No, no it isn’t. It’s simply something you’ve said over and over and everyone else (both circ’d and intact) has refuted. COME OUT OF YOUR DREAMWORLD, FORESKIN BOY!!!
And for all the uncut guys out there: None of this is a reflection on you. You guys rock, and us girls know you have a more varied repertoire than JDT gives you credit for 
Your understanding of “Mother Nature” seems rather odd, especially for a good skeptic like you :rolleyes:
I’ll assume you accept natural selection and evolution. If I’m wrong, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
So, let’s see, humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, and their near ancestors much longer before that. Circumcision didn’t come into practice until the rise of the CULTURES that perpetuated it (Egyptian, Hebrew, etc.). Furthermore, I believe you’ve said that circumcison as we know it has only been used for the past few hundred years.
Therefore, for milennia all men were uncut.
Now, Homo sapiens started out just like other species: mating was designed to perpetuate the species. The whole “erotic sensations” (band name!) thing didn’t happen until later, when there was a survival-based need to keep the men around and foster a close relationsip between the man and the woman for the purposes of raising children. I can guarantee you that watching sex between early Homo sapiens was about as stimulating as watching lions go at it on the Discovery Channel.
Now, here comes JDT, who says that the man’s erotic sensations are all important, far more important than the biological imperative. Indeed, he (and he alone apparently) has come to the conclusion that the best sex is basically little more than male masturbation against a woman’s clitoris. He says he fails to understand why “intact” men don’t do it “correctly.” This ties in with his belief, noted above, that circumcised men essentially use women for masturbation. That’s what ALL sex is for JDT–male masturbation. Solipsism is its own reward. Me and my foreskin, strolling down the avenue.
So, for all other species Nature got it right: penis goes in vagina, makes baby sometimes. Clearly for millennia our uncut forebears performed the act in just this way or else we wouldn’t be here. However, now it’s wrong and inferior both to using a woman’s clitoris as a masturbation tool or flogging the bishop. Congratulations, JDT–I think you’ve just come up with a de-evolutionary step. Good thing for the rest of us, though–keeps you from falling into the gene pool.
And millenia of uncut men did it exactly the same way why? Do you have any evidence that your superior technique has ever been practiced widely by any men anywhere? If not, could it be because it makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint?
And here’s the crux of why JDT can’t see that eroticism is situated in any other place but the male foreskin (oh yeah, there’s a woman’s breasts, too, but they require the quctioning power of an Oreck vaccuum cleaner for a “jump start” before a woman can be “put down well”). I’m beginning to think it’s time to leave JDT to experience all the solitary erotic sensations he wants to with Little Jack–this guy is no prize for man or woman.
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
“Study,” what a gentle euphemism. Puts me in the mind of an old George Carlin bit: “Why do you think they call it a blow job? I think it’s so it sounds like it has a bit of a work ethic.”
As opposed to having a man rub himself against the most sensitive part of a woman’s body while sucking on her breast with all the finesse of a plumber’s helper? I fail to see the difference. The worst porn has this in common with your sexual world view, JDT: it’s male solipsism that they’re the only things that matter in the world, they know what’s best.
Your hatred of women is showing, dear, not to mention your arrogrance. You have no idea what exactly “all women envision sex to be.” Nor do I, and I’m a woman. I’m sorry if you’ve had some bad sexual experiences or frustrations–it certainly sounds that way. However, if I were some unsuspecting woman who made love to you and found out the sick things that get you off and the disdain you hold the woman’s role in, I’d probably respond negatively too. Others have said it, JDT, and I’ll repeat it–if you’re getting EVERYONE (men, women, cut, uncut, straight, gay) saying you have some fucked-up ideas about sex, then maybe, just maybe, they’re right. I’ll repeat what the mod said–I’m sorry someone cut some skin off your penis if it’s made you this much of a misogynist and misanthrope in general, if it’s twisted you this way. But suck it up ferchrissakes–I have friends in wheelchairs who don’t have as big a chip on their shoulder against the world.
