What's A Little Nick?
Mark Steyn writes in the OC Reg about how easy it's gotten for Muslims to turn our society into one of theirs:
Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians (Amy: Pediatrics, actually) noted that certain, ahem, "immigrant communities" were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo "female genital mutilation." So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They're not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a "ritual nick" to young girls.A few years back, I thought even fainthearted Western liberals might draw the line at "FGM." After all, it's a key pillar of institutional misogyny in Islam: Its entire purpose is to deny women sexual pleasure.
True, many of us hapless Western men find we deny women sexual pleasure without even trying, but we don't demand genital mutilation to guarantee it. On such slender distinctions does civilization rest.
Der Spiegel, an impeccably liberal magazine, summed up the remorseless Islamization of Europe in a recent headline: "How Much Allah Can The Old Continent Bear?" Well, what's wrong with a little Allah-lite? The AAP thinks you can hop on the Sharia express and only ride a couple of stops. In such ostensibly minor concessions, the "ritual nick" we're performing is on ourselves. Further cuts will follow.
P.S. Judaism-driven, non-medically necessary circumcision of boys is also barbaric, and should not be allowed.
Part of the issue is that most people haven't had a decent sex-ed class that explains the biology that goes into sex.
It took me years to get the knowledge of what I'm missing. Where I work, the majority of the crowd is women, and somehow they got into a discussion of cut/uncut guys. I explained to them I don't know what I'm missing, but commented about it would be the equivalent of a clitoridectomy of an infant girl. Two of the younger ladies didn't even really know what I was talking about. I had to explain what a clitoris was. And one of the ladies was a mother of several children.
Jim P. at May 16, 2010 4:14 AM
My girls (ages 3, 6, and 6) already know what a clitoris, vulva, and vagina are, and WHERE they are on them. And that touching the clitoris feels good, but it's a private activity that we only do in the bathroom or bedroom.
I am APPALLED by the AAP, and am writing everyone I can think of to protest this. Do these people not understand that allowing others to do this to their daughters is racist? Children of other religions deserve protecting too!
momof4 at May 16, 2010 5:15 AM
Un-fucking-believable. I would bet as this makes news amongst the medical community it will be promptly reversed.
grrrrrrrrrr.......
Eric at May 16, 2010 7:20 AM
You know, if people want to do clitoredectimies, rings around their necks, foot binding, lip plates, etc, then I say... let them.
In their own countries.
There is no reason to bring the practice here.
If as an adult a woman wants her clit nicked, removed, pierced, tattooed... let her. When she's of age.
It is absolutely NOT ok to bring these practices against children to our country.
NicoleK at May 16, 2010 8:28 AM
I have been sitting here trying to figure out why the presumably educated leadership of a heretofore respected professional medical organization would come out with such a statement. The only reason that makes any sense is one used to explain the reticence of journalists around the world to defend the publication of the Mohammed cartoons. Quite simply, these people are physically afraid of the repercussions of not going along with anything violent groups in general, and radical Islamic groups in particular, want them to.
(I understand that FCM is not universal in Islam, but it is practiced in a very large subset of it. And it is certainly of a piece with the general Koranic attitudes about women and their second-class status.)
If it is true, as I suspect, that these (largely) men are putting personal physical safety and security concerns ahead of the torture and mutilation of millions of women worldwide, then I truly regret living in a world where I have to share breathing air and common living space with such despicable subhuman cowards.
If anyone can advance another credible reason as to why the AAP would promulgate such a barbaric position, I'd love to hear it.
cpabroker at May 16, 2010 8:32 AM
The first doctor that does this should be charged either with sexual abuse of a minor or medical malpractice for performing an unnecessary operation.
Steamer at May 16, 2010 8:52 AM
While I agree that removing the foreskins of baby boys is barbaric, I don't think it's nearly as bad as FCM. While I don't know what I'm missing by not having a foreskin, I don't think it has diminished my ability to enjoy sex, which is what FCM does to girls.
I think if non-Muslims started acting as terrorists towards the Muslims the same way that they act towards us, the Muslims would change their tune. Right now we seem to be in a one sided ideological war, with the Muslims waging it. If the pricks publicly calling for violence against non-Muslims started having the same violence done toward them, we might avoid having to eventually nuke them.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at May 16, 2010 9:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/16/whats_a_little.html#comment-1716253">comment from William (wbhicks@hotmail.com)While I agree that removing the foreskins of baby boys is barbaric, I don't think it's nearly as bad as FCM.
Agree, William, but it's still non-medically necessary surgery. It supposedly cuts down on the feeling in the penis. Not a good thing. Nor is any non-medically necessary surgery on an unconsenting person. Let kids grow up and decide whether they want to have their clits or parts of their penis removed. (I'm sure they'll get loads of takers.)
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2010 9:04 AM
Along the lines of what I just said, if some people grabbed the 'father' who just had his daughter mutilated and cut the head of his dick off, and if this happened regularly, I think they would stop doing it.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at May 16, 2010 9:05 AM
Whatever happened to "first, do no harm"?
The goatfuckers who hack off little girls' clits to "keep them pure" are the same sort of people as those who toss acid into little girls' faces to keep them from learning to read & write. Perhaps the next step for the AAP will be to offer Muslim immigrants the option of a "ritual splash" of vinegar in their daughter's eyes.
Martin at May 16, 2010 9:05 AM
The docs are just hedging their bets. If it becomes more tolerable, they can make more money like with circumcision on boys. If they were smart, they'd start tossing out factoids that cliterctomies reduce STDS. Snip the tips of boys and girls! Cut down on HIV and HPV! Hey, if girls and boys have less feeling down there, they're less likely to fornicate. Hell, that would help reduce healthcare costs too!
Sio at May 16, 2010 10:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/16/whats_a_little.html#comment-1716266">comment from SioOn the other hand, if we could increase ability to fornicate in Muslim countries, we might decrease the number of mass murderers going for the 72 virgins (which may or may not be mistranslated, and actually be 72 white raisins, and no word on whether there will be a bowl of bran and some 2 percent milk to go with).
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2010 10:28 AM
Amy, you don't increase the horror of male circumcision, you diminish the power of the word "barbaric".
