No, I said I can’t feel anything in my nipples. Once a tongue or finger or whatever moves off the areola onto the regular skin of my breast, I feel it.
cough excuse me? PUT DOWN PROPERLY?
Sauron replied:
Point was that it’s a separate issue from the point I was making. Which was – and this an important distinction, in view of some of your lower comments – a relative comparison between two sources of information. The Brittanica is a generalist source. The ACS is a specialist source.
You know, it’s particularly irritating how you’re so greatly misrepresenting what I actually said.
I’ve primarily made relative comparisons, and comments on behavior, in this respect, NOT statements about identity.
Quick Guide to Responsible Posting – Step 1: Reread what you’re responding to. Step 2: Note the words ‘likely’ and ‘probable’. Step 3: Do the Homer.
If you want to talk to Jack, then talk to Jack. I’m not Jack. I’m someone else.
Oh boy. Ohhhhh boy.
Oh, now SHOW! ME! THE MONEY!
PARDON me, but where again did I say that they were?
If you want me to stick around and wrestle with you, get your thumb out of your eye and stop misrepresenting what I post! I can’t be expected to put up with it, nor will I do so. Oh, and wash that hand before you get back in the ring, please.
All I’ve pointed out is that their position on the preventive value of male genital reduction WRT penile cancer is that it has nopreventive value WRT penile cancer.
Yah, well, it seems you’re refusing to even look at the full text reprints of peer-reviewed journal articles made available to you because you consider the site biased. You’ll forgive me, I trust, if I don’t find this blatant rationalization for continued ignorance especially compelling.
And to me, it’s like going to the world’s foremost expert on faith-healing through retrophrenology in the same situation. One who’s been shown to sell a bottle of snake oil or two, on ocassion.
GIGO.
Eh? I did? Urmh. . .well, you could put it that way I suppose. . .but that’s more than I was aiming for, actually. I suppose it depends upon what you mean by ‘data’. But, thank you, regardless.
Excuse me, but the closest I’ve gotten to a ‘personal attack’ on any of them is to describe their behavior as incompetently deceitful. Which assertion is, of course, debatable – all the items on that nice long laundry list of their mongolian cluster fuck-ups could have been honest mistakes. . .
. . .oh and by the way, is there any chance you would be interested in purchasing some nice Floridian waterfront property?
What I haven’t done – unlike Jack – is make aggrrrrrrressive statements about their identities. I don’t happen to think any of them are pedophiles. There are people in the ‘amateur’ pro-genital reduction camp whom I do think are pedophiles (as opposed to pederasts, BTW) – mutilation fetishist pedophiles, to be exact – but I have reason to believe so about them, based upon observation. I don’t have anything like that WRT to the Three Unwise Men. My intuition about Wiswell is that he has some kind of separation/ego issues WRT his research, and his need to defend it has backed him into a corner where he feels he has to keep upping the ante in order to do so, along with the other three general reasons on my earlier list. Weiss and Schoen I believe are in it so strongly mainly because they feel the rights of their ‘people’ to practice this article of their faith are at risk – along with, again, the other three general reasons on my earlier list. Do I think any of them derives some kind of sick, twisted, perverted sexual satisfaction from the genital reduction of male children? NO. NOR HAVE I SAID SO.
So stop assigning Jack’s excesses to me, already. Them shoes don’t fit, mister.
I haven’t attacked them. I’ve criticized their behavior, and I’ve questioned their integrity – validly, based upon what they’ve actually done in the professional arena. I’ve theorized as to their possible motives and presented my estimations of their probable motives.
But I HAVE NOT ATTACKED THEM.
[QUOTE]
It’s one thing to draw conclusions; it’s another thing entirely to assign motive.
[/QUOTE
And the difference here between me and ol’ Jack is that I haven’t done the latter.
What I’ve done is present my reasons for doubting their credibility, based upon the evidence of their unprofessional conduct, and, again, theorized as to their possible motives and presented my estimations of their probable motives.
NOT made blanket assertions of fact in the manner that you’re accusing me of.