Oh yeah, I forgot–circumcision is worse than death (wonder in what state that leaves us poor girls who never had a foreskin to begin with) and the magical foreskin is far more important than some minutiae like functioning legs :rolleys:
Which would, apparently, leave you out of it.
As it were. 
Besides, isn’t this the source of his problems?
Billdo, what about his comments in [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=46423”]this thread[/url? He’s certainly got trollish tendencies, at any rate. On the email listservs to which I belong, “troll” is defined as someone who comes in with an ax to grind and posts single-mindedly on that issue. Jack certainly meets that definition.
As it were. Besides, isn’t this the source of his problems?
Billdo, what about his comments in this thread? He’s certainly got trollish tendencies, at any rate. On the email listservs to which I belong, “troll” is defined as someone who comes in with an ax to grind and posts single-mindedly on that issue. Jack certainly meets that definition.
Sorry - I hit “Stop”, which apparently didn’t work, when I noticed the lack of right terminal bracket. Also, one fewer would have been appropriate. Live and learn, although I’m sure that’s not something Jack is familiar with.
Maybe I’m remembering incorectly, but didn’t you say that circucised men are freaks? That we’re somehow not normal? how can something come naturally to a person when that’s not how they were originally designed? Sort of like how running comes naturally to someone who’s missing a foot or something.
“It’s just that with the intact man there is a synergistic dance with various parts of the genitals.”
I don’t know why . . . this just sounded like JDT was masturbating as he wrote this entire post.
“The circumcised man does become subservient to women.”
I’ll have to remember to be subservient to all my femae friends, then . . . should be a new experience for all.
> Whereas women make demands, ask questions, need attention, etc, The Foreskin is always patient, always loving, always there for you. <
“Well . . . yeah.”
Are you so bind you can’t see sarcasm three feet deep?
“I do study porn films to some extent. All I see is women being slammed on like they are linebackers. It’s pretty depressing and makes me kind of sick, actually.”
So you only watch them for the research material they provide, right?
“Not all women are this way.”
These are the women who haven’t had sex with you, from what I can tell.
“Men circumcised as adults compare the difference to seeing in black-and-white instead of color. Other men circumcised as adults say that they have lost 60% of what they were before. The difference between the two states is indeed mind-blowing.”
Prove it, prove it, and finally . . . prove it. I don’t want to get into a debate in the Pit, and what you’re saying is more suited for GD . . . or perhaps “Let’s invent ‘facts’”.
The definition of a troll I use is from the Mailbag Answer What is a troll? A troll is “somebody who is posting just to be confrontational or to raise hackles. . . . If somebody is simply ignorant or obtuse, it’s incorrect to call him a troll.” It seems clear to me that Jack falls into the latter category.
As the mailbag answer acknowledges: “Admittedly, it’s not always easy to distinguish between someone pretending to be wrong and someone who is wrong and doesn’t know it or won’t admit it.” I do not believe that Jack is pretending anything, but rather believes deeply in his cause.
I continue to respond to these threads because it is so interesting to see how his views develop, as well as to see the tremendously creative offshoots and interludes that his statements inspire.
Palandine,
> So, let’s see, humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, and their near ancestors much longer before that. <
Yes.
> Therefore, for milennia all men were uncut. <
Absolutely
> Now, Homo sapiens started out just like other species: mating was designed to perpetuate the species. <
No. For most mammals, mating has only evolved to be used for perpetuating the species. In humans (and probably even human ancestors), it has evolved to be much more.
> The whole “erotic sensations” (band name!) thing didn’t happen until later, when there was a survival-based need to keep the men around and foster a close relationship between the man and the woman for the purposes of raising children. <
Basically, I would agree with this. The survival advantage of these erotic sensations extends to the entire society, though. Not just the immediate family.
> I can guarantee you that watching sex between early Homo sapiens was about as stimulating as watching lions go at it on the Discovery Channel. <
I would agree that sex between the human ancestors that had yet to evolve the genitals of the modern human would not have been that interesting.
> Now, here comes JDT, who says that the man’s erotic sensations are all important, far more important than the biological imperative. <
In a transitive way, the erotic sensations make humans better able to fulfill the biological imperative. Without them they are less able.