This will (almost literally) bite you on the ass, and in this same context. If it really meant so much to you, lurid language wouldn't be necessary... No one has to go over-the-top to discuss clitoridectomy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 16, 2010 10:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/16/whats_a_little.html#comment-1716269">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Any surgical procedure has the potential for a disastrous outcome. Mutilating boys because "god" supposedly said so IS barbaric and primitive -- although female circumcision is vastly worse.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2010 10:43 AM
Without getting into the debate about whether circumcision should be allowed (we've had that conversation elsewhere), it's misleading to call it "Judaism-driven." True, it has its origins in Judaism, but the vast majority of parents who had it performed on their babies (at least in the U.S.) were not Jewish. Most of them believed (rightly or wrongly) that there were health benefits to the practice.
Also, Jews have no religious reason to want non-Jews to be circumcised.
Rex Little at May 16, 2010 11:28 AM
> Mutilating boys because "god" supposedly
> said so IS barbaric and primitive --
First of all, don't be promiscuous with quotation marks. If you're quoting someone, tell us who.
Second, don't be stingy with capitalization. The Big G is a globally-respected, historically-grounded standard in the English language. Again, it's a way of letting everyone know Who you're talking about. (And if you're secure in your cosmology, there's no reason to take offense at this implicit grandeur.)
Third, and this is the big one, whining about these practices in the same breath conveys the morally blind teenage resentments of a pinky-extended Cotillion-tard who wants to call somebody, ANYBODY, "barbaric"... As if you're not serious about it, and are just trying to make social distance from others.
There's almost never a genuine need to do that on this planet. The distance between us all is built-in.
> female circumcision is vastly worse.
Right. So vastly so as to be incomparable. So don't let the word summon both topics.
Crid at May 16, 2010 11:33 AM
Crid if I stab you with a knife in the hand or I stab your heart, they are both stabbings.
They may not be the same in scale but they are exactly the same in type.
As for people taking their kids out if the country to do this. Dont we have a state department? It issuse passports, keeps track of who leaves the country and where they go.
How about anyone traveling to a country wher FGM is practiced has to submit to a medical examination on their return. If they have had it done revoke their citizenship, send them back and seize all of they assets still within US jurisdiction.
.
Belives love to suffer for their faith, so lets make sre they suffer consequences for practicing it
lujlp at May 16, 2010 12:09 PM
> Crid if I stab you with a knife
> in the hand or I stab your heart,
> they are both stabbings.
Childish. Blind. STUPID.
Crid at May 16, 2010 12:12 PM
Really? so would you call one a stabbibg and one a kitten then?
lujlp at May 16, 2010 12:34 PM
Do we really want the TSA \ ICE pulling little girls and young women out of line to see if they still have a clitoris? And I'm totally with Crid on this- comparing the two is ludicrous, and detracts from how irresponsible the AAP has revealed itself to be. Heads should roll.
Eric at May 16, 2010 12:50 PM
> one a stabbibg and one a kitten
North Korea willfully starves its citizens such that they're six inches shorter than those of neighbor nations.
Your next door neighbor won't let the kids eat candy before dinner.
Therefore, Lou, your next-door neighbor is a reprehensible dictator just like Kim Jong-Il, a murderous, terror-mongering control freak who's the enemy of all that is just and decent.
And you shouldn't deny it, because THESE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
And proportion is for wimps. Right?
Crid at May 16, 2010 1:21 PM
Crid you are being stupid, and noe just plain stupid, FUCKING stupid. One parent not letting a child eat refined sugar is not the same as starving an entire nation.
Removing tissiue from the genitals of a male child for no good reason is exaclty the same as removing tissiue from a the gentials female child.
A match, a candle, a campfire and a forestfire - they are all fire, the only difference is scale
lujlp at May 16, 2010 1:28 PM
I have to agree with crid.
Circumcision is stupid, pointless, and (nearly always) inconsequential.
FGM is intended to control women, and often has serious ancillary consequences. It is the height (well, one of them anyway) of idiocy for the AAP to consider any manifestation of the practice with anything other than derision.
Hey Skipper at May 16, 2010 1:31 PM
> Removing tissiue from the genitals of a
> male child for no good reason is
> exaclty the same as removing tissiue
> from a the gentials female child.
Sell, it kitten... Get out there and sell it to everyone you meet. Sell it without shame. Sell it as the work of your best self. Sell it with all the weeping sincerity in your dear heart!
And let us know how it works out... We might have moved on to other projects and forgotten the backstory, so you might have to remind us.
("Removing tissue" sounds just like "Denial of foodstuffs"....)
Crid at May 16, 2010 2:10 PM
I mean, EAR WAX is a tissue, and it's just one of the things responsible parents take from their children. Toenails come also to mind.
Crid at May 16, 2010 2:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/16/whats_a_little.html#comment-1716300">comment from CridI mean, EAR WAX is a tissue, and it's just one of the things responsible parents take from their children. Toenails come also to mind.
Excess ear wax impairs hearing. Four-inch toenails can get caught and cause the child injury.
But, thanks for trying!
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2010 2:33 PM
Get back to me Crid after you've had scars on that area of your anatomy that will be there for life due to circumcision. I sure don't remember running my wang across a cheese grater. It isn't the end of the world and I still function normally but that doesn't make it right.
Ignoring the religious angle for a moment, lets look at the social one. Which is what many of the PC/multicultural crowd in the west do with Islam and FGM. Its a "social custom" not inherent of Islam itself but occurs in many Islamic nations as part of their culture. It is barbaric they say.
Yet in the west, we have folks who snip the tips of their sons' wangs off because well, it looks prettier, oh and maybe some health benefits (for women and the spread of HPV and HIV). Thats a social issue is it not? The "its all about looks" argument. "Well, I don't want him to look different than his daddy or the other boys in the locker room".
How is that not just as barbaric? Simply because boys can usually still function sexually and enjoy it? Women who went thru FGM can usually function enough to have kids, right?
We have women screaming from the roof tops about FGM, and how dare these evil misogynistic patriarchal Muslim men-pigs do this to their daughters! Then they turn around and have no problem cutting into their son's sex organ for looks or trumped up possible health benefits. Not even for a covenant with God, just a "the bare helmet look is in this fall!" belief.
Toenails and ear wax... yeah cause my foreskin grew back all on its own just like ear wax and my toe/finger nails.
Sio at May 16, 2010 2:39 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/16/whats_a_little.html#comment-1716304">comment from SioP.S. Ear wax isn't a "tissue," it's an excretion.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2010 2:48 PM
TMI? Well, you asked... I HAVE such a scar, as do most of my contemporaries, with vanishingly small effects on the outcome of my life (beyond absent fear of stenosis). The "scar" is the point.
