MGM UK

[3point14]

I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm sure much FGM is not protected as a religious right. The age of the child and the harm done would be factors to weigh.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm interested in how you think the US constitution can protect your religious and culturally motivated right to remove your chi's foreskin but at the same time deny a sincere and fervent supporter of another religion and culture to remove the clitoris and most of the labia from their own child.


(Edit: I'm pretty sure you and I have had this conversation already, a long time ago.)

 

[Seismosaurus]

I'm injured? Show me how.

I'm disfigured? That's subjective.

A body part was cut off. That is an injury.

I'm damaged? Funny how neither I, nor my many partners, nor my various physicians, have ever remarked on any such damage.

So if you don't remark upon it, that means it hasn't happened? Bit of magical thinking there.

Body modification is a continuum of practice, ranging from harmful to benign. It encompasses cultural traditions both ancient and modern.

Cutting somebody is rather obviously harmful to them.

And obviously it's a cultural tradition. I don't really see what this has to do with anything or why you bring it up.

Your vicarious hangups are frankly offensive.

Since I haven't demonstrated any "hangups" then I can only assume you're really offended by truthfulness in this issue.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

https://youtu.be/xWTogNdV4lE

I really feel like most men could be sitting in their doctor's office while it is explained to them their penis turned gangrenous and died and most would impulsively shoot back, "What? That's crazy doc, everything's fine. My wife says we're having the best sex in years, too. My 3 side chicks, also. Oh yeah, I got hoes everywhere because, as I said, clearly nothing wrong down there! Thanks for the checkup, see ya."

 

[Darat]

*shrug* That's a question I have absolutely no ability to answer as it's an experience I don't have. I don't know what it feels like for them, etc.


...snip....

But you said earlier: "...snip.... An uncircumcised man also can't experience the things that I can either. Is he losing out or in your scenario is he automatically a peg up because his sex is different than mine? ...snip...."

 

[Darat]

Darat, does it bother you that I'm circumcised?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

I can truthfully say I have - until you asked - never considered your penis, and since I have no experience of your penis I can neither be bothered or not bothered by it.

Don't know what your question has to do with the topic of this thread but I assume you are leading up to something?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

... If anything, I do them a favor by performing the procedure before the brain has even begun mapping the nerve impulses from the body...

That's interesting. Do you have any more information on this?

 

[theprestige]

https://youtu.be/xWTogNdV4lE

I really feel like most men could be sitting in their doctor's office while it is explained to them their penis turned gangrenous and died and most would impulsively shoot back, "What? That's crazy doc, everything's fine. My wife says we're having the best sex in years, too. My 3 side chicks, also. Oh yeah, I got hoes everywhere because, as I said, clearly nothing wrong down there! Thanks for the checkup, see ya."

Let's be clear: The man himself experiences rewarding sexual stimulation via his penis. Both masturbation and intercourse with the partners of his choice are sexually satisfying. His physician has identified no impairment.

The man is satisfied. His partners are satisfied. His physician is satisfied. What's the problem?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Let's be clear: The man himself experiences rewarding sexual stimulation via his penis. Both masturbation and intercourse with the partners of his choice are sexually satisfying. His physician has identified no impairment.

The man is satisfied. His partners are satisfied. His physician is satisfied. What's the problem?

You responded to my illustration by totally erasing it and substituting one where everything is 100% a-ok.

At this point perhaps I should just say thank you for being so helpful in making my point?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

I can truthfully say I have - until you asked - never considered your penis

"Truthfully"? That's a special kind of lie you're telling, Darat.

 

[Darat]

"Truthfully"? That's a special kind of lie you're telling, Darat.

Oh don't be such a silly-billy. I hadn't until the post you asked me about whether your penis bothered me considered your "personal" penis, prior to that I was just making a general comment about circumcised penises - if you want it to be about your particular penis you will have to provide me with an experience of your penis.

 

[theprestige]

You responded to my illustration by totally erasing it and substituting one where everything is 100% a-ok.

At this point perhaps I should just say thank you for being so helpful in making my point?