> Indeed, he (and he alone apparently) has come to the conclusion that the best sex is basically little more than male masturbation against a woman’s clitoris. <
This is not at all what I said. I made it clear that erotic sensations for 40 minutes is better than erotic sensations for two minutes. And, it's not me alone who says that a man should use his penis to stimulate the outside of a woman first. I have spoken with a few intact American men who do this.
> He says he fails to understand why “intact” men don’t do it “correctly.” <
Yes, I do wonder why so many men don't do it the way I think it should be done. With enough research, I will get the answer. I will evolve my understanding and the intact men will evolve theirs.
> So, for all other species Nature got it right: penis goes in vagina, makes baby sometimes. <
That's not what Mother Nature says. She says you produce healthy baby and raise him/her with plenty of food and fulfill all his/her social and psychological needs so that the society can be strong and protect itself from all forms of disasters. Mother Nature says "do this or else."
>Clearly for millennia our uncut forebears performed the act in just this way or else we wouldn’t be here. <
At the rate we're going, how much longer are we going to be here?
> And millennia of uncut men did it exactly the same way why? <
They both caused women to get pregnant. That's the only thing that they did exactly the same.
> Do you have any evidence that your superior technique has ever been practiced widely by any men anywhere? <
No.
> If not, could it be because it makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint? <
It could also be because I just haven't found the evidence. I would if I had the money to do it.
> Your hatred of women is showing, dear, not to mention your arrogance. <
Actually, I like all women, even the she-devils. I worded that earlier statement badly. I know it's not their fault. I just feel very badly thinking about what these women might have been.
> You have no idea what exactly “all women envision sex to be.” Nor do I, and I’m a woman. <
Oh, I think that I have reasonable approximation. Knight in shining armor, sexual bliss, happily ever after. Sounds very normal to me. Of course, even in a perfect world, this doesn't reflect reality too much. But, if everything was sexually normal, this description would be adequately close enough to reality.
> However, if I were some unsuspecting woman who made love to you and found out the sick things that get you off and the disdain you hold the woman’s role in, I’d probably respond negatively too. <
Well, I believe that Mother Nature made a man and a woman to be perfect compliments for one another. And, for this, you try to cast me in the role of a woman-hater. The woman-haters are the quacks and the witchdoctors that have attacked Mother Nature's creations. It's time people like you figured that out so that we can heal this situation before it's too late (it may already be too late).
> Others have said it, JDT, and I’ll repeat it–if you’re getting EVERYONE (men,women, cut, uncut, straight, gay) saying you have some fucked-up ideas about sex, then maybe, just maybe, they’re right. <
EVERYONE is not against me. Many members of these same groups are on my side. I don't waste my time talking to those that are already on my side.
> I’ll repeat what the mod said–I’m sorry someone cut some skin off your penis if it’s made you this much of a misogynist and misanthrope in general, if it’s twisted you this way. <
If I were a misogynist and a misanthrope, I would let the mutilations continue unimpeded and go on about my life. The babies would continue to scream. Wives would hate / fear their sex starved husbands as the go to visit prostitutes. On and on and on. It's very easy to be a misogynist and a misanthrope in today's society, all one has to do is nothing.
> Oh yeah, I forgot–circumcision is worse than death (wonder in what state that leaves us poor girls who never had a foreskin to begin with) <
You do have a foreskin. Your clitoral hood is your foreskin.Oh PUH-leaze!
Jack, Sigmuend Freud’s theories on behavior and psychology aren’t the only ones out there. You’re behind the times, bud.
Jack, you can “no” all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. Fact: all creatures reproduce. Fact: the higher ones do that through a mating process. Fact: you think absolutely not at all about your “erotic sensations” (that euphemism annoys me more every time I see it) when you’re worried about freezing to death, being eaten by a bear, or basically dealing with any of the things that would likely kill you before you had the chance to pass on your DNA. Equating sex and eroticism is a fairly recent evolutionary development, one that certainly came about after these more pressing dangers were vanquished.