You’re grossly misrepresenting what I wrote again, and confabulating me with Jack again to boot. Can it!
Is this a tarbrush I see before me, the handle towards thy hand?
When I send you to one of their original-work op-ed summary pages, then you can kick about their bias. But when I send you to the full text reprint of a peer-reviewed journal article in their database, private, then you STFU AND SOLDIER, SOLDIER!
Jeeeeeeesus. If I’d known I’d end up doing this so much, I woulda studied dentistry.
And you would refer to a man who, say, walks away from an intimate rendezvous with a woman when he discovers that her perky 38s are really droopy 32s in a WonderBra, calling them ugly, saggy, mealsacks in the process, as. . . ?
‘Self-centered asswipe’ seems about right to me. Whaddya say, you rotten old Ringlord you?
/tongue—>cheek
Nah, you just aren’t up on the bleeding edge of SOFTA seduction technology. Nine times out of ten, a guy who talks like you just doesn’t really know how to do his socially assigned shit work of advancing the physical intimacy level, let alone well, and misses most of the signals his romantic interest is sending to tell him to do so. They spend a lot of time in LJBFville, although they’d never admit it. Hell, they’re probably among ‘friends’ (snigger, snigger, snigger) most of the time.
/tongue<----cheek
Er, not everybody is you, Sauron. I’d be willing to lay odds that the people in your circle are more unlikely than most to treat other people this way. . .but I’ve heard a disturbingly high proportion of usa women describe the intact male genitals in extraordinarily insulting terms, and boldly iterate their rejection of men on that basis.
I mean, what opinion would you have of a woman who rejected a man on the basis of his penile size?
‘Self-centered’ (insert pejorative of your choice)’?
“Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea,
And love is a thing that can never go wrong,
And I am Marie of Roumania.”
– Dorothy Parker
Further deponent sayeth not.
Why thank you!
<bows to Sauron>
Your servant, sir.
Not your day today so far, is it? First you incorrectly attribute Jack’s attributes and attitudes to me, twisting my words to do so, and now you can’t even keep track of who asked who what.
Jack didn’t ask that. I did. And I didn’t ask it of *you;[/] I was responding to **jab1[/]
[QUOTE]
I saw no point in his question (which, by the way, he hasn’t answered),
[/QUOTE}
Yah, well, you haven’t answered it either, and it wasn’t even directed at you.
Or. . .was it?
(j/k!)
[i[Technically,* I asked not told, and of jab1, not you. In summary, I suggest you rein in and get down off your high horse before that branch across the road up there – oops!
Too late! Just lie down. I’ll bring you a some bandages
and a cold compress from the truck.
You charming headstrong idiot, you.
Gee, me too.
Or at least a correctly attributed one?
Look who’s talking about ‘more intelligent response’.
Smirk, smirk, smirk
[QUOTE]
Perhaps I have the wrong perception of the concept of debating as it’s understood by you and Jack.
[/QUOTE/
You’re really stuck on this Jacksiom merry-go-round, aren’t you? Why don’t you head on down to the boardgames dept. of your local toystore and BUY A CLUE, ALREADY!
I’M NOT JACK.
Gee, I don’t know, INFORMATION YOU’RE MORE LIKELY TO ACCEPT, HAVING ACQUIRED IT BY YOUR OWN EFFORTS?
It’s called the ‘Socratic Method’. I guess you haven’t heard of it.
See the above.
Oh, and coming from someone who won’t read full-text reprints of peer-reviewed journal articles because he considers the site they’re on to be biased – although how, exactly, that’s supposed to invalidate full-text reprints of peer-reviewed journal articles has yet to be explained – your comments about expectations WRT ‘providing’ statistics and data are riotously laughable.
That’s a production problem, not a management problem. Take it to the folks on the shop floor. 
Another error. Par for the course so far today.
Yeah, that really excuses the stuff I read in the Pit about him.
Methinks not.