(So to speak. [I'm here all week! Two shows Saturday! Try the veal!])
> thanks for trying!
SELL IT, ALKON. GO AHEAD. PRETEND THIS PART AND PARCEL OF YOUR COMPASSION FOR WOMEN IN TORTUROUS CIRCUMSTANCES... IT'S ALL THE SAME! IT'S ALL THE SAME! YOU'RE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY HEARTLESS MONSTERS! VIPERS AT EVERY TURN! TRUST NO ONE...!
Exactly how far does this fantasy of self as Angel of Miraculous Insight extend?
Golly, without your compelling brilliance and superhumanly nuanced pattern-matching, how would humanity ever find its way? Circumcision = Circumcision!
You fuckers is nuts.
Crid at May 16, 2010 2:59 PM
Besides—
> Ear wax isn't a "tissue," it's an excretion.
Wordplay. Cells in suspending material.
Didja hear about that guy who paid man to take out his son's appendix? Cut right in the kid, with knives and everything. A real rat bastard, was he.
Crid at May 16, 2010 3:02 PM
Well crid, heres a question for you. As most forms of FGM dont involve the destruction of the clit(FGM varies as little as pin pricks, to a full cliterectomy and everything inbetween) why do you consider ALL FMG to be barbaric?
Given your bizzare adherence to some vague "real dammage" scale, why arent you argueing that most FGM is less invasive and less damaging the male circumcision as that is the case?
lujlp at May 16, 2010 3:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/16/whats_a_little.html#comment-1716310">comment from CridDidja hear about that guy who paid man to take out his son's appendix? Cut right in the kid, with knives and everything. A real rat bastard, was he.
Crid, you're better than this. Appendix removal isn't done because the 12 tribes had a long walk in the desert but because the kid will likely die without it.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2010 3:24 PM
Incedentally crid stenois is a narrowing of blood vessels - having a ring of skin riped of the tip of your dick wont prevent it
lujlp at May 16, 2010 3:27 PM
*walks in munching on popcorn*
Feebie at May 16, 2010 3:32 PM
> Given your bizzare adherence to some
> vague "real dammage" scale
Quotation marks. Have I mentioned this before? Why
yes">http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22quotation+marks%22+%2Bcrid+site%3Awww.advicegoddess.com%2Farchives&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=d059ab474882bfe2">yes, I have. In this very thread, even.
Who are you quoting?
Especially if it's "vague"?
> as that is the case?
I'm supposed to ask 'says who', allowing you to post the link to some similarly neurotic (and but healthy) bachelor, etc. But man, it's a beautiful afternoon! There just isn't time!
Listen, Lou, the lesson for today is that you have to trust your feelings about this. So now, you go be a-talkin' to everyone you meet about it, so our silent holocaust can be concluded. Do this! Go go go! Use inflammatory language, indistinct rhetoric, moral equivalence... Everything you got.
Crid at May 16, 2010 3:46 PM
Sorry about the HTML, I was distracted by a waft of butter-flavoring.
Crid at May 16, 2010 3:47 PM
Forgive me, Crid, as I may have missed this in one of your flowery posts-but are you AGAINST the AAP decision? If so, why? They recommend a pinprick and a drop of blood. Certainly less than males go through. So, then, why NOT this little concession to multiculti brotherhood?
momof4 at May 16, 2010 4:14 PM
It's not just the act of FGM that's evil, it's the idea behind it. Parents who do this to their daughters believe that girls, unlike boys, are born uniquely sinful & filthy, and so their genitals must be butchered to deny them sexual pleasure, or else they will grow up & do something shameful, and then they will have to be tortured to death to preserve the family honor.
The AAP is claiming that by offering such parents a milder, safer form of FGM, they will reduce the practice of more savage varieties. This won't work, because by offering their "ritual nick", they are endorsing the evil reasoning behind FGM - yes, girls must be punished for being female & denied sexual pleasure to keep them pure. Why is a prestigious 21st century Western medical organization giving their stamp of approval to Stone Age barbarism? Why are they lobbying for the abolition of laws that protect children from harm? If they don't put the protection of children from harm first, what is the point of the AAP's existence?
The notion that God wants foreskins removed as a sign of a covenant with him is ludicrous to me & everyone else who doesn't believe it, but it is not intended as punishment. It doesn't have the same implications. If doctors say it's OK to punish girls for being girls & being able to enjoy sex, they will never be able to stop Muslim parents from gouging out their daughter's genitals for that very purpose.
Martin at May 16, 2010 5:54 PM
"*walks in munching on popcorn*" - Feebie, if this had been a movie, you would have missed the best part.
"You fuckers is nuts." Look in the mirror, Crid.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at May 16, 2010 6:34 PM
To me, this is scary in that it shows how much immigrants change the culture. Some changes are good. This one is not.
There are parts of France where native French girls, who are unlucky enough to not be of the bourgeoisie, get harassed for not wearing headscarves to school. Since they are the minority in their particular neighborhoods, they face a lot of hassle.
We need to think hard before we let immigrants change our culture. Not saying they should never change the culture, but we need to think about it first.
NicoleK at May 16, 2010 6:40 PM
> I may have missed this in one of
> your flowery posts-but are you
> AGAINST the AAP decision?
Goddamit, my flowers are NO EXCUSE! If you don't understand something I've written, you're expected to read it again and again, over and over, until you darned well DO understand! Now, are we clear about that?
OK.
So. There I was... Wilshire Boulevard, last Wednesday afternoon... Getting my haircut at that nearby shop, the one full of gruff but lovable Russians... They don't really have an eye for style, but they're cheap, and nowadays I gots more poverty than vanity.
So I'm settling into the chair, and the guy has an LCD tv on the counter that's showing a Russian sitcom. Well, this is Los Angeles, and we have little TV stations which chew through all kinds of ethnicities over the course of a broadcast day. (Apparently the best and most-watched Persian programming in the world comes out of our San Fernando Valley.) And while broadcast licenses aren't the treasures that they used to be, I hadn't heard of station in California that catered directly to the Russian market.
So I ask him about it. And because he's an immigrant, he doesn't understand, and thinks I want to watch something else, so he switches the channel. And I say no-no-no, that's fine, I was just asking where the station comes from?... And I deploy a fusillade of goofy hand gestures and funky pronunciations to make myself understood.
