I've only a limited tolerance for the whole carrot-and-stick rigamarole to begin with (in particular, if you actually have a government run health system, it really shouldn't differentiate between citizens except on grounds which are entirely their fault like smoking and drinking), but this law is really beyond the pale. I agree. I think we both said that it was pretty damn ridiculous in there. Embedded in a debate about metabolism, hypoglycemia, and weight loss.:-)
I still think a bodyfat percentage would be meddlesome, but unlike the US, where you have genealogies from all over the world, Japan is much more homogeneous. Which means that there shouldn't be a natural 5% bodyfat difference like there might be between an African and a European.
Also, I've got a problem with healthcare in general. The AMA has created a monopoly for doctors (unlike most fields) and jacked up the price of admittance. This monopoly on healing means that they need to have malpractice insurance (because of their government-backed claim of rightness in all situations). All this has made everything very expensive. Add to it the effect of an insurance industry that is trying its best not to pay people, and you have a doctor that you can't afford on a regular wage.
So, if you're going to have healthcare, you've already violated people's rights to do business with whoever they see fit, and to handle their own health. Therefore, a fat tax is reasonably reasonable. IMO. If you make exceptions for people like the other poster who has had a documented medical history of hypoglycemia.
Being fat is usually the person's fault. I know, because I was fat. I am above my target weight right now, and it's because I just had me some motherfucking turkey bacon and some eggs. and some coffee. With cream and sugar. And no, I ain't doing my yoga today, because I couldn't sleep last night. My fault.
I do, in general, hate anything the government does to nanny me, though.
OK. Good response. And don't apologize for the rant. My post was all but asking for it.
I hope that no one reading this post will ever take advice about a diet without consulting their doctor and assessing their own personal dietary needs. I would go further, and suggest that people will consult with a nutritionist. Doctors are required to know surprisingly little about nutrition before they are let loose on the population by the AMA. And most doctors in Western medicine approach individual cases based on statistics, which is not always the right approach. And, in my experience, if most doctors gave any less of a shit, they'd implode.
In my defense, I gave a very light outline of the diet, and it's there so you know what I'm talking about.
The idea that a government is going to make a blanket statement that if you are X tall you must weigh X in order to be healthy without taking anything else into account is, IMO, completely stupid. I agree with that. The waistline thing seems absurd. If they're going to do something, they COULD implement a bodyfat percentage rate, and it would be much more sane. Also, it wouldn't be hard to exempt people like you, because you have a medical history dealing with your health.
Also, while the waistline thing is absurd, it's far less absurd in Japan where people have much more similar genetic backgrounds than in the US. So I don't know. I don't live in Japan.
Also, it seems odd to me that you are advocating a diet which instructs you to "force" yourself to eat When I was on the 2000 calorie diet, I was consuming fewer calories than I would have otherwise. Forcing yourself to eat when you don't feel like it maintains your metabolic inertia. It's not like you're full, or anything, but your metabolism has dipped, and it makes you not want to eat.
I was also working out a fair amount, but the principles should scale.
when almost everything I've ever heard says that that is really what the problem is...If you are going to change the way you eat, it needs to not be for just a couple months (which, in all actuality, can make you more UN-healthy) but needs to be a conscious decision to alter your LIFE. I agree. Altering the ratio of proteins to fats and carbs is pretty sustainable, and it's something I sustained for years. I've fallen a bit off the wagon, but going through that process kickstarted a condition in which I was very aware of the effect of all the food I was putting in my body.
I think we mostly agree. Different things do work for different people.
People who actually can't lose the weight are statistical outliers. I agree with you that these people will be punished by the Japanese system, but you can't say it's common, because it's not.
I know that hormonal issues can cause you to gain and retain weight, but I have a hard time believing someone when they tell me they can't lose the weight. I know it gets harder as you get older, and under differing circumstances, but here's what you do:
1. Exercise daily. At LEAST 15 minutes of moderate cardiovascular activity daily. If you're fit enough to do yoga, do the sun salutation (while focusing on proper breathing) 12 times in a row (or work up to that). That takes 15 minutes, and about 1 x 2 meters of floorspace. Also, a rowing machine or an elliptical crosstrainer is a good way to simulate running-style cardio without blowing your knees.
2. Shift your diet toward proteins. Shift simple carbs to complex carbs. Shift towards eating more insoluble fiber. If you're willing to pick up exercise, a generalized Zone-style diet of 40% calories from protein, 30% carbs and 30% fats will do wonders.
3. Build muscle. Muscle increases your metabolism, gives you energy, and makes you stronger so you can exert yourself more often without injuring yourself.
4. Eat 5 times a day. Eat right when you wake up, and space it evenly until 6pm or so (this is assuming a "normal" schedule). And don't eat for 3 hours before you go to sleep. So if you're eating 1500 calories, you get 300 calories/meal. You get stuff like 2 cans of tuna fish, a tablespoon of olive oil and 1 slice of whole grain bread. Eating that meal is goddamn rough when you're not hungry, let me tell you.