Much as I’d love to ask you to give me a cite showing how human genitals have evolved in a significant way since the dawn of man, I’ll restrain myself. Somehow I don’t think you’d oblige anyway.
Yet your preferred sexual method has almost nothing to do with the biological imperative. Clearly, using your rubric, cut men, who seem to have no difficulty finding the vagina, are performing better according to the biologic imperative. Indeed, if it were true that all cut men have their sons cut, in a way being cut would be an evolutionary advantage. Of course, that’s silly because as every uncut man on this forum has said, they perform sex the same was as cut men do, for which we girls are eternally grateful.
Yes, but you are severely psychologically handicapped by the notion that erotic sensations reside in your foreskin, rather than your mind. Let me give you some advice from this woman’s perspective–even if your dick can levitate and part the Red Sea with its mighty prowess, if your technique and attitude is as you suggest it is, I would find it not in the least erotic. Women love the man, not the 6 to 8 inches he brings to the relationship (although that’s good too). Women do not go into gales of erotic sensations at the sight of any penis–cut or uncut. You’re taking a pornographic view of sex (“the old in-out” as Anthony Burgess called it in A Clockwork Orange), and your utter disdain for anything resembling foreplay or oral sex shows it.
Well, as long as you have a consensus. :rolleyes: You’ve spoken to a few intact men who say they do this, and a lot of uncut men here who say they don’t. Yet you still arrogantly act as though your own strange way is the only one.
[QUOTEAt the rate we’re going, how much longer are we going to be here?[/QUOTE]
Considering that life expectancy is higher than ever and we’re going to hit 7 billion earthlings any day now, I don’t think that circumcision is going to bring down Homo sapiens any day soon.
You know, Jack, I don’t like crybabies. It’s the absolute least macho thing I know. I feel very badly for you for the same reason. “Someone cut my foreskin off when I was a baby and MAY have decreased my sexual pleasure. I shall hate the world for it.” Cry me a river. I have a brother who’s retarded–he’ll never marry or have kids or have many of the pleasures life has. Christopher Reeves is never going to walk again. Stephen Hawking is paralyzed from the neck down and can do nothing for himself. There are people in burn units going through the pains of Hell. Children die of starvation every day. Hundreds of people in my city will be lining up at the missions on Thanksgiving to receive charity turkey, far away from home. Pardon me if in the face of all that I don’t get all teary eyed over your being snipped.
[QUOTEWell, I believe that Mother Nature made a man and a woman to be perfect compliments for one another. And, for this, you try to cast me in the role of a woman-hater.[/QUOTE]
No, I cast you in the role of a woman-hater because you put yourself in the position of knowing the only way how to “put a woman down well.” Because you are the proponent of the “powersuck” after scores of women told you here how unpleasant that is. Because you denigrated a woman who had been raped. And because your idea of a woman, as you have stated, is not a complement but basically an inflatable Imelda: “you just lay there real quiet honey, while I get my erotic sensations. Don’t tell me what you like. I know what you like.” Again, you may not be anti-woman–you may just be absolutely solipsistic, which is also a possibility.
No dear, it isn’t. It’s my clitoral hood. Me girl, you boy. Women are not just smaller, less hairy men with innies rather than outies. Furthermore, mine doesn’t seem to have the mystical properties you associate with the male foreskin, so we girls must be missing something (here’s the part where JDT asks if I’m circumcised and just don’t know it). And you know what? I don’t spend my days obsessing about my clitoral hood. Whole hours go by that I don’t think about it. And if as an infant I had lost it, somehow I think I’d be a bigger person than to be obsessing about it decades later. Surely that passion can be spent on something else.
JDT, here’s where I stand. I prefer the taste and esthetics of a cut penis. I would not kick a guy out of bed who was uncut (unless he practiced some of the revolting hygienic practices you suggest). I would probably NOT do it to a son of mine. But as Esprix has said, your obsession coupled with your utter lack of evidence and unwillingness to face the possibility that you might be wrong makes me MORE likely to want to have this done, not less likely.