And he glumly mutters "Sahhteelite" as he switches the station back and picks up his shears. (The sitcom is American in everything but language and budget, as derivative as the old Commie shuttle. It has wacky neighbors, busty young women, smartass children, canned laughter, and exterior-zoom scene changes under five-second musical cues in which the last note dies a slow, transitional death.)
But I was reminded of...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 16, 2010 10:11 PM
But I was reminded of the opening minutes of this Bay & Dunnigan podcast from a few years ago. (Note also that Claire Berlinki, who also made an appearance on Amy's blog this weekend, is mentioned in this show, having appeared in a recent one.) Paraphrase: In olden days, people would immigrate to the United States and that was that. Maybe they'd be pissed off that their kids were suddenly so disrespectful, but there wasn't much to do about it... Those kids were absorbing American culture at the full speed of their own desires, which is pretty fuckin' fast. Even the most ethnically pure neighborhoods were at risk for economic, sexual, and cultural intrusion.
Not anymore. Electronic communication means that your kids in America can spend their lives soaking in the primitivism you theoretically sought to escape when you came here. Same language, same music, same storytelling (with the same shitty morals), same news networks... And even frequent conversations with the same family members, people to whom you'd have said a permanent goodbye in olden times. And not only that— International air travel is despicably cheap. If you wanna recharge your old-country enthusiasm, all you need is a couple days off from work.
Know what I hate about human nature? Its presumption that if one can just get a seat at the Big Chair, all the policies which make life unpleasant can be made to go away... As if policy were the problem. This takes two forms in this discussion:
• Form one: The immigrants think they can come here and adjust to American culture only as much as they want to, yet still enjoy American achievement... As if the previous people who came to this country never thought of doing that, but were too weak-hearted to maintain their old ways.
• Form two: Dork-minded intellectual collectives like the AAP have this fantasy that the challenges of assimilation can be made pleasant by forcing people to be patient with each other's idiosyncrasies.
These twin stupidities are based on a twisted appreciation of how immigrant life has worked in America: People go to New York and see Irish neighborhoods and Chinese neighborhoods and Italian neighborhoods and black neighborhoods and they assume everybody's still doing their own thing. This is not true. Read any memoir of growing up in the melting pot, and you'll see that most of the stories are about how all these different cultures beat the shit out of each other and felt up each other's sisters, sometimes quite literally. It's not like each ethnic heritage was formally offered a blank chapter of our national heritage to fill in as it saw fit. This was a competition, and the competitors were free to steal practices from each other, even while older competitors held disproportionate power and steered the outcome.
So let's talk clitoridectomy.
Sorry, you can't do that here, and any part of our culture (including the deeply educated medical sector) which makes allowances for it deserves our scorn.
You needn't bother to whine that the Jews are permitted to continue their "barbaric" practices... We won't listen to this shit. Judaism –not only as practiced in New York– was a big part of this miracle, as was the Christian work ethic. We're running the shop we want to run. And in the American shop, we don't want to be bothered with your individual whining about how fate done you wrong.
And Lou & Sio, that includes your wankers, which one of you at least will concede is working satisfactorily. To piggyback these trivial matters to the suffering caused by clitoridectomy is fraudulent and infantile. You wanna make your case, make your case. If nobody cares, maybe it's because it's not worth worrying about.
I was complimented on the haircut once Saturday and twice today.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 16, 2010 10:17 PM
> you're better than this.
Oh, get OVER YOURSELF.
> Look in the mirror
And bring him along.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 16, 2010 10:18 PM
Oh, plenty of folks are making their case Crid and from what I've read lately, the practice is falling out of favor. It won't happen to any sons I may father, same with any daughters. God help the woman/doctor/person who tried.
Anyway, far be it for me to interrupt your hypocrisy on the matter Crid. Keep on caring for the female over the male (its just a flesh wound! except when they miss and turn the boy into a girl for social science!). Plenty of folks worry about some individuals whining about how fate done them wrong these days and crap all over others. I wouldn't be surprised if the Doc's went with this because they see the dollar signs in performing "nicks" on young girls.
Sio at May 16, 2010 11:12 PM
Oh, and a tip to the puritan, victorian, man (self) hating types who thought it might cut down on men flogging the bishop, it didn't work.
Perhaps instead of cutting clits and dicks to prevent slutty behavior, we stop letting 8-9 year olds dance routines to pop music bumping and grinding in tiny outfits.
Sio at May 16, 2010 11:19 PM
> from what I've read lately, the practice is
> falling out of favor
Fine. Let it. It's a minor matter.
> Keep on caring for the female over the male
Yeah, I meant to cover that argument but forgot. A lot of this really seems like a sixth-grader's resentments about how one gender has an easier time of it than the other. Adult life has more important tasks than engaging these arguments...
And it sure shouldn't be about making everything nice and indistinguishable and tit-for-tat, which is what I was getting at with (historically) Jewish practices versus (demented) Islamic practices. The world is as complicated as it needs to be, and Amy's and Lou's enthusiasm for mindless simplicity is reprehensible. I think it's MORALLY WRONG to consider the different practices described by the word "circumcision" as being of a piece. And when Lou says "the only difference is scale", he means it... He's quite willing to get in there and fuck with people's lives on the basis of such a stupidity.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the Doc's went with
> this because they see the dollar signs in
> performing "nicks" on young girls.
Yeah, it's a planet of treachery, ain't it? Vipers everywhere. The western world never gave anybody a break.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 16, 2010 11:28 PM
Rule Number 4 of the Internet:
NEVER get involved in a thread about circumcision.
Ben-David at May 17, 2010 12:23 AM
This from the guy who rants about 'bugcatchers'?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 17, 2010 6:19 AM
Crid, both practices are to crub sexuailty, bith practices are prefomed on the genitals, both practices involve the destruction, removal, or modification of nerve ending in the sex organs and yet you claim they are completely disimilar?
Did you have a stroke or something? You are ususally far more rational.
Also the only difference between "historically) Jewish practices versus (demented) Islamic practices" is the ethnocentric lens of the first pracice being a part of 'your' culture.
Most FGM causes less nerve damage then medical circumcisions, and yet you still veiw it as demented. You keep dancing aroun the question so I'll ask it again.
Given most FGM causes less damage then circumcision why do you still find it so horrible as to be uncomparable to male circumcision?