Mosta y’all in here have been more restrained, certainly, but Sauron, your logic is faulty above. Leaving aside the peace, love, and understanding argument, since by my reading of your posting character I doubt you’ll find it at all convincing, let’s go straight to the practical utilitarian approach.
The only element in this relational system you can control is your own behavior. If you want Jack to behave differently, you need to behave differently. People generally seem to want him to calm down and be more rational and respectful.
So, let’s all poke him with verbal sticks! Hey yeah, that oughta work real good!
Again, methinks not.
If you want Jack to calm down and be more rational and respectful, post things designed to make him feel calmer and more inclined to be rational and respectful.
NOT things designed to wind him up tighter.
Get the picture?
<grin>
You flatterer, you.
I guess the pop-culture X-Men rimshot was flying too low for your radar, huh?
Bah, yah, bah. Frigging Trackman. Stuck on Submit when it should have moved to Review
David/Gaudere, can we get that unholy mess up there removed entire? I have it on WordPad still, I’ll just resubmit it – unchanged except for formatting, of course. Or not at all. What-ever.
What makes comparable female genital reduction ‘bad’, then? And it’s ‘genital reduction’. If you want to dispute the term, dispute it.
And your point is?
What’s the history of female genital reduction in the usa, cantrip? How recently was it being performed for ‘medical’ purposes? What were the usa origins and justifications of the practice in terms of ‘medical’ purposes? SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN STOPPED SOONER THROUGH SOCIAL ACTIVISM?
SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED TODAY FOR REASONS OF ‘CUSTOM OR RITUAL’?
The evidence for the change already exists. It’s been available since 1996.
So have slavery, cannabalism, genocide. . .female genital reduction. . . .
Cite?
News flash, cantrip; not only are some some hospitals and doctors still pushing routine infant male genital reduction at parents as a default, and continuing to fail at their informed consent responsibilities – consider the Price case underway in New Jersey RIGHT NOW, where little Matthew’s balanitis inflammations are most likely attributable to iatrogenic causes as a result of improper care instructions from his pediatrician (to wit, forcible retraction of his still synechially-attached foreskin, which the AAP specifically directs parents and practioners not to do) – but the last survey I saw indicated that around 40% of all infant male genital reductions are done with no analgesia whatsoever, again in direct contradiction of the AAP’s specific instructions to practioners.
The united state of america is a genitally reductive nation. Just like burkina faso, or nigeria, or egypt, or anywhere else where children are at risk of the permanent alteration of their genitalia. Check it out:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Of course people resist understanding this. It’s no different than in any other culture where children are subject to this kind of treatment. Nobody wants to face the facts. They quite literally can’t handle the truth.
Unless of course they were (A) facing a veritable nightmare of malpractice litigation should there be an official statement usable in court upon which such claims could be based; (B) facing the loss of well over $2,000,000,000.00 in annual gross revenues from the procedure; © facing the full ethical awareness that this evidence indicates that for generations they had been causing meaningful neurological losses and sensory detriments to their infant patients (I do believe that most peds have a deep and abiding love of children in general; that’s why I believe acknowledging the inherent harm of this practice is incredibly difficult for them); and (D) facing the full personal awareness that this evidence indicates that they themselves have suffered meaningful neurological losses and sensory detriment, something that I can assure you is not a trivial matter.
Not only is there the Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor anatomical pathology study – which, if you continue to refuse to read it, you may neither validly dismiss nor even dispute – but a sensitivity study is currently underway in Oakland, CA, under the auspices of Marilyn Milos, comparing the relative penile sensitivity of intact men, men genitally reduced in adulthood, men genitally reduced in childhood who have since restored simulations of their foreskins, and men who were genitally reduced in childhood who remain so. Initial results are as anticipated; the subjects’ penile sensitivity decreases by the same order in which they are listed above.
The fundamental postulate upon which the assessment of male genital reduction rests, and without which it collapses into a grotesque failure of ethical medical practice, is the unexamined assumption that the foreskin is completely irrelevant to male sexual function.