And then tell me you can't lose the weight. I lost 65 lbs (that's putting on maybe 10-20lbs muscle), and completely changed my metabolism from one where I couldn't lose weight to one where I could eat anything I wanted and not gain weight. Admittedly, I was young.
I don't want to sound like I'm on your case, because I realize you're sensitive about it. I just can't believe you, based on what I know. I also wanted to put this here as much for anybody who comes along and reads your post so there's decent information for them. And of course, I could be wrong about you. I've been wrong once before.:-)
Dude, you are pretending I'm looking at shit from a perspective I'm not, and then getting your feelings hurt. It's no wonder you're bitter about women, and it's no wonder you don't get the ones you want.
Neither have I in the past. But it's a failing of myself as someone who does my best to be good that I am not fully integrated emotionally and spiritually.
You used the term "mutilation" as if it were something inherently bad in your original post. I referenced a culture of systematically mutilating babies (with no reason) as bad. Nothing more. Tell me how the following is not clear:
The other thing I find offensive about calling sex with men violent is that presently 50% of the males born right now in this country get some of the most sensitive parts of their penis removed in a routine medical operation (furthermore, when the "sex with men is violence" meme arose, it was closer to 80% of male babies).
Now that I pointed out that there are cases where circumcision is medically justified, you're changing the tune to the bare definition of the word "mutilation", as if you originally assigned no "moral" values to it. Mutilate yourself, godspeed. Mutilate a baby, it's wrong.
However, it's a moot point. We still agree on the routine neonatal circumcision being unnecessary (to say the least). I don't we have to agree on the issue of "morality". I barely ever agree on such issues with my USA co-humans anyway. But it's OK.:-) I grew up in Mexico, and I disagree with most USA peoples as well. It's pretty goddamn barbaric to do the shit to babies routinely.
I think that mutilating people who are either not of the age of reason or have had their reason stunted is wrong. I'm just not letting my kids be circumcised.
Oh, and one more point: I know a lot of highly educated, emancipated women (my wife being one of those), who would take quite an offense, if they heard that you put them into the same basket as some extremist feminists. Just to warn you in case you come into a situation this article was all about...:-) I agree. I try not to lump them together, and I don't think I did. In fact, in my original post, I used the indefinite article ("a feminist"), and didn't specify all of them.
I know all too well the tendency of some people to climb in the same boat with the people one is denouncing just because they choose to share a label with them.:-)
No, I'm saying that a person that a "bad boy" is more likely to be himself even when it might hurt another person's feelings. A "good boy" is more likely to have a background process that checks to see if what they're about to say or do is going to hurt someone.
It's completely congruous with what I said. You're just telling me what I think and feel, and going from there. Have you ever tried young earth creationism? It should be a good fit for you.
Just about every smooth and successful type has no problem with women. Meaning, you need a nice job, and you need to know how to talk to women. I agree with this, pretty much. But if a girl's aim is to get laid, then you just need to convince her with your demeanor that you will make her enjoy herself.
If a girl wants a mate who's gentle and smiles a lot, you'd better hope you find lots of shit funny.:)
My original post talks about neonatal circumcision, buddy. That's what I'm morally opposed to.
Regardless of the age, it's still genital mutilation. It's no longer immoral if a person chooses to do it, but it doesn't make it NOT mutilation. Scarification? it's mutilation, but an adult gets to do it to himself. Tattoos? Mutilation. Boob jobs? Mutilation.
But it still causes emotional trauma. If it doesn't, let me know at which age it becomes immoral to molest babies. Because if they're not conscious enough for it to matter later, we need to get clear on what the exact age is.
Your statement is insane. My tool is hygienic, and it looks nice. When I get an erection, the skin retracts. Also, when I'm having sex with a girl, the skin slipping over the corpus of my penis--which is a trait that developed evolutionarily because it's a good idea--feels nice to girls.
I was actually talking mainly about neonatal circumcision. sorry i wasn't clear enough for you. the statement 'circumcision is genital mutilation' is still true, though. and people take mega issues with it.
if it's a consensual adult, i think that mutilating yourself slightly if it's your idea is no big deal. but then, adults are generally underinformed about the entire process and the dangers inherent in it.
but still, go ahead and cut off your toes if you're an adult. i couldn't give less of a shit about it.
you misunderstand. being a nice person is not always about being honest. sparing someone's feelings is an important part of being nice. suppressing negative urges is an important part of being nice.
if you think that only people who are internally pure are nice, then you have a very narrow view of the world.
Who equates all sex with violence? Sounds like they have a personal problem. And what feminist says that circumcision is not genital mutilation? Have you possibly surrounded yourself with straw (wo)men?
The sex = violence thing is an old feminist thing that still floats around a bit. I haven't heard it directly from anyone I associate with, however.