Or is it simply that fact that its done be people who dont look like, speak like, or worship like you? Is that really all it is?
lujlp at May 17, 2010 6:55 AM
> both practices are to crub sexuailty,
STOP IT.
Also, use spellcheck.
But mostly, STOP IT.
You are piggybacking your petty, neurotic obsessions on the suffering of the truly oppressed.
This isn't an admirable thing for grown men to do.
Crid at May 17, 2010 7:40 AM
"The AAP is claiming that by offering such parents a milder, safer form of FGM, they will reduce the practice of more savage varieties. This won't work, because by offering their 'ritual nick', they are endorsing the evil reasoning behind FGM"
I totally agree with Martin on this. It's like the teenage reasoning that goes "I'm going to shoplift this, but it's only one item, so it's OK." Once you've convinced yourself that you're sufficiently special to do a little bit, there's nothing standing in the way of more.
However, this is not particularly surprising coming from the AAP. The dirty little secret about the AAP and the other medical professional organizations is that they've been circling the leftist drain for a long time. Go over to Dr. Helen's archives and check out her opinion of the APA.
Cousin Dave at May 17, 2010 8:14 AM
Here's Hitch on Cspan yesterday. Many relevant thoughts.
Crid at May 17, 2010 9:08 AM
And who said I missed the best part of the movie...?
(But I would like to ditto Ben-David's sentiments)
Feebie at May 17, 2010 9:39 AM
Too late! You're IN! Besides, which kind is off the table, the male kind or the female kind?
Crid at May 17, 2010 10:00 AM
@Crid:
The Male kind. I don't really have a pecker, so I couldn't really say.
I do not however, think comparing Islamic FGM can be placed anywhere near that of male circumcision. After reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel, I don't know of *any* medically unnecessary procedure more brutal to put a child through.
There have been arguments that foreskins can cause infections, and I really couldn't say if that is true or not. I don't know. However, the main reason behind removing the clitoris is not about hygiene (perceived or not) or status. It is about control. And it is done, not while the child is in their first few DAYS/Months of life when they may not remember it. It is done well after that. It is intended to strike fear in their hearts and cause them as much pain as possible. As if to say "YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THIS EVER". To me, does not fall within the same category.
Just brutal.
Feebie at May 17, 2010 10:16 AM
"and it is done, not while the child is in their first few DAYS/Months of life when they may not remember it. "
Causing pain to a newborn is less reprehensible? Is it just because they can't say "Hey mom, this hurts like a motherfucker" or is there some deeper reason?
momof4 at May 17, 2010 10:41 AM
''There have been arguments that foreskins can cause infections, and I really couldn't say if that is true or not.''
Untrue. Or else there's millions of European men running around with gangrene in their privates.
Kendra at May 17, 2010 10:42 AM
"And who said I missed the best part of the movie...?"
Dang straight! I almost didn't read this thread, knowing what it would wind up being about. But anytime there's a Luj/Crid catfight, well, it sure beats working!
old rpm daddy at May 17, 2010 10:53 AM
I do not however, think comparing Islamic FGM can be placed anywhere near that of male circumcision. - Feebie
Nobody does, aside from the few guys and parents who've had major complications.
But while nobody thinks a raging forest fire and a candle are compareable in the amount of damage they do, no one denysthey are both fire.
And crid? MAn up and answer the fucking question, your managing to dnce back and forth on the knifes edge(pun not intended) spouting a lot of crap without acctually commiting to anything.
You say FMG is not comparable, even though many forms are less invase and destructive then circumcision, you hinted in your scarcastic rant to Sio tha its not the fact that omen are subjects of gential cuting that is your problem with the practice.
We all agree that the forms of FGM that destroy the clit are worse then circumcision. But given your 'no harm, no foul' position on male circumcsion, why are you not endorseing this move by the AAP as it will not cuae any nerve damage and infact cause less damage to genital tissue then male circumcision which you say you have no problem with?
Out with it Crid, no meandering verbous speeches which say much but mean little.
Why are you oppsed to the forms of FGM that cause less physical and emotional trauma then male circumcison?
lujlp at May 17, 2010 10:57 AM
"Causing pain to a newborn is less reprehensible? Is it just because they can't say "Hey mom, this hurts like a motherfucker" or is there some deeper reason?"
I didn't say that now did, I? A deeper reason? How 'bout to piss YOU off?
Am I remembering this correctly...you were for male circumcision before you were against it, right? Making up for lost time? Over compensating? Do tell.
Bottom line, female circumcision is FAR FAR FAR more brutal than what is done to males. (BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH MALE CIRCUMCISION EITHER). But to somehow put them as proportionately equal is really kooky.
mmm'kay, Mom?
Feebie at May 17, 2010 11:01 AM
Ya'll a bunch of idiots.
Crusader at May 17, 2010 12:01 PM
"Am I remembering this correctly...you were for male circumcision before you were against it, right?"
Nah hon, I think that may be LS. The female cirmcumcision we're talking 'bout here is -literally- a pinprick. No tissue removal, a flu shot for the clit, so to speak. M'kay Feebs? NOT FAR FAR FAR more brutal.
I have no time to make up being against harming the genitals of others of any age. I've been there all along.
momof4 at May 17, 2010 12:12 PM
It was LS? Ahhkay, I stand corrected.
"Nah hon, I think that may be LS. The female cirmcumcision we're talking 'bout here is -literally- a pinprick."
A pinprick? Uhhhh, we'll agree to disagree. I've read and seen otherwise.
Feebie at May 17, 2010 12:25 PM
"Untrue. Or else there's millions of European men running around with gangrene in their privates." Actually very much true. The infection are usually quite minor and are readily fixed with proper hygiene, or in some cases creams. If you are un-snipped you can get a yeast infection as a VD, which really sucks. You can also get a build up of dead skin cells in there that will smell but all really easy to fix with a shower and some soap. There is no medical reason to get snipped.
As far as promiscuity issues and self gratification. I know plenty of guys who are snipped and wack off constantly, or at least talk about it a lot.
There is no way in hell that getting snipped and FGM are even close. At least no the generally accepted "full" version. A slightly reduced sensitivity and pain during all sex? How are these comparable?
vlad at May 17, 2010 12:46 PM
"A slightly reduced sensitivity and pain during all sex? How are these comparable?"
It's wacky I tell ya!