What was your point, exactly? That men with fully functional penises would somehow be unable to admit that their penis wasn't fully functional? Your illustration makes no sense in the context of this thread.

 

[3point14]

For me, the acceptable number of bits to chop off a fully functioning baby is zero.

For those here who believe that number is greater than zero, can I ask if you think it stops at just one?

What I'm asking is if anyone who thinks that MGM is okay thinks that it's okay to chop off any other bits of one's baby and iff so, which bits?

If the answer is only one, why that one bit specifically? Why no others?

 

[Darat]

What was your point, exactly? That men with fully functional penises would somehow be unable to admit that their penis wasn't fully functional? Your illustration makes no sense in the context of this thread.

It is a fact that a circumcised penis is not a "fully functional" penis since a functional part of the penis* has been removed.


*NB: This is a comment about circumcised penises in general not your particular penis.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What was your point, exactly? That men with fully functional penises would somehow be unable to admit that their penis wasn't fully functional? Your illustration makes no sense in the context of this thread.

Well, momentarily at least, I'm quite fascinated that a completely fictitious non-functional penis (fabricated as part of a humorously exaggerated rant) cannot be acknowledged as such.

Which actually goes a great deal further in demonstrating why this conversation doesn't get much traction than the silly little scenario itself did.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

For me, the acceptable number of bits to chop off a fully functioning baby is zero.

For those here who believe that number is greater than zero, can I ask if you think it stops at just one?

What I'm asking is if anyone who thinks that MGM is okay thinks that it's okay to chop off any other bits of one's baby and iff so, which bits?

If the answer is only one, why that one bit specifically? Why no others?

I would also ask - "And is the number also based on the sex of the child?"

 

[Darat]

Well, momentarily at least, I'm quite fascinated that a completely fictitious non-functional penis (fabricated as part of a humorously exaggerated rant) cannot be acknowledged as such.

Which actually goes a great deal further in demonstrating why this conversation doesn't get much traction than the silly little scenario itself did.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

It would seem that theprestige wants this to be only about his particular penis and not a more general discussion about circumcision so perhaps he is struggling to relate to your scenario.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It would seem that theprestige wants this to be only about his particular penis and not a more general discussion about circumcision so perhaps he is struggling to relate to your scenario.

So I think I can boil this down to 2 points:

On the subject of penises,

1. My penis is fine.

2. We will discuss my penis and only my penis.

Certainly one can see how the intersection of these guiding principles can limit the possible trajectory of the conversation.

Now, let's try to have a societal discussion about it and get about 100 million+ adult males to share their opinions.

Not gonna happen.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[sadhatter]

Not even remotely. Keep talking to me about my penis. I'll tell you when you've said enough.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

If we are realizing its cruel to modify animals without consent, I'm sure we will eventually realize the same rights should be given to children. I mean have, but then again I can look at the issue logically.

 

[sadhatter]

Of course I dont believe in the events in the bible or even in s concept of a god. My justification doesn't come from the bible. It comes from a desire to strengthen their cultural and familial bonds.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

And you couldn't think of a single better option?

That's some limited thinking right there.

As well, where do you live in which the greeting between men is to whip out their penis?

"Hey bill"

*unzips*

"Oh **** your from 4th Ave too awesome! "

Just doesn't happen around these parts, pun intended.

 

[sadhatter]

https://youtu.be/xWTogNdV4lE

I really feel like most men could be sitting in their doctor's office while it is explained to them their penis turned gangrenous and died and most would impulsively shoot back, "What? That's crazy doc, everything's fine. My wife says we're having the best sex in years, too. My 3 side chicks, also. Oh yeah, I got hoes everywhere because, as I said, clearly nothing wrong down there! Thanks for the checkup, see ya."

Totally.

It's that mixed worth a healthy dose of "we didn't wear seat belts in my day and im fine".

But what about those who don't feel that way? Shouldn't everyone be able to make an informed choice in regards to permanent unnecessary surgery? I have a body full of tattoos, so do most of my friends, I'd never in a million years think that I had the right to give one to my child so they can fit in.

And to put a point on it, a rice sized tattoo would have a lot less risk, and be more easily reversed. Still this would be morally repugnant to me.