In short, as others have said, you’re doing your cause more harm than good.
PALANDINE – Great post!
Here’s my last communique to Jack:
Not that you ever asked, but you can put me in the pro-circumcision camp, as a matter of personal choice. If I ever have a baby boy, I will almost certainly have him circumcised. Nothing you have done or said has changed my mind in the least. I would never be so craven as to choose that procedure on his behalf just because I’m sure it will piss off a lunatic such as yourself, but neither would I refrain from doing it solely based on the amazingly thoughtless (and I mean literally without the use of thought) bullshit you have posted here.
You appear to blame everything that has gone wrong in your life – including, I have to assume, some significant sexual dysfunction – on the loss of your foreskin. It’s a convenient if odd excuse for all your failings and your disappointments, and while it may be a comforting safety blanket to say that you are not personally responsible for your life or your mistakes – it’s all due to your circumcision! – I am confident that you will remain nothing more than a pathetic source of amusement for others unless or until you take responsibility for your own life. They removed your foreskin, Jack, not your brain; learn to use it.
Well, I certainly agree with “obtuse” as a description.
I disagree that his views “develop” at all - as several people have mentioned, addressing arguments to him is like whacking one’s head against a brick wall. That said, I quite agree that the offshoots are entertaining - Kimstu’s G&S foreskin tour de force being, I think, the prime example.
BunnyGirl,
> Jack, Sigmuend Freud’s theories on behavior and psychology aren’t the only ones out there. You’re behind the times, bud. <
The more I learn about Sigmund Freud, the more I believe that he really knew what was going on. I plan to study more about what he said in the near future (his writings are not readily available on the net because they are still copyrighted). Even if the establishment has decided that much of what Freud said is wrong, one must keep in mind that this is the same establishment that hasn't even seen fit to question what affect something so egregious as circumcision does to the psyche. Further, Freud compared circumcision to castration. That makes me wonder if, perhaps, the establishment just doesn't want to believe what Freud said as oppose to finding better theories than Freud's.Palandine,
> Jack, you can “no” all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. <
I agree with that.
> Fact: all creatures reproduce. Fact: the higher ones do that through a mating process. <
Sexual reproduction takes place in almost all of the animal kingdoms, I believe.
>Fact: you think absolutely not at all about your “erotic sensations” (that euphemism annoys me more every time I see it) when you’re worried about freezing to death, being eaten by a bear, or basically dealing with any of the things that would likely kill you before you had the chance to pass on your DNA. <
Yes, that's true. So what?
> Equating sex and eroticism is a fairly recent evolutionary development, one that certainly came about after these more pressing dangers were vanquished. <
Not necessarily. A good example would be when beer was created. Humans were just hunter-gatherers moving from place to place following the herds and such. Then someone invented beer. Everyone liked it. But, as hunter-gatherers, they were unable to make it because such things as the hops and the grain had to be cultivated in one place. So, the hunter-gathers became farmers instead---so that they could have beer. That is what started civilization (they don't teach this to grade school students for obvious reasons).
My point is that at some point human ancestors could have had one life style. Then, the genitals spontaneously evolved in a few of them. That could have caused a change in their society. Maybe that change was a sweeping change the way that the invention of beer was.
> Much as I’d love to ask you to give me a cite showing how human genitals have evolved in a significant way since the dawn of man, I’ll restrain myself. <
I didn't say that human genitals have evolved since humans first appeared. However, certainly, you agree that the genitals have evolved since you accept the Theory of Evolution.
> Yet your preferred sexual method has almost nothing to do with the biological imperative. <
Not directly, but indirectly it has a lot to do with the biological imperative.
> Clearly, using your rubric, cut men, who seem to have no difficulty finding the vagina, are performing better according to the biologic imperative. <
Not at all. One human female could put out 40 children in her reproductive lifetime. If she did this she would not be performing according to the biological imperative because she could not possible take care of so many kids. It's not just a question of having kids but also it is a question of how healthy the societal social infrastructure is so that the kids can be taken care of.
