You talkin’ about me? Well, according to JDT I do have a foreskin…
I wasn’t sure… forgive me. I tried to look for evidence of your gender in your profile and the people pages, but alas, I found none.
But you still are burning in hell for disrespecting JDT’s allmighty foreskin (may it live forever).
Disrespect the mighty Foreskin? Not me!
I just sent away for a Tug-Ahoy for my husband for Christmas. I am looking forward to seeing the look on his face when we are all gathered around on Christmas morning…Jeff, me, my mom, my dad, my brother, Spot the dog…and he opens his gift.
Especially since whenever one of us gets a “wearable” gift, he/she is obliged to “model” it.
“Oh, put it on so we can see how it looks!”
I just want to defer everyone’s attention to The Church of the Visible Pink Foreskin. The first two members are myself and Green Bean.
Carry on.
Danielinthewolvesden,
> The main problem I have with ol Jack is his idea that circumcision is in any way comparable to FGM. Hell, in the worst cases of FGM, they remove the clit, the labia, and sew up the bloody mess with thorns, all without painkillers or sanitary conditions. <
Go see Acksiom’s post at 11-10-2000 05:06 AM in the circumcision thread in GD’s. Acksiom writes very well. You’re completely wrong in saying that there is any real difference between FGM and MGM.
Jack, you fucking fruitball. Get some psychological help, please.
I do not believe you actually want to help society change its ways regarding circumsion. You simply want attention. I first started reading your threads and thought you were intelligent, but misguided in your attempts. I soon realized you are truly fucked up and without care for peoples feelings or opinions.
I truly hope that dopers will disregard you from now on, I know I will.
Okay, Jack, I’ve tried to be nice, but now I know you’re f*&cked up! How 'bout doing a little more research on a topic you obviously know NOTHING about before you make that kind of sweeping generalization?! And we’re not talking about FGM that was supposedly performed in the US; we’re talking about the brutal, horrible kind still practiced in Africa to this very day.
God, you are such a dick.
BunnyGirl,
> Okay, Jack, I’ve tried to be nice, but now I know you’re f*&cked up! How 'bout doing a little more research on a topic you obviously know NOTHING about before you make that kind of sweeping generalization?! <
Go see Acksiom's post at 11-10-2000 05:06 AM in the circumcision thread in GD's. Case closed. You lose.“I am Jack’s circumcised penis.”
“The first rule of circumcision is, you do not talk about circumcision. The second rule of circumcision is, you DO NOT talk about circumcision.”
I meant, a la “Fight Club.”
In case anyone wonder’s where the link is, it’s here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=45330&pagenumber=3
Look, monkey boy, I know your little neuron is having a hard time dodging all the logic bullets people keep shooting at you, and I guess I shouldn’t have made the assumption that you would be able to sift through the assumption I made about FMG and MGM. I wasn’t implying that there wasn’t any difference between FGM and MGM. They are both mutiliations of genitals. What I am saying (pay attention now) is how different FGM is in the brutality in which it is done.
Acksiom in his post compared the square footage of tissue lost - he did not compare the way they are done.
I am not trying to belittle MGM but MGM is typically done in a sterile, medically controlled setting. FGM is done in typically unsterile conditions using thorns or crude knives.
See this link http://www.taharaproject.org/womenshealth.html for a further description.
I agree with Acksiom that MGM is not being defined as “mutuliation” because it would make FGM easier to stop (his general gist). No doubt. Countries that practice FGM are typically patriarchal. These same men would have to concede that FGM is mutilation. Yes, I realize that women are the ones that do it on other women, however, this link provides some reasons for that as well as details a little further the brutality of the procedure, especially infibulation http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~scoggins/306preview/student_projects/haynes/intro.html.
I don’t deny that a clitoroidectomay and circumcision can be compared. However, there is very little in the circumcision that men experience as babies (babies, mind you)that can compare to FGM in the form of infibulation, done on young girls from ages 3-12 in an unsterile, unmedically controlled environment. There is a grave difference between cutting off what could become 10 sq. inches of tissue and cutting off 10 square inches of living tissue. More blood loss, more trauma to the body, greater psychological damage (the area of baby memory is pretty gray, so don’t even go there). I think you could begin to compare them if you were circumcising boys at the age of 3-12 and also cutting off half their penis. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein’s comparison of FGM and MGM (see link http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html, I believe, does a great disservice to those trying to fight FGM because it trivializes the brutality of FGM by likening it to what male babies go through in a sterile, controlled environment.
It’s not “win or lose” around here, it’s the presentation of cogent arguments, very little of which I’ve seen coming from your masturbatory hands. I, like most people here, don’t disagree with you that MGM is unnecessary . And BTW, just because some unknown poster around here posts something doesn’t mean its gospel. I said for you to stop posting about that which you know nothing, not Acksiom. Apples and oranges here. Oh, and when your “research” (and I use that term lightly - most people here I believe call it “Getting Off by Looking at Other Guys’ Dicks”) is published in the New England Journal of Medicine, then maybe I’ll give some creadance to your positions. What would the Bow-Wow-Wow girl think if she knew about your “research”?
