Subtext?
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 08:25 PM)
With a user name like "RapeIsASocialConstruct", it's not surprising you would hold such a low opinion of two female characters. You base your opinion on what, besides your contempt towards women? We men may be typically more physically powerful than women, but physical strength isn't the only quality that provides a survival advantage. The reason natural child birth for humans bears with it so much agony and a 10% mortality rate in women, is squeezing out that big skull containing that big brain. It's smarts that matter most. And these two young ladies were learning how to cope pretty fast, once they finally accepted that the power might never be coming back on. Eli clung to the false hope that civilization would soon return to its former "glory", and fell prey to an unsubstantiated rumor. His inability to see the big picture, and his lack of critical thinking skills to see through the rumors about the east coast may have been his undoing.
Eva wanted to burn the ruins of the house in order to throw the next would be rapist off their trail and presume them dead. Of course, we have another comment speculating that their motive here is to insulate the child from "male toxicity". Maybe their plan is to keep a low profile living deep enough in the forest to avoid further attacks from amoral scumbags like Stan (and you can hardly blame Eva for being fearful of that considering what happened to her), until they can maybe scope out another group to join that consists of decent folk. Smart tactical decision making and filling their heads from those books on the local fauna, would give them better odds of survival than all those biker dudes running around killing themselves over stale Twinkies until all the junk and canned food is gone. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 11:07 PM)
Could your anger have anything to do with your complete social ineptitude and inability to get laid? Try relating to a woman as a person, and check your libido for a while, and you'd be amazed at what can happen.
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 12:01 PM)
You're a little beyond a "non-liberal" person with a user name like that. Rape is only a bad thing in the eye of the beholder? You're saying Stan's raping Eva by force was somehow justified? With "reasoning" like that, what couldn't you justify? Is murder just a "social construct" as well?
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 08:15 PM)
Many studies show that male circumcision reduces the prevalence of STD's, and has medical merit. Though, some would argue it can lead to reduced sensitivity. Yet, nobody but a troll and an idiot would try to equate a brutally forced sexual act with that of a widely accepted (though not without controversy) medical procedure. Male infants are not able to consent to this procedure, but consent for a great number of other things parents do for and to their children isn't sought after either. We send kids to school, whether they like it or not. Is that rape as well? Because children are compelled against their wills to be educated, would you argue that's akin to rape? If we looked at it that way, we'd end up with a world full of dumb beep like you, wouldn't we?
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 08:38 PM)
The foreskin is a flap of skin that glides over the glans of the penis. Your claim that "all the erogenous nerves are in the foreskin" is complete horse beep Male circumcision is an entirely different thing than female genital mutilation that involves the removal of the clitoris.
There are studies to support a reduction in transmission of STDs from male circumcision. And I can support that claim with links. Do you have a source to back up your claim about the foreskin?
I concede that male circumcision has risks and down sides to it, and I don't have a problem with those that choose not to elect to have their sons circumcised. Regardless of one's position on circumcision, it doesn't justify rape.
"A thing isn't good or bad, but thinking makes it so" - William Shakespeare. I'm an atheist, and don't believe in objective morality. There isn't a great law giver in the sky that proclaims what's right and wrong. But, try that argument in court when you get caught acting out your misogyny on some girl some dark night. You'll have plenty of time to catch up on your reading then (provided you don't get executed or shot dead in the act).
You're incredibly misinformed and tragically stupid. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 09:10 PM)
Absolute bull beep You've drunk the Kool Aid and you're foaming at the mouth! You dismiss peer review, yet you claim somehow these other studies are valid. Based on what? Based on your fear and contempt of women, and need to grasp at any straw to justify it. You'll be in prison one day, getting banged up the ass (without your consentor then againmaybe that's what you really want). Let's see how you feel about rape then
There are men that have elected to have circumcision as adults, and we don't see a massive outcry condemning the procedure as sexual mutilation. Your loss of sensation could be a symptom of some other underlying medical (or in your case profound psychological) issues. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 09:14 PM)
http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 09:38 PM)
http://thecircumcisiondecision.com/20000-nerve-endings/
Yes, there are nerve endings in the foreskin. But there don't seem to be clear studies that show those nerve endings make a significant difference in sexual sensitivity. Some men claim a reduction in sensitivity that they attribute to circumcision, and there are some men who claim an increase in sexual sensitivity after circumcision. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 08:18 AM)
I joined IMDB to discuss a movie I enjoyed. My intention wasn't to get sucked into the downward spiral psycho vortex of a disturbed individual like yourself
If you'll read the information that I linked to in previous comments, you'll see that the issue of a loss of sensitivity from male circumcision is hardly cut and dried (pardon the pun)
I'm not "traumatized" by confronting the controversy over male circumcision at all. I was circumcised as an infant, and yet have enjoyed a very fulfilling sex life. It's impossible for me to know how my sexual response may have differed, had I not been circumcised. But, I can't say I've really had any complaints with ED or premature ejaculation, or inability to achieve orgasm or anything like that.
I think the issue demands further study. And, to be honest, if I was an expecting father whose wife or significant other had a bun in the oven about to be born a bouncing baby boy, I just might insist that we pass on the circumcision. With proper hygiene and the use of condoms and/or a monogamous life style, I think the risk of STD's would be minimized. Aesthetic objections to a non circumcised penis, don't seem to be worth the potential risks of the procedure.
However, I find your claim that the foreskin is the primary site of sensation for the male sexual response, and is akin to female genital mutilation where the clitoris is removed, to be extreme and unsubstantiated.
You claim that you elected to be circumcised in your teens. Why did you choose to do this? Was there a medical reason? Were you made fun of in the boy's locker room in gym class? Some girl say "ewww" when she saw your turtle neck and so lacking in self esteem, you went and had it lopped off, and now you're angry and looking to lash out at women for something you chose to do to yourself?