You would be surprised how many people think circumcision is fine, since it's an institutionalized form of violence that 50% of the population takes part in. I have gotten some really violent reactions from people when I call circumcision genital mutilation, because some people can't get their heads around the fact that two separate and inequally atrocious acts (because I agree that female genital mutilation tends to be consistently worse) could both be called the same thing.
Even going beyond directly saying sex = violence, though, you hear that men are brutish and insensitive. Men are faulted for being insensitive lovers, and I wonder if people never consider that if you desensitize somone's lovestick, they might pound your pussy a bit too hard.
I've never heard of women claiming sex with men would have anything to do with violence
I think it comes from 2nd wave feminist era propaganda. But I'm not sure.
circumcision is NOT a genital mutilation.
Your example is excellent. I never meant there weren't extenuating circumstances necessitating the procedure. However, doctors botch it at a fairly high rate--the quoted 1 in 10,000 only counts problems that arise in the week or two following the procedure. They don't take into account mutilated glans, excess skin removal, or anything that would arise at puberty.
Equaling
Who said that calling male circumcision genital mutilation (which it is, by definition) means that it is equal to female genital mutilation?
removal of a completely unnecessary piece of skin
yeah, well the main symptom of the removal of an eyeball is decreased sensitivity. Same with the foreskin. go figure.
which - by coincidence - is also found shit ugly by most women I know
Coincidence? You mean that these women who live in a culture where roughly a high percentage of the male population has a specific genital mutilation find that specific genital mutilation to be attractive?
They found in a survey of the southern USA that 80% of women preferred circumcised men. They also found that 75% of those women had never seen an uncircumcised penis.
And for what it's worth, I think that you shouldn't mutilate your child to increase his sexual attractiveness. And women who mutilate their little babies because they think an unmutilated body is ugly are bad people.
regardless of the reason this removal was done
I don't. I just wasn't clear enough.
to the *real* genital mutilations performed on young girls in Africa, practically crippling them for the rest of their lives, is actually an unbelievably ignorant thing to do!
You misuse the word real. You might mean 'more egregious.' However, the women in that culture were quite happy with the procedure. Also, some of the cultures just trim the labia minora, which is quite similar to male circumcision.
Crippling only occurs in some cases. Same as with the males.
It seems like you think that if I stand up for a man who is beaten by his wife, I'm detracting from the efforts of those who stand up for female victims of *real* spousal abuse. Who's ignorant now?
Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven.
I think that the fact that the foreskin makes the penis a more hospitable environment for HPV, which HAS been directly linked (statistically) to cervical cancer might be what you're talking about.
Also, they've found that removing the labia minora decreases the likelihood that a woman will contract HIV, which has given anthropologists pause in reforming cultures where HIV is rampant. However, it seems like you could inform people of the increased risk, rather than strapping babies down and cutting a part of their body off for no reason whatsoever.
Not to mention that there isn't a single medical association in a modern developed nation that recommends circumcision. Look it up.
I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you?
What the fuck are you talking about? It's not a living part of your body. I can't believe I just got suckered into explaining that to a grown man.
Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure.
Physicians are in general as incompetent as the next guy. The procedure is treated as a trivial one, and not with the care it should be.
This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post.
So you're basically saying that the nice guys aren't really nice, they are just pretending to be nice because they think it will win them girls. I call bullshit on that. Call bullshit on that all you want, I didn't say it. I'm saying that it's generally people with good intentions who experience social angst at trying to reconcile their desires with their moral standards. This results in a person being more anxious around someone he is trying to have sex with, unless that person has reconciled the desire to bang something with the relative morality of doing what it takes to get it done.
Someone who doesn't give a shit, ergo, will exhibit a much calmer and freer demeanor, which is attractive.
i think a big part of it is nice guys try to be nice, whereas "bad boys" are just themselves without reservation, for good or bad. so the bad boys seem more honest.
being honest will get you laid. it will also get you scoffed at, laughed at, rejected, etc. but it will find you what you're looking for. it's hard to be honest and considerate. just get lots of practice flirting.
Women who are abused are not the ones to blame. They are the ones who have the power to stop it but they are not really to blame. Yeah, but when people tell me that all acts of sex with a man are violence, it makes me think about statistics like these. It's pretty much consistently women who have the final say in mating; men make the overture, women accept.
Therefore, this is being biologically ingrained in us by women. Which is not to say that it's not biologically ingrained in them, too.
The other thing I find offensive about calling sex with men violent is that presently 50% of the males born right now in this country get some of the most sensitive parts of their penis removed in a routine medical operation (furthermore, when the "sex with men is violence" meme arose, it was closer to 80% of male babies). This is mutilation, even when there are no complications, such as the skin ending up too tight, or the shaft getting damage, resulting in a dysfunctionally bent penis, or part of the glans being removed, or hemmorraging. Anyway, best-case scenario, you desensitize the