> Indeed, if it were true that all cut men have their sons cut, in a way being cut would be an evolutionary advantage. <
Circumcision is de facto Lamarckism.
> Of course, that’s silly because as every uncut man on this forum has said, they perform sex the same was as cut men do, for which we girls are eternally grateful. <
You must be reading different threads than I am. Anyway, if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, no man can compare himself to another man. You'll have to ask the women. And surveys have shown that the women like intact men better.
> Yes, but you are severely psychologically handicapped by the notion that erotic sensations reside in your foreskin, rather than your mind. <
It's a fact that erotic sensations come from a man's foreskin. And this "mind" myth thing is nonsense.
>Women do not go into gales of erotic sensations at the sight of any penis–cut or uncut. <
Whatever. You just let the man decide what is to be done with his penis.
> You’re taking a pornographic view of sex (“the old in-out” as Anthony Burgess called it in A Clockwork Orange), and your utter disdain for anything resembling foreplay or oral sex shows it. <
As I explained, why do 35 minutes of foreplay if you can do 35 minutes of erotic sensations? I do not have disdain for foreplay, it is just second best. Oral sex is just second best to regular intercourse.
> Considering that life expectancy is higher than ever and we’re going to hit 7 billion earthlings any day now, I don’t think that circumcision is going to bring down Homo sapiens any day soon. <
Gore and Bush are both circumcised and they are a couple of key codes away from reducing that 7 billion down to 1 billion in a hurry. Even as we speak we are looking at a possible coup de tat as one bozo's going to screw the other bozo. I don't consider this society to be all that well off or safe.
> There are people in burn units going through the pains of Hell. <
I don't really care about the argument that somebody is always worse off.
> Pardon me if in the face of all that I don’t get all teary eyed over your being snipped. <
Maybe you'll get "teary-eyed" over the sex criminal that attacks you because he is suffereing from ASPD as a result of his circumcision.
> No, I cast you in the role of a woman-hater because you put yourself in the position of knowing the only way how to “put a woman down well.” <
Oh, I'm sure that it's not the only way. But, it is an excellent way, though.
> Because you are the proponent of the “powersuck” after scores of women told you here how unpleasant that is. <
No, and who are you quoting? I didn't invent that term. As I have explained on several occasions to the riffraff around here, I don't necessarily advocate any such a thing as a "powersuck." There was a woman who claimed that her breasts were numb to erotic sensation and I said that I didn't believe it. So, I suggested a method of sucking on her breasts which I felt sure would be something that would trigger erotic sensations in her breasts.
> Because you denigrated a woman who had been raped. <
By, the woman's own description, nothing was put into her vagina so it is not rape under the law. I pointed out that the sex crime falls under sodomy laws. That's all. And, I recognized how traumatic the matter was.
>And because your idea of a woman, as you have stated, is not a complement but basically an inflatable Imelda: “you just lay there real quiet honey, while I get my erotic sensations. Don’t tell me what you like. I know what you like.” <
Again, I never said this. I only stated my opinion that the wild bucking bronco banshee behavior that can be heard for blocks is not genuine.
> No dear, it isn’t. It’s my clitoral hood. Me girl, you boy. <
Yes, dear, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
> Furthermore, mine doesn’t seem to have the mystical properties you associate with the male foreskin, so we girls must be missing something (here’s the part where JDT asks if I’m circumcised and just don’t know it). <
By "we girls," you certainly don't mean the girls that I talk to. I can take it that you don't even know what a clitoral orgasm is then, right? The girls I talk to tell me that they can do without the vagina orgasm but the clitoral orgasm is a must.
>And you know what? I don’t spend my days obsessing about my clitoral hood. <
Maybe you should.
> And if as an infant I had lost it, somehow I think I’d be a bigger person than to be obsessing about it decades later. Surely that passion can be spent on something else. <
Yes, you would do things like become a religious nut and getting alcohol prohibition started so that the country can be immersed in gang warfare. That sort of thing.
> JDT, here’s where I stand. I prefer the taste and esthetics of a cut penis. <
That's all you know so I doubt if you can really judge which you like better.
