Your Wow, just Wow for the day

[boomerang]

'Anti-Racist' Swedish Politician Performs 'Clitorectomy' on 'African Woman' Cake

I'm pretty much speechless. Be sure to click the link in the article for more info.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That is so wrong in many ways.

 

[werepossum]

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Lemon law]

Disgusting

 

[DucatiMonster696]

LOL

Wait we should be more like Europe right?

LOL

 

[Munky]

It's funny, quit being so sensitive. It's not like male babies enjoy circumcision either.

 

[pcgeek11]

It's funny, quit being so sensitive. It's not like male babies enjoy circumcision either.

How did I know that was coming.

 

[Sunburn74]

Well, I don't know what to make of it. It strongly offends me because a lot of advances in gynecological surgery came from early American doctors performing and refining experimental procedures on black slaves without any anesthesia and completely against their will. Thus, making fun of such dark proceedings which cake and blackface is highly highly offensive.

That being said, as long as she is truly anti-racist as she claims in her political actions and has a good track history, then I'll give her a pass for being temporarily insensitive. We all have dumb ass racist moments that we look back on and wonder what we were thinking.

 

[Doppel]

I suppose if I'm incredibly giving I could call it some art in which the artist portrays the insensitive delight of cake-eaters against the back drop of a mutilated lady.

Or, it's just in very poor taste.

 

[Lithium381]

oops

 

[glenn1]

Silly artist, everyone knows that works that offend religious sensibilities like Piss Christ are avant garde, but if you dress in blackface that's beyond the pale and will be condemned by the PC police.

 

[JEDIYoda]

a lot of advances in gynecological surgery came from early American doctors performing and refining experimental procedures on black slaves without any anesthesia and completely against their will.

Please use a reputable link to prove what you say is true......

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Any circumcision is disgusting (Dont mutilate your children people!), but I think this has been taken out of context.

 

[Fern]

If that's true, well, I'll just say WOW.

That looks like a bad sketch from the KKK Komedy channel.

Fern

 

[Sunburn74]

Please use a reputable link to prove what you say is true......

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/479892

Though with Dr Sims there is some debate as to how unethical his practices were (if the slaves had medical illnesses or not,, if he had good reason for not using anesthesia for black patients but would use for white patients, if he was following the ethical standard of his time which was much lower than todays)/ The issue of consent is pretty ludicrous because slaves can't consent.

There are others. An Ephraim McDowell perfected his ovarian techniques on slaves. And so on and so on.

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/05bioethics/slavery02.htm#N_23_
This site is a little biased, but it at least gives you some places to start digging if you're interested in the US history of medical experimentation with slaves.

 

[Genx87]

Is this to raise awareness? Even if it is, it sure as hell looks in bad taste.

 

[Genx87]

It's funny, quit being so sensitive. It's not like male babies enjoy circumcision either.

I am sure they dont. They also dont remember it and most are thankful later in life their dink doesnt look like a poorly wrapped bratwurst.

Anyways the circumsion on a baby boy is not designed to reduce sexual pleasure like female mutilation. It is a religious practice and does have a legitimate health reason behind it.

 

[monovillage]

That's an honest "wow, just wow" event.

 

[Munky]

I am sure they dont. They also dont remember it and most are thankful later in life their dink doesnt look like a poorly wrapped bratwurst.

Anyways the circumsion on a baby boy is not designed to reduce sexual pleasure like female mutilation. It is a religious practice and does have a legitimate health reason behind it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects
The health reasons are a myth, and it does lead to decreased sexual pleasure. It's just as barbaric as female genital mutilation, only difference is the politically-correct smarter-than-everyone western society has accepted it, as if there is something wrong with male genitalia in its natural form, and must be "fixed."

 

[Genx87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects
The health reasons are a myth, and it does lead to decreased sexual pleasure. It's just as barbaric as female genital mutilation, only difference is the politically-correct smarter-than-everyone western society has accepted it, as if there is something wrong with male genitalia in its natural form, and must be "fixed."

You have no way to qualify if it leads to decreased sexual pleasure. I dont want read that page at work due to the amount of dink pictures in the link.

And no it isnt as barbaric as female mutilation by a long shot. It purpose is not to reduce sexual pleasure nor is it typically done at an age the patient knows wtf is going on.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That image is creepy as hell. I get that this was done with the urging of the African artist involved, but the whole thing does look really, really creepy. That being said, I think it speaks well of Sweden that it's possible to do something like this without a huge public hue and cry.

TE

 

[Munky]

You have no way to qualify if it leads to decreased sexual pleasure. I dont want read that page at work due to the amount of dink pictures in the link.

And no it isnt as barbaric as female mutilation by a long shot. It purpose is not to reduce sexual pleasure nor is it typically done at an age the patient knows wtf is going on.

There are studies with results supporting both sides, take your pick which one to believe.

The intended purpose or the lack of memory does not make it any less barbaric, but rather the effect on the person. To use an example, if you consider human sacrifice barbaric, then it doesn't make it any less barbaric if it's done for religious reasons or when the victim is a baby and doesn't know anything. The end result is the same.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

There are studies with results supporting both sides, take your pick which one to believe.

The intended purpose or the lack of memory does not make it any less barbaric, but rather the effect on the person. To use an example, if you consider human sacrifice barbaric, then it doesn't make it any less barbaric if it's done for religious reasons or when the victim is a baby and doesn't know anything. The end result is the same.

I am really not strongly pro- or anti-circumcision. I am circumcised and don't have a son. I'm really not sure what I would do if I had one. My understanding is that there is a statistically significant reduction in penile cancer among circumcised men, for whatever that's worth, though I gather that is a relatively rare form of cancer regardless.

 

[Orignal Earl]

This reminds me of when our Gov. General took a chew out of a raw seal heart.
Drove a lot of people nutty.

 

[Genx87]

There are studies with results supporting both sides, take your pick which one to believe.

Both sides of what? Sexual pleasure? How would one prove it?

The intended purpose or the lack of memory does not make it any less barbaric, but rather the effect on the person. To use an example, if you consider human sacrifice barbaric, then it doesn't make it any less barbaric if it's done for religious reasons or when the victim is a baby and doesn't know anything. The end result is the same.

If you have to bring in human sacrafice your argument is rather shallow. Yes, circumcizing a baby boy for religious or health reasons is a hell of lot less barbaric than mutilating a female of age so she wont have sexual fullfillment. If you cant tell the difference. I dont know what to tell you.