Your Wow, just Wow for the day

[Munky]

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

Google is your friend. There are studies which research the sexual effects of circumcision. I'm not about to discuss the technical details of the matter, nor do I care to.

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.

The human sacrifice was an example of what's barbaric, even though it was done for religious reasons, and a baby wouldn't have remembered it either. Circumcising a baby boy for religious reasons is no less barbaric than circumcising an adult as a form of torture or punishment.

 

[Genx87]

Google is your friend. There are studies which research the sexual effects of circumcision. I'm not about to discuss the technical details of the matter, nor do I care to.

Sexual pleasure if a personal preference. An action I like the next may not find pleasurable. The biggest sexual organ in your body is your brain. So I find it impossible to qualify sexual pleasure is any less or more in circumcized or uncircumcized penis's regardless of what somebody who authored a study would like us to believe.

The human sacrifice was an example of what's barbaric, even though it was done for religious reasons, and a baby wouldn't have remembered it either. Circumcising a baby boy for religious reasons is no less barbaric than circumcising an adult as a form of torture or punishment.

I just laid out why it is less barbaric. If you cant see the difference I dont know what to tell you.

 

[cubby1223]

meh

falls under my "i don't care anymore" category.

Weird, yes. But I'm pretty sure there is an alternate explanation of what the actions and intents were, that I'm also very sure a Breitbart reporter doesn't care about. What the alternate explanation is, I don't know. Maybe they really do hate black people and want them all mutilated. But I don't think that is true.

 

[mikeymikec]

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.

The article is seriously lacking in information, but I think the reference intended in the cake's design is about female circumcision in Africa. My wife wants me to read a book called "Desert Flower" by Waris Dirie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

No idea what the circumstances of the event were (that the OP's article is about). All looks a bit weird and wrong.

 

[monovillage]

OK guys you're not Democrat congressman Anthony Weiner you can quit talking about your John Henry's.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-anthony-weiner-picture/story?id=13774605#.T5BaH9m5KWA

 

[Sunburn74]

The article is seriously lacking in information, but I think the reference intended in the cake's design is about female circumcision in Africa. My wife wants me to read a book called "Desert Flower" by Waris Dirie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

No idea what the circumstances of the event were (that the OP's article is about). All looks a bit weird and wrong.

Oh I can see that now that you say it like that. Its still pretty bad even in that light because I believe that female circumcision is considered pretty barbaric in western civilization for many reasons.

 

[OutHouse]

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

performance art protesting female cutting.

 

[Sunburn74]

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."

I'm not going to discuss the whole decreased sexual pleasure thing, because its a really really hard thing to prove. I've seen a lot of the so-called studies; they are not very impressive and usually are found in like psychology journals or something.

However, the health reasons are not a myth. It is alleged that simply by being a circumcised male, the risk of HIV transmission from infected woman to uninfected man is reduced by about 50%. There is also a small, but real reduction in the risk of penile cancer (however penile cancer is pretty rare so the absolute risk reduction is pretty minimal). The reasons are obvious and the mechanism makes sense on a practical level. If you are interested in reading about these things, check out pubmed and you'll be quite enlightened.

 

[kage69]

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.

funny stuff, and I agree

equating circumcision with real female genital mutilation = anatomy fail