> I would probably NOT do it to a son of mine. <
The disease will end with you. That's good enough for me.
> But as Esprix has said, your obsession coupled with your utter lack of evidence and unwillingness to face the possibility that you might be wrong makes me MORE likely to want to have this done, not less likely. <
Oh, c'mon. You're going to use me as an excuse to mutilate your son? How would you explain that to your son?
> In short, as others have said, you’re doing your cause more harm than good.<
Oh, I don't think so. You're a good example. I can't believe that anyone like you would have even thought twice about mutilating you son if I hadn't come along. Now, you and your ilk know that there are going to be more like me pointing the finger at you in the future if you do. That will at least make you think twice. Not because you're afraid of me in anyway. But, because you're afraid someone like me will be talking when your son is old enough to know what you did to him. And, even though you know you can convince yourself of anything, it might not be so easy to convince him that it was such a good thing to chop off so much of his penis.Jack-
As the son of a clinical psychologist who kept ontop of research, as well as a psychology major myself, I can say Freud was discredited for a reason. It has nothing to do with conspiracies, it has to do with fundemental flaws in his reasoning as well as the approach he took towards trying to understand the psyche.
Those learning abou Freud and other psychologists usually come to the reasonable conclusion that Freud isn’t exactly on the level.
First off Jack…
I believe Beer was invented by Monks. I could be wrong. Anyone with better information (with cite hopefully) please feel free to correct me. Anyhoo - the point is that beer was invented (discovered) long after people stopped being hunter/gatherers… long after.
and secondly I found your response to Palandine extremely offensive. She said she probably wouldn’t circumcise her child. It was only AFTER reading your inane commentary that she said you pushed her closer to the pro-circ side. I think we should credit her with her own thoughts and feelings. Now maybe, as you say, it is after seeing what you had to say that she took her positon. I doubt it.
It is totally uncalled for for you to take CREDIT for her view on circumcision.
-
The beer/bread debate is an ongoing arguement that sociologists and anthropologists like to have while drinking at faculty mixers. The question of why man shifted from a hunter gatherer culture to an agricultural culture is a tanatlizing one that makes for a good arguement because neither side has enough evidence to be definitive and everybody knows it.
-
This is pointless, but I have to make this point one last time.
**THERE IS NO DESIGN TO NATURE **
Genders aren’t made to “compliement” each other, those nerves don’t “have to be for something”. Hell, it is the opinion of most eveloutionary biologist, including Gould, that the clitorous and in fact the entire female orgasm is a happy accident, the result of the fact that it carries no evolutionary DISADVANTAGE. Does this in any way invalidate the joy of an orgasm? No! Things do not have to be okayed by thier complience in the divine plan of “how things should be” because there is no plan. Nothing is “meant” to be any certain way.
There is a common misunderstanding by lay people, and one that I think JDT is laboring under, that evolution somehow has resulted in the optimum configuration for human beings–that evolution was working towards homo sapiens sapiens for all those billinia. Not true. We are not optimal, we are merely more competitive than our less successful ancestors were. Not everything has a function, nor is everything about ourselves neccisarily the best it could be.
The Tim,
> Those learning About Freud and other psychologists usually come to the reasonable conclusion that Freud isn’t exactly on the level. <
Well, with all due respect The Tim, are these the same persons who come to the conclusion that circumcision has no affect on the psyche? Let's see Freud died in 1939. Did Freud's ideas die as circumcision was taking hold? Probably. I wouldn't be surprised if Freud was still the cutting edge in psychology with everything since Freud just rationalizations so that no one must face the truth about anything. I'll have a more informed opinion on this in the near future.Coup d’état, I think you mean. It helps to spell things right when you’re trying to be condescending.
OK, so I wrote “coupe” initially. Sue me.
[Edited by Coldfire on 11-16-2000 at 08:01 PM]
HesterTM,
> It is totally uncalled for for you to take CREDIT for her view on circumcision.<
I don't see myself as taking credit for positive affects on any of the riffraff. I'm just disagreeing with her accusation that I am being counter-productive.