Feebie at May 17, 2010 12:57 PM
"bout here is -literally- a pinprick." No it's a nick, and there is a really big difference. One tiny nick in the right spot can kill the nerve endings just as effectively as hacking the whole thing off. A pin prick could technically have the same effect but it's a hell of a lot harder to get right and less likely to be permanent.
From a basic human right perspective all of this should be outlawed on children. Also tattoos, brand and ritual scarification. Anything that will not fade completely by itself with time should not be permitted to be done to any who are not consenting adults.
vlad at May 17, 2010 2:03 PM
Feel the equity ladies. :)
http://www.youtube.com/v/qsqEyGdLh8I
Joe at May 17, 2010 4:06 PM
> MAn up and answer the fucking
> question
Yeah... do that. Get all self-righteous and demand that total strangers feel your pain. Demand it of them! Take control of the dialogue! Speak truth to power! Attica! ATTICA!!
> Why are you oppsed to the forms
> of FGM that cause less physical
> and emotional trauma then
> male circumcison?
Because there's no reason to think there are any, because even if there were their implications for broad social comity would be intolerable, and because I believe you're being, like, a total dorkasaures. I've said all those things before in this thread. YOu want another round?
Crid at May 17, 2010 4:44 PM
no comparison male to female, and I have absolutely no problem enjoying sex without the old foreskin. I haven't perused porn for awhhile but I dn not remember any male porn stars who were not clipped, so it must look more appealing
ron at May 17, 2010 4:52 PM
Also, I bitterly resent ORD's description of this discussion as a "catfight".
This emasculating language is not only vulgar and personally offense in and of itself... Word choices like that directly coarsen the very gender sensibilities we all seek to hone in these comment stacks.
The proper description of this thread is "bitchfest".
Crid at May 17, 2010 4:59 PM
"A pinprick? Uhhhh, we'll agree to disagree. I've read and seen otherwise."
Did you even read the AAP article?? We're not talking clitorectomies here.
momof4 at May 17, 2010 5:36 PM
Momof4, it is clear that he didn't. There are clearly forms of FGM which are less extensive than MGM. The AAP clearly stated that in the statement itself.
Joe at May 17, 2010 5:44 PM
"Momof4, it is clear that he didn't."
He? HEEE?!?! Take that back, dammit! I'm a girl!
There is lasting damage after the procedure that affects these women in a MAJOR way, for the REST OF THEIR LIVES!!! Permanently impacts them in a MAJOR WAY. And that is just the physical effects.
Then there is the physiological affects. Clitoral "nicks" prevent or in some cases minimize a womans ability to achieve orgasms (and probably never multiples). Orgasms do a great deal of good for a woman's hormone balance and mental health (depression, anxiety...etc).
This doesn't even go into the oppression they are subjected to on a daily basis in that religion...
I highly doubt if I had a boy I would allow the surgery. Satisfied? But that doesn't make the two apples to apples.
Feebie at May 17, 2010 10:46 PM
Also, more on this.
We are kowtowing to these assholes customs here in the US! First a nick...then what? This is no different than condoning burquas.
They are here to chip away at our customs and culture bit by bit.
How bout this one, NO we won't accommodate your customs and if you ship your daughters over seas to have this ritual performed then you will be imprisoned and your children will be taken away from you. Don't like it? Don't move here.
Feebie at May 17, 2010 10:59 PM
Feebie, you seem to be missing the point most of us are trying to make. Noone thinks any form no matter how small, of FMG should be allowed, even it it were to be reduced to nothing more then snapping it with a rubberband.
The point we are trying to make it that the AAP is suggesting a version on FGM that cause less nerve damage and less physical damage then male circumcision.
The only thing I want to know is if this version of FGM causes less harm then circumcision why do people still find it more objectionable.
Because to me it suggests that the only reason it is opposed to vehemently while circumcision is not is noting more then an ethnocentric view of my cultures barbarism is understandable - theirs is unforgivable.
I agree that no form o FGM of any sort should be allowed, in america, or anywhere on the globe for that matter.
From what I gatheed from your statments you'd object to FGM simply on its basis in religious control over sexuality even if it were to cause no emotional of phyical trauma whatsoever, correct?
What do you think was the driving force behind the male circumcison movment?
Woud you like me to post the pictures that got lovelysoul to change her mind?
lujlp at May 18, 2010 6:06 AM
> The point we are trying to make it that the AAP
> is suggesting a version on FGM that cause
> less nerve damage and less physical damage
> then male circumcision.
And the point we're trying to make is that we don't care. Another point we're trying to make is that you can't make us care, even when you ask us insinuatingly-phrased questions. We have bigger fish to fry than whatever definitions of "nerve damage" or "physical damage" you propose to offer. M'kay? Gruesome photography, while it may gratify you in some some sort of Mel Gibson-film way, is irrelevant.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 18, 2010 6:46 AM
Crid, given the only objection you have given to FGM thus far is that it is practiced by a culture other than yours, you are the one who is irrelevent.
Because your reason for objection suggests that had our ancestores began the practice of FGM and the muslims had created circumcision you would be arguing against circumcision at this point in time.
You dont have a problem with the practice in and of itself, you've made it quite clear you dont care about it being preformed on females or that it can be done in a way that causes less dammage then circumcision, your only problem is that another culture is seeking to practice it here where you live.
Wong is wrong crid, no matter the scale, intended effect, or where it happens.
I'd have thought you would be capable of understanding that
lujlp at May 18, 2010 7:56 AM
> Wong is wrong
Ain't it truth?
> no matter the scale, intended effect,
> or where it happens.
What are you, a sixth-grader? Context is everything. You have no business pretending all the evil in the world is a single gradient which you alone discern, and piggybacking on the suffering of the truly righteous. See also Eric's comment in the Blumenthal thread at the top of the page today. It's a movie thing.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at May 18, 2010 8:14 AM
You know what this? This is "In a sense..."
When a liberal from academe is about to say something just unbelievably stoopid, they begin with the phrase "In a sense..."
In a sense, the offenses suffered by female MBA's in the modern American workplace are just like Mayan slavery of centuries ago. In a sense, the limited mobility of the mentally retarded in the boardrooms of corporate America is a telling exposition of man's inhumanity to man.
Yeah, sure.... When you start disregarding dimensions and proportions, you can say whatever you want. And it's kinda true!