Well, that dog’s DEAD, cantrip. Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor took it out behind the chemical sheds and BLEW ITS BRAINS OUT. The stinking corpse is lying at your feet now, roiling with the maggoty filth that has always infested it and only now can be seen for what it was – parasitically infested, revolting and repellent, and the clearly the result of deliberate blindness towards the warning signs of complete systemic FUBARedness.
There is no way you can remove nerve tissue without by-definition causing a loss of sensitivity. Period, end of story. YOU CAN’T FEEL WITH WHAT YOU DON’T HAVE. That’s all there is to it.
Then you can’t argue your case. If you refuse to examine the evidence, then you’re not entitled to dismiss or even dispute it.
I gave you one. You still haven’t explained why it should be considered religious discrimination. The law specifically invalidates reasons of ‘custom or ritual’.
Look: how much of what genital tissue by what criteria do you believe parents are entitled to have removed from their daughters on the basis of religious belief?
The religious discrimination here lies not in denying jewish or muslim or animist parents the right to have their male children genitally reduced. It lies in allowing them to have their male children genitally reduced and not allowing them to have their female children comparably reduced. THAT’S the discrimination – affording ONE set of citizens a basic right while DENYING it to another, on a fraudulent basis.
Got it? You can’t have it both ways. If your religious beliefs legally justify the removal of functional, healthy, non-pathogenic erogenous tissue from MALE minors, then the religious beliefs of others legally justify the removal of function, healthy, non-pathogenic erogenous tissue from FEMALE minors. That’s your dilemma to resolve.
I’m exercising a great deal of restraint here because I believe you’re genuinely having some difficulty with thinking outside of your usual box, rather than being deliberately obtuse, but I would really appreciate it if you would go back through the thread and read my other posts, particularly my response to Jodi’s comments. And if you continue to refuse to examine people’s citations, pretty soon I’m going to wash my hands of you. I won’t discuss this with you under such ridiculous constraints, nor should I be expected to. If someone refused to look at your evidence, well. . .how would you describe it?
‘Denial’?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Some people just aren’t quick learners.
Acksiom, after being warned twice about insults, said:
So now he’s gone. Buh-bye.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
I already asked Jack one of these . . . his research has not been published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal.
I’ll take my $100 in unmarked $20s . . .
BTW, Acksiom . . . good thing I didn’t see what you had to say to me. (David B, that was not meant as a threat, though feel free to delete it if you see it as such.)
David B,
Acksiom said to Sauron:
> [Technically, I asked not told, and of jab1, not you. In summary, I suggest you rein in and get down off your high horse before that branch across the road up there – oops! Too late! Just lie down. I’ll bring you a some bandages and a cold compress from the truck. You charming headstrong idiot, you. <
I wish to protest your banning of Acksiom on the grounds that he broke no rules.
The alleged insult was actually made in a fictional story, as a figure of speech and therefore it isn't a direct insult.
Anyway, "headstrong" is just a neutral word. And, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be a "charming" idiot. All one has to do is look at our political leaders to know that our society places a much higher value on charm than on intelligence. It's a sad but true commentary on our society that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would trade any of their charm for intelligence. I don't feel that it is all that much of a reach to say that that statement was a compliment. At the very least, it's reasonable doubt as to whether or not that statement was an insult. Almost everyone loves the charming fool and fears the automaton genius.OpalCat,
> We’ve tried just about everything it’s legal to try, sexually. <
Have you tried what I said to do, though?
> My nipples have NO SENSATION. Trust me on this. I can pinch them as hard as my fingers can pinch, and all I feel is a dull pressure. <
Everything about your breasts have atrophied. I don't like casting myself in the role of a sexologist, but I've learned a lot about such issues in my research and my own natural tendencies with sex. Have you heard of a product called Bloussant? Taking this drug will cause your breasts to grow larger and to firm up. You can achieve the same affect if your partner sucks on your breasts a lot (an adult man can put a whole lot of suction on you so be careful, I should have warned you about that earlier). Your breast tissue will build up and so will the nerves. Your breasts will be bigger and firmer. You'll probably start to lactate a little after a few months, which some men find very erotic. Your nervous system in your breasts will start to work sooner or later (very much sooner, I think).
