Lestat said:
Circumcision REMOVES what will be come about 6 square inches of nerve ending RICH skin.
Every bit of skin has nerve endings, removing tissue from the penis in a circumcision does not affect sexual appreciation if done correctly in any appreciable manner. Anyone that claims otherwise is biased. Links to medical literature that backs up the six square inches claim. Im not talking some website that has a bug up their ass about circumcisions. Im talking something that I would turn to look up professional medical queries. Lets throw out the talking points
That is what the clitoris is too right?
No, not what I assume you are saying, certainly we can break it down to GCAT and build from there, but that is a poor endevour on your part, foreskin does not equal clitorus, I warn you to not try and argue that, Ill smoke you foo, just like being up a kindergartner if you continue down that path, tatoo it to your dick...foreskin is not the male equivalent of the clitorus
period!!!
An organ filled with nerve endings?
Yeah, are we going to argue nerve endings here, since nerve endings are everywhere in the skin with the least in the skin of the elbow, lets break it down to DNA sequencing. That makes more sense, I can at least argue that and make a better point on sexual organs
Women don't have a urethra through it so its redundant right?
Not the ones Ive met at least
The clitorus is described by most as a evolutional redundant penis
I agree its barbaric, but the argument for it and for circumcision are almost the same.
Wrong
Thats where we disagree, having a foreskin or not having one, who really cares, it doesnt affect the person in any appreciable way. Its a preference, thats all. The argument for female mutilation of the clitorus and hood is to prevent to experience the enjoyment of sex. Its to prevent them from having a reason to cheat on their husbands. These are done in the most brutal and oppresive societies that subjugate women and treat them like cattle with little or no rights. The same cultures that also have honor killings where if the female of the family goes astray it is to the honor of the family to have her brothers, father, uncles, cousins kill her to maintain honor. The sociological differences alone involved with female mutilation are enormous. I cannot believe Lestat that you are being intellectually honest about comparing the two. I mean, cmon, really, so you like foreskins. But do you actually know what is wholistically involved with what you are comparing and contrasting, I know you do. I think that you are arguing folly but Id be interested to see you make those comparisons. Trust me, you cannot win that debate, but itd be a spirited exercise in reason if youd like. Im in an unusual mood as of late.
In the 1800 boys WERE circumcised to stop them from masturbating. Sounds like the same reason's for genital mutilation.
Links please, I fail to see how anyone with a clue could surmise that having a circumcision would prevent masturbation. Sounds like some garbage off an anticircumcision website. Lets not talk junk science here.
Like most issues, I really couldnt care less but it is endlessly hilarious watching people distort truths and reality to build their argument for change, theyve learned the principles of marketing it seems. Marketing and "selling" their ideas with half truths. Circumcision is a simple medical procedure and done for aesthetic reasons, its that simple. There is nothing more. There are more direct thought experiments to understand cultures and societies and the silliness of societal norms than to use circumcisions as the core issue to flush out the sociological debate. But if you want to, hey, whatever