Except that it's not.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at May 18, 2010 9:16 AM
Besides —
> the only objection you have given to
> FGM thus far is that it is practiced
> by a culture other than yours
That's probably not true, but it would be enough! I like my culture more than other cultures. Heck, Lou, by whatever degree we differ (a gulf which grows every day), I strongly prefer my culture to yours. Mine's RIGHT. Yours is WRONG.
But just in case the other posting here along the same lines could be confused by your nonsensical, baseless, transparently disproportionate and desperate flailing arguments, let it be said that I oppose tolerance of FGM for all the reasons they do as well. They're right, too.
Ok, NOW are we done?
Thanks Lou, that was fun. Routine, mundane, but fun... Even Tiger Woods enjoys a game of lawn darts now and then.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at May 18, 2010 9:28 AM
"The only thing I want to know is if this version of FGM causes less harm then circumcision why do people still find it more objectionable."
Why are we capitulating to this? Why should we have to? This is about OPPRESSION OF WOMEN. This is about Sharia type laws. This is about the silent jihad being staged in this country!
This is not an acceptable "cultural" norm here and it should be outlawed. (And not only not the norm - but a practice taken from a political/religious ideology that wants to kill us and oppress its women). If we take their children away or give them hard time they will either 1) not move here or 2) assimilate and get rid of this deplorable tradition. But you give them option #3, a nick. Lovely. Which do you think they will choose then?
Right now, in certain parts of the Middle East, Africa, etc etc girls cannot be married off if this hasn't been performed (FGM). They are permanent spinsters. So out of fear for their daughters well being these will be performed - over and over again until its no longer of use. WEll guess what? This Aint the Middle East, and it ain't Africa either!
When they come to this country we should be saying (ZERO TOLERANCE) "No can do, Habib, you don't like it - leave". Let's put this barbaric custom (which was never an AMERICAN custom) back where it belongs.
I mean, is this how you guys are going to play when Islamic cultures start wanting "harmless" little pieces of Sharia Law observed here? "But we just want the option of having Halal meat somewhere in the building, in addition to the other lunches provided...." Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that.
If we allow the "nicks" what happens when they start insisting on more? Will it be considered religious discrimination not to do maybe two nicks? What about three nicks? Four........ Not to mention what that nick REPRESENTS. (Grrrrr).
Sound far fetched? Well you ask anyone 20 years ago if in their wildest dreams they would have imagined organizations like CAIR - the credibility given to such an organization and the legitimacy given to their lawsuits.
It's more than just a nick folks!
Feebie at May 18, 2010 9:44 AM
I mean, look what happens when someone suggests a Mohammed cartoon drawing contest on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=121369914543425&topic=595
And you can honestly sit there with a straight face and ask me what my problem is with a "nick"? Just read what these fuckers are writing on that page...
Feebie at May 18, 2010 9:57 AM
What do you think was the driving force behind the male circumcison movment?
If by "male circumcision movement" you mean the fact that a majority (85% at its peak in the mid-1970s) of baby boys get circumcised, the driving force isn't religion. Jews are a small minority of the population, practicing religious Jews even smaller, and (as I mentioned in an earlier post) Jews have no religious reason for wanting Gentiles to get cut.
I don't know why non-Jews first started circumcising their baby boys, but it was probably because they thought it would cut down on urinary tract infections. That's why my (atheist) parents had it done to all their sons between 1949 and 1955. At some point there entered in an element of "I want him to look like everyone else", but that could only happen after "everyone else" was already doing it.
Rex Little at May 18, 2010 10:12 AM
And you can honestly sit there with a straight face and ask me what my problem is with a "nick"? Just read what these fuckers are writing on that page...
Posted by: Feebie
No one is asking that.
I'm asking why you dont have a problem with far more than a 'nick' when it is preformed by someone from our culture, especally when the intent behind both acts is exactly the same
lujlp at May 18, 2010 3:30 PM
To be fair lujlp, Feebie did say that: "I highly doubt if I had a boy I would allow the surgery. Satisfied?"
So it isn't like she is saying one is fine but the other is not.
Feebie: I am not comparing two completely different things. There are types of "FGM" that are less destructive than MGM. There are also types of FGM that are more destructive than MGM. Ideally, we prohibit both on children.
Joe at May 18, 2010 3:43 PM
> the intent behind both acts is exactly the same
Y'know, I think of what it means for a young man to be raised in a loving Jewish home with ritual circumcision... How Judaism has given so much brilliance and insight to the world, how they've had so much to teach us (even Americans!) about how to run a decent society in a competitive spirit. And how children are the focus of so much nurturing and attention in a Jewish home... Smothering love, we are often told, but love which instills self-reliance and tremendous hard work and fortitude in the face of disappointment.
And then I think what it means for a girl (or her brother) to be born into a family that practices FGM.
And yet you say:
> the intent behind both acts is exactly the same
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 19, 2010 12:41 AM
"Y'know, ...
And then I think what it means for a girl (or her brother) to be born into a family that practices FGM."
I see, so all those who practice FGM do it against what they perceive to be the best interest of their children. Like this parent here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Clearly, she is not devoted to her child.
Or the parents interviewed in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/v/qsqEyGdLh8I
Clearly, they circumcised their daughters because they don't care for their children as much as those in a Jewish household that practices ritual male circumcision. It's all clear now thanks Crid.
Joe at May 19, 2010 4:08 AM
Just to emphasize: FGM is NOT a requirement of Islam, per se. It does get mentioned in the Koran, from what I heard, but it's not a requirement. It PREDATES Islam, and some Jews and Christians in Africa and the Middle East also practice it.
Of course, that doesn't explain why most Jews and Christians, worldwide, consider it a barbarity that should have been abolished even before the Chinese abolished footbinding, and too many Muslims don't think that way. (Same for "honor killings," of course.)
From Wikipedia:
"The practice of foot binding continued into the 20th century, when both Chinese and Western missionaries called for reform; at this point, a true anti-foot-binding movement emerged. Educated Chinese began to realise that this aspect of their culture did not reflect well upon them in the eyes of foreigners; social Darwinists argued that it weakened the nation, since enfeebled women supposedly produced weak sons; and feminists attacked the practice because it caused women to suffer.[2] At the turn of the 20th century, well-born women such as Kwan Siew-Wah, a pioneer feminist, advocated for the end of foot-binding. Kwan herself refused the foot-binding imposed on her in childhood, so that she could grow normal feet.