Bunnygirl, please, don’t encourage him. He’s like a Jeezer on a mission to save homosexuals - he truly believes he is saving people from their own ignorance. We know the difference, but Jack believes otherwise.
Truly, all you’re going to get is a blown gasket. Haven’t three threads and how many pages taught us that, yet?
Besides, according to him, I’m an old, balding, fat, undesirable, and, of course, circumcised gay man. If he’s wrong on that, isn’t it enough to know he’s wrong about everything else, too?
As my wise, wise friend Bishop once said, “He lives in Kansas - isn’t that punishment enough?” 
Esprix
Suggested sig?
“Bumping uglies–it’s not just a euphemism anymore”
Silly me, I hadn’t read any of the circ threads until yesterday, depriving myself of much hilarity (although I probably cut a year off my life yesterday trying to stifle laughter in the library).
What I like about Jack is this–he knows everything about everyone. I mean, some might think it’s arrogant for a man to claim to know the sexual feelings or appearance of every other man, but when that same man can also claim to speak for the sexual preferences of every woman on the planet as well, well then you’ve really got something.
My favorite part is how the truly satisfied woman expresses her transcendant bliss by laying there very quietly and not saying anything. It appears I have insulted my partners greatly by actually, oh I don’t know, taking part in the act.
It’s been too long since I have known the horror of zombified joyless sexual relations (and their inevitable preverted improvizations) with a mutilated freak who hates his mother and is so uncertain of himself that he actually responds to my needs :rolleyes:
But let me say this for the record–
If I were the last woman on the planet, and JDT was the last man, and every double A battery had been raptured up to heaven, I would STILL rather have my eyes eaten out by rabid pitbulls and replaced by burning charcoal briquettes than submit to him practicing frottage against my little love button while giving me the mother of all suction bruises on my breast with his gaping fish-mouth. Gee, what’s not to enjoy?
YMMV
In the best traditions of Johnny Cock-rin, here are some possible signatures.
If you’re missing skin, you just can’t win.
If you don’t have dome, you can’t make her come.
If the skin’s too tight, it just ain’t right.
Nevermind the grin, gimmy back my skin.
Got that extra bit? You can rub her clit.
If the glove is gone, you can’t go on.
I defend the right to be out of sight.
and finally,
If you missed her spot, you must be cut.
Esprix said:
::sigh:: You’re right, bro. I know, I know, I hate feeding Monkey Boy’s fire; it’s just the astounding stupidity (notice I didn’t say he was ignorant) presented.
We’re here to fight ignorance; I don’t think we can fight stupidity.
BunnyGirl,
> They are both mutilations of genitals. What I am saying (pay attention now) is how different FGM is in the brutality in which it is done. <
That's what I assumed you were saying, foolish one.
> Acksiom in his post compared the square footage of tissue lost - he did not compare the way they are done. <
Foolish one, if FGM were legal to practice in America today, do you suppose that for some reason it would be carried out to the same standards as those in the African bush? It would be done in the same sterile environment as MGM unless some witchdoctor (like a mohel) is allowed to do it to some other standard (my understanding is that witchdoctors in America actually do a better job at circumcising babies).
> I don’t deny that a clitoroidectomay and circumcision can be compared. However, there is very little inthe circumcision that men experience as babies (babies, mind you)that can compare to FGM in the form of infibulation, done on young girls from ages 3-12 in an unsterile, unmedically controlled environment. <
Wrong, again. The best evidence indicates that babies are MORE susceptible to pain than adults. Also, you're wrong to compare a male circumcision to a female infibulation. FGM and MGM each have four levels of brutality. You're comparing the second level of MGM (circumcision) to the fourth level of FGM (infibulation). You should be comparing infibulation to the fourth level of MGM which is skinning (legal in America, BTW). Or, you should be comparing a male circumcision to an FGM circumcision.
> It’s not “win or lose” around here, it’s the presentation of cogent arguments, very little of which I’ve seen coming from your masturbatory hands. I, like most people here, don’t disagree with you that MGM is unnecessary . <
But, with all of the evidence you refuse to see that MGM , at least, COULD be a crime on the level of FGM. "Could" is plenty enough for any rational person to oppose MGM as being a crime equal to FGM because any rational person would assume worst-case until the matter is known for certain. And, all evidence so far looks as if the worst-case scenario is going to be the real-case scenario.If it’s time to vote I vote for sig BunnyGirl wrote. It’s a little long but <insert penis joke here>.
Did I miss this in all the other threads? What are the other stages of MGM?
relic_11,
> Did I miss this in all the other threads? What are the other stages of MGM? <
MGM (from least to most brutal): incision, circumcision, subincision, and stripping (sorry I said “skinning” earlier, don’t know what I was thinking).
FGM (from least to most brutal): incision, circumcision, excision, and infibulation.
Okay, so, for MGM: incision=a cut, circumcision=removal of foreskin, subincision=??? and stripping=???
I have an idea for FGM. Thanks for the clarification, Jack.