> When I was a dancer, the law in my state said we had to wear liquid latex on our nipples. I was allergic to it. Every couple of months, my nipples would crack open and bleed. Want to know what it felt like? A vague itch. <
That vague itch was probably your erotic nerves malfunctioning because of the damage and atrophy.
> I think I could probably cut them off without noticing. <
You would be saying goodbye to a very large amount of your sexuality if you did.[Moderator Hat: ON]
Jack said:
You were warned once that if you wanted to argue about moderator enforcement, you were to take it to the Pit or e-mail. Apparently, you are eager to follow your pal into SDMB oblivion.
Now you’ve got 2 strikes.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
OpalCat,
> I hate to be the one to break this to you… but there isn’t “one right way” to have sex. Everybody likes something a little different, and most people like a pretty wide variety of things. If I was with a guy who was so limited, sexually, as the “intact man” in all of your posts… well let’s just say I’d find someone else. <
This all depends on how you define what sex is. As far as I'm concerned, sex is only happening when both partners are experiencing erotic sensations. Nothing can take the place of erotic sensations. True erotic sensations can only be experienced through the breasts, the foreskin, the frenulum, the clitoral hood, and the G-Spot. The sex is when a man and woman go through triggering these areas so that they are actually experiencing the various erotic sensations that these areas give.
Everything that leads up to the sex is just whatever the two people socially do with one another. This might be seeing movies with each other. This might be whipping each other. Who knows? But, it's just how they bond with each other.
However, when male circumcision enters the picture, things drastically change. Now you have to invent something called foreplay. Foreplay is basically something to get the woman warmed up for intercourse. The man and the woman cannot go directly to intercourse because it will hurt the woman and she needs to be ready for any chance that she will get any sensation from the intercourse. So, the man and the woman engage is some foreplay actions where the man gets no erotic sensations. The woman will get erotic sensations when she is receiving cunnilingus. Sometimes they will do risky things like have sex in public places. They might do S and M. Foreplay has a lot to do with psychology. All of this foreplay is necessary because without his foreskin, the man and the woman cannot go directly into experiencing erotic sensations.
> Another thing, and this isn’t something I’m proud of… but uncircumcised penises are just kinda gross looking. <
You know what? How many have you seen? Foreskins come in quite a few different shapes. If you look at a penis with a tight, little foreskin for a while you'll change your mind.
> Now, if I was in love with a man who wasn’t circumcised, I’m sure I could get used to it… but frankly it would take me a while to work up the stomach to touch it. <
You don't have to touch it. It will touch you, just right. Anyway, if you were going to touch it, it would probably be erect and it wouldn't look all that different from a circumcised penis anyway.
> Sorry! That is just how I feel. They just look icky to me. <
No, they don't because you've never seen one, probably.
> Plus things with creases in general scare me… I think of sweat and dirty and grossness… this includes the labia, btw, it’s not a man-only thing. <
You shouldn't compare an intact penis with a vagina. A vagina is ten times more dirty than an intact penis. Oral sex is very often not a requirement from intact men so find one of those.I have nothing to offer to this so-called “debate” because it’s all one dude trying to substantiate a bunch of hearsay with little or no information to back him up, combined with what he feels should be proper sex, ad-vomit.
I am sorry but I cannot for the life of me figure out why everyone continues to egg this guy on. He’s obviously obsessed with his uncircumcised penis. There are people on both sides of the fence but so many of his posts are riddled with what he considers to “please a woman” things like “sex occurs outside the woman” and BS like that.
Look JDT, as far as sex goes, what pleases one person may not please another. Much of it is through life’s experiences, it’s that simple. Because Opal or anyone else on this board doesn’t conform to your sterilized and certainly odd view on sexuality does not mean you must justify to anyone else why you believe the things you do and everyone should feel the same way.
Personally, I find you an odd person. You need to venture into other fora on this board, your obsession is getting a little disgusting.