"There had been earlier but unsuccessful attempts to stop the practice of foot-binding, various emperors issuing unsuccessful edicts against it. The Empress Dowager Cixi (a Manchu) issued such an edict following the Boxer Rebellion in order to appease foreigners, but it was rescinded a short time later. In 1911, after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding. Women were told to unwrap their feet lest they be killed. Some women's feet grew a half-inch to an inch after the unwrapping, though some found the new growth process extremely painful as well as emotionally and culturally devastating. Still, societies were founded to support the abolition of foot binding, with contractual agreements made between families who would promise an infant son in marriage to an infant daughter who did not have bound feet. When the Communists took power in 1949, they were able to maintain the strict prohibition on foot-binding, which is still in effect today.
"In Taiwan, foot-binding was banned by the Japanese administration in 1915."
lenona at May 19, 2010 7:24 AM
> I see, so
Don't translate. Never translate. It's willful stupidity. No one in the world likes you enough to let you corrupt their arguments.
> all those who practice FGM
> do it against what they perceive to be
> the best interest
I don't CARE whether FGM practitioners sincerely believe they're showing good love.
> Like this parent here:
I'm not interested in individual cases... That's the point. We're talking about policies. (And I'm COMPLETELY uninterested in video clips.) If you want to move through life feeling poignant, soap-opera emotions for exotic people and their demented customs, have at it, but it's got little to do with this discussion.
Judged broadly, which pattern moves things forward in the direction we want the world to go? I'd go with Judaism. I'm sure there are Jewish extremists who aren't pretty, but as typically practiced, Jewish faith is a lot less likely to spring a violent leak. Hitchens put">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DKfJfKb5y0#t=2m00s">put it like this: "Any Muslim who thinks that his duty is to kill or conquer all non-Muslims has absolute Koranic authority to do so." The base text of Islam is odious.
> It's all clear now thanks
Aw, Joe, there's no need to thank me. I do this as a service to folks such as yourself, good people who lose their way and just need a little help sometimes. So thank you, fella... Thank you for just being yourself!
(See? I can be childishly sarcastic just like you can! It's kinda like my native tongue.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 19, 2010 8:14 AM
“I don't CARE whether FGM practitioners sincerely believe they're showing good love.”
Yet you seem to want to assure us that those who practice the demented ritual of MGM do it without malice. I am sure that is indeed true, just as I am sure that those who practice the demented ritual of FGM believe it is in their daughters’ best interest.
“If you want to move through life feeling poignant, soap-opera emotions for exotic people and their demented customs, have at it, but it's got little to do with this discussion.”
Actually, I don’t. I feel that this custom (no matter how benign) is as you put it ‘demented’. Just as I feel the Jewish custom of ritual MGM is demented. But as demented as they are, I do believe that in both cases those who inflict it on their children are doing so only because they believe it is in their best interest. One wonders how that could be but that diappears when you realize that in both cases it seems to be that both groups are trying to please the sky fairy.
“(See? I can be childishly sarcastic just like you can! It's kinda like my native tongue.)”
Reading your contributions to this thread (and blog) to date, I really had no doubt about this. But thanks for the confirmation.
Joe at May 19, 2010 8:53 AM
Wait a minute crid, I thought you were completley uninterested in video clips
lujlp at May 19, 2010 8:58 AM
> Yet you seem to
STOP TRANSLATING. See, when you do that over and over, people will assume you don't have the skills to play the hand you've been dealt.
> want to assure us that those who practice the
> demented ritual of MGM do it without malice.
I ain't assuring anybody of dick. (So to speak.) This judgment is completely post-hoc... I like what's happened to the lives of children from Judeo-Christian traditions more than what's become of the children of Islam.
> those who practice the demented ritual of
> FGM believe it is in their daughters’
> best interest.
> doing so only because they believe it
> is in their best interest.
AGAIN, Joe, again... Why are you so concerned about their beliefs?
> But thanks for the confirmation.
Do you even hear your own sarcasm? Do you recognize the snot you're spraying around?
> you were completley uninterested in video clips
It's important to give you the chance to confirm the source and accuracy of the transcription, Lou... I'd hate for you to think I was claiming that insight as my own. You don't hafta watch it if you don't wanna, but Hitch is one of our most funnest commentator-bots. I don't think his intention was to pull at our heartstrings with individual tales of personal sincerity and photogenic, doe-eyed pathos. He understands this is not about personalities.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 19, 2010 9:55 AM
"STOP TRANSLATING. See, when you do that over and over, people will assume you don't have the skills to play the hand you've been dealt"
Yawn. Could you make those letters bigger and bolder. I couldn't hear you.
"AGAIN, Joe, again... Why are you so concerned about their beliefs?"
Because it helps me understand why people do demented things. Why do some parents perform FGM? Because many believe the sky fairy told them others because of cultural inertia. Why do some parents perform MGM? Then answer is basically the same. Understanding the motive helps guide approaches to curtail such practices.
"Do you even hear your own sarcasm? Do you recognize the snot you're spraying around?"
I have difficulty hearing it over your obnoxious screed.
lujip asked: "Wait a minute crid, I thought you were completley uninterested in video clips"
Because Crid is not interested in clips that might challenge his preconceived conceptions.
Joe at May 19, 2010 2:06 PM
> Understanding the motive helps guide
> approaches to curtail such practices.
Too much work. Their interior lives are their own beeswax. I already have some "approaches" in mind, and need no such "guidance".
> not interested in clips that might challenge
> his preconceived conceptions.
Being insulted for "preconceived conceptions" is actually kinda fun.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 19, 2010 3:18 PM
ok, OK. The thing about circumcision is that sometimes it IS medically necessary, as was the case with my boyfriend (now husband). His father and mother left his little penis alone when he was a baby, but when he got into his teenage years and then later when he started having sex he found that after sex, especially if there wasn't enough lubrication, he had tiny cuts around the foreskin and if it was bad enough (and sometimes it was) his foreskin would bleed and he wouldn't be able to pull it back. Doesn't really make for such a pleasurable sex life, does it? So at age 26 or whatever, he had a circumcision. And guess what? His penis is MORE sensitive, can you imagine? We wouldn't have guessed it either. Anyways, if we have another baby and it's a boy, we are not planning to circumcise ... but will wait and see if it needs to be done when he's older. That's just us.
Jess at May 26, 2010 2:19 PM
Leave a comment