Subtext?
-
tecnogaming — 9 years ago(August 08, 2016 10:10 PM)
I am not circ and I can assure you the sensitivity of that area being cut is "Extreme", I woun't even dare cut it.
Let's put this simple.. all people pro-cir that is still not circ.. just do it, for the sake of us. Instead of citing stupid studies about "unconclusive material" just cut the dam piece and try for yourself, see if "there is no difference".
DO SCIENCE A FAVOR. Studies are useless, use your brain and your common sense.
Alex Vojacek -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 03:37 PM)
You really expect anyone to take you seriously when you use names like "JewsFellateBabyBoys" and "RapeIsASocialConstruct"?
If the foreskin was as important to the sexual response of men as you claimwhy don't we have men that have the procedure done as adults nearly unanimously claiming a drastic loss in sensitivity afterwards? Instead there seems to be overall a slight decrease. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 08:32 PM)
If I'm so sexually dysfunctional because of the removal of my foreskin, why is it that I report being fully functional? My penis seems pretty sensitive enough. I'm not having issues with my equipment failing to function. If anything, I wear my girl friends out because I want it all the time
Obviously I can't compare to what it may have been like pre circumcision. But, I'm certainly not "sexually crippled".
In your casewe have one anecdotal case. I'm sure that your anti circ conspiracy tin foil hat wearing group has managed to scrape together a few more to make a video or two or write a book. Maybe all of that strikes a chord with you because you really do have some form of dysfunction. Can you be absolutely certain it's due to the circumcision though, and not some other cause? You mentioned you elected for the surgery to treat a medical condition.
Were you fully functional without complaints before you elected for circumcision? How much, if any, sexual experience with partners did you have before, and what about masturbation? On a scale of 1 to 10, where would you rate your sexual sensitivity after the procedure, assuming a 10 pre op (after fully healed of course)? -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(August 02, 2016 08:11 AM)
You behave like that ass that Buzz Aldrin punched in the mouth, because he was so drunk on the Apollo moon landing conspiracy BS that he got in Buzz's face and received an attitude adjustment he was begging for
And that's one example of a conspiracy theory that has been cleanly debunked. Yet, no amount of evidence will persuade the loyal tin foil hat wearer.
There is a strong movement fighting against FGM, as there should be. They're making some progress. If you're serious about raising consciousness on what you believe to be true about male circumcision, you might garner more sympathy towards the cause by aligning forces with activists against FGM, instead of being insensitive of their suffering, and showing an us against them mentality.
Evidence is pretty clear that there were no WMD's. Evidence for the extreme assertion that you're making about the foreskin being the primary sense organ of the penis, and equating its removal to that of FGM, is weak. Studies on sensitivity comparing cut and uncut men are inconclusive and contradictory.
Perhaps those that were circumcised as infants don't generally report sexual dysfunction, because the plasticity of the developing brain compensates by rewiring the receptors of other areas like the glans, to do the work of whatever receptors may have been lost by the removal of the foreskin. I was doing a little reading on FGM last night, and one site claimed that over 80% of mutilated women were able to adapt and still enjoy sex and achieve orgasm. Good for them, but the practice of FGM is still abominable and should be stamped out.
I have my doubts about male circumcision as well, but I'm not convinced it's on an equal footing as FGM.
If you're really convinced you're right, perhaps you should focus your message board efforts somewhere more appropriate than one about movies. And if you really care about changing minds, then don't squander your credibility with all your inflammatory hate speech BS that most of your posts consist of. I don't think you really care about the circumcision issue as more than a device to use to troll people with, like your other posts. I suspect you're primarily interested in the "winning of a debate", than about changing minds and possibly sparing millions of baby boys from being robbed of their full sexual experience when they mature, if you're right. -
devotee-2 — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 03:37 PM)
Is is only coincidental that she's called Eva?
Surely it couldn't be coincidence that another main character's name is
Eli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_(biblical_figure)
I'm still searching for someone named Stan in the Bible, unless Jean Hegland went too obvious with the
Stan/Satan
wordplay