Have you tried what I said to do, though?
Yeah guys have stuffed my boobs in their mouths and sucked hard and used their tongue and it’s all vaguely annoying. It isn’t erotic in the slightest. No it isn’t that they’re doing it wrong, its that MY BODY isn’t wired that way.
*Everything about your breasts have atrophied. *
Atrophied? From when? They have always been like this. And I’ve nursed a baby, didn’t feel that either.
*That vague itch was probably your erotic nerves malfunctioning because of the damage and atrophy. *
Damaged how? They’ve been like this ALL MY LIFE.
You would be saying goodbye to a very large amount of your sexuality if you did.
No, my breasts aren’t any part of my sexuality except perhaps visual stimulus for the man.
Anyway, you’ve missed my point. My point is that a person can be missing some aspect of their sexual physiology and still have a happy, satisfying sex life.
Thanks but I’m married, I’ll pass. Also, I happen to LIKE oral sex in both directions. I would be very upset if I were with a man with whom oral sex was not part of the program.
Your views of sex are sad. I would absolutely HATE to be in a relationship like that. No foreplay? Just dive right in and go for it? Sounds like a pretty crappy way to spend an evening to me. No thanks.
Get a clue, ok? NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE SAME STUFF, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORESKIN!
If circumcised men invented foreplay, as JDT opines, then I’d like to thank the circumcised man who invented cunnilingus, and apparently spread the word to everyone else.
I find it interesting that all “intact” men avoid foreplay and don’t get into oral sex and such… and their partners don’t make noises or move around in bed… I mean … why on earth would any woman voluntarily sleep with a guy like that?
Because there is no other way for women to get their best erotic sensations.
Which is exactly what the Jewish Conspiracies Patriarchs want. Its hard to control people who are so mellow as their sex lives are complete.
I have no idea WHY I am responding again but something about the following quote is insane:
Look JDT, you obviously are in need of some encounters with some women other than of the ones you might pay. Most of the women I know need more than just a poke to get things going. The act of love making does not involve fucking and fucking only, it’s an experience of touching, feeling and enjoying your partner’s body, mind and spirit.
There is more to sex than sticking it in. It may not be that way for many species but the human is far different. We think and feel and someone said earlier that the brain is the most important sex organ…they were right.
Sorry but no man can “fuck” me without foreplay, I don’t just drop my drawers and let a man in me. Sheesh, most animals have some kind of “foreplay” to get the female ready for intercourse. Take dogs for instance, a male dog must prove his worth before he can copulate, he must arrouse her in some way. A cat, a cat needs some teasing even though some look at it as ferocious, she is sizing him up to ensure he is worthy of being the sperm with which her off spring will grow…
Your view of sexuality is sadly wrong. Your view equates men to only being humans of committing rape. It doesn’t matter if there is foreskin or not, most women prefer to have some form of foreplay. If you can’t see that then you will fail miserably in any relationships you persue.
< damnit, I didn’t want to get sucked into this but that quote has been bugging me for a few hours now! >
OpalCat,
> Your views of sex are sad. I would absolutely HATE to be in a relationship like that. No foreplay? Just dive right in and go for it? Sounds like a pretty crappy way to spend an evening to me. No thanks. <
OK, I'm not making myself clear as I explain the best-case scenarios with regard to the differences between circumcised and intact. I need to dumb it down a little: What would you prefer, 35 minutes of foreplay and 5 minutes of erotic sensations or 40 minutes of erotic sensations? This is what your choice amounts to. If you can go right to having erotic sensations, why would you waste your time with foreplay? Keep in mind that I know that the man and woman do whatever activities that cause them to bond before they start the erotic sensations. I'm just saying that it isn't necessary to do the acts that are commonly thought of as foreplay which are mainly designed to prevent the circumcised man from finishing the sex in two or three minutes.Icindentally, I keep my hatless love warrior smooth with a little E45 cream.
I’ve just read through about half of this thread and I must say, Jack is hilarious. Go Jack!