Did Chula just ask me to send nudes?

riseagainstrocks · 05-03-2017, 08:02 PM

This exact conversation regarding use of the word mutilation was in the Tumblr, Otherkin, and Political Correctness Overkill thread 2 months ago.

It bore similarly poor fruit.

The political intent of language matters to some of us and to others, such intention carries less weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

I disagree with your characterization of 'genital mutilation' being a scientifically accurate term. 'Mutilation' is not a clinic term at all. It's a word like massacre, or brutal. It's meant to engender revulsion and outrage. If you can find a dispassionate examination of the issue by clinicians that uses the term genital mutilation as a non-ironic stand-in for circumcision, I'll happily concede this point.

Most people are able to hold both circumcision and 'FGM' as you put it in their head and react to both accordingly. But circumcision is the 'All Lives Matter' of this issue. "Nigerian girls are subject to horrific butchering as they reach adolescence, removing the clitoris to discourage sexual pleasure and other behavior perceived as wanton." "BOYS GET THEIR DICKS CUT UP TOO"

This is not an argument for circumcision. This is an argument against a toxic political movement that twists valid concerns into shadowy examples of sinister Progressivism. I tend to think of the issue as like being raised by religious parents. I'd rather it didn't happen and in some cases it can deprive a person of some measure of happiness in their adult life. But I'm not sure it's up for me to legislate the practice.

Kinda sad I missed much of this thread. Might go back through it but I reeaalllly don't want to try and watch the Red Pill again. And MGTOW... I am filled with pity.

**Goofle** · 05-03-2017, 08:22 PM

As stated before, removing the foreskin also reduces sexual pleasure (and can decreases penis size). Again, this is not to equate the two. FGM's roots are more related to the intentional discouragement and reduction of sexual pleasure, whereas circumcision probably doesn't stem from the same subjugation. But it is a side effect that the baby couldn't consent to.

If we are going to talk about definitions, I think it's fair to say that the practice of circumcision comfortably falls within the parameters set out under "mutilation". That doesn't change just because the procedure has a different label attached to it.

Quote:

verb (used with object), mutilated, mutilating.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

And I don't really care if you have a problem with MRA's, anti-feminists or whatever. The issue is about babies having part of their penis cut off for no morally legitimate reason.

Chula Vista · 05-03-2017, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

As stated before, removing the foreskin also reduces sexual pleasure.

Proof?

Congrats on all of you for running circles around me.

No morally legitimate reason? Cutting part of a penis off? It's a completely useless piece of excess skin that can (in small instances) lead to health issues.

I have zero problem with my parents making the decision to have it done to me. I have zero problem with me a Linda having it done to our son.

So sorry some of you feel like my mom and dad, and me and my wife are some sort of barbaric jerks.

DwnWthVwls · 05-03-2017, 10:12 PM

For the 1000000000 time, no one said that about you or thinks that. Not every criticism and discussion is about you or an attack of your personal experience. They are general discussions about controversial topics. Conceited af.

The morally legitimate reason is that its a cosmetic procedure and thats not something that falls under the parents decision to make as a guardian. See my tongue splitting example that you conveintently ignored.

Chula Vista · 05-03-2017, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Not every criticism and discussion is about you or an attack of your personal experience.

Well, since I decided to have it done to my child, the negatism hits a bit personal.

Quote:

The morally legitimate reason is that its a cosmetic procedure and thats not something that falls under the parents decision to make as a guardian.

It was 100% our decision and legal right under the law. And it was not done for cosmetic purposes. Keep up with my narrative for cripes sake. You keep slamming me for not keeping up with yours. Double standards?

Quote:

See my tongue splitting example that you conveintently ignored.

Ignored because it was absolutley stupid. Same goes for the silicone breast implant analogy that Isborn put forth. (love you Isborn!)

Start running circles around me.

Neapolitan · 05-03-2017, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

As stated before, removing the foreskin also reduces sexual pleasure (and can decreases penis size). Again, this is not to equate the two. FGM's roots are more related to the intentional discouragement and reduction of sexual pleasure, whereas circumcision probably doesn't stem from the same subjugation. But it is a side effect that the baby couldn't consent to.

If we are going to talk about definitions, I think it's fair to say that the practice of circumcision comfortably falls within the parameters set out under "mutilation". That doesn't change just because the procedure has a different label attached to it.

And I don't really care if you have a problem with MRA's, anti-feminists or whatever. The issue is about babies having part of their penis cut off for no morally legitimate reason.

I found an article a few months back. It mentioned that in Africa males who were circumcised had a lower rate of contracting contracting HIV/getting AIDS. That should be the "morally legitimate reason" you are looking for. I don't considered it "mutilation" because the way male circumcisions are performed nothing else is damaged. The glan is not destroyed, removed, or sliced which is what happens to clitoris and other part with FGM.

DwnWthVwls · 05-03-2017, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Well, since I decided to have it done to my child, the negatism hits a bit personal.

It was 100% our decision and legal right under the law. And it was not done for cosmetic purposes. Keep up with my narrative for cripes sake. You keep slamming me for not keeping up with yours. Double standards?

Ignored because it was absolutley stupid. Same goes for the silicone breast implant analogy that Isborn put forth. (love you Isborn!)

Start running circles around me.

Its clear at this point you dont even understand the discussion and arguments against your position. Also calling something stupid and not explaining why you think so is about as lazy as it gets. The tongue split was a perfectly comparable example but again youre clearly not understanding the discussion. Enjoy your night.

DwnWthVwls · 05-03-2017, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I found an article a few months back. It mentioned that in Africa males who were circumcised had a lower rate of contracting contracting HIV/getting AIDS. That should be the "morally legitimate reason" you are looking for. I don't considered it "mutilation" because the way male circumcisions are performed nothing else is damaged. The glan is not destroyed, removed, or sliced which is what happens to clitoris and other part with FGM.

Pretty sure thats been debunked and for the 100th time: we arent trying to equate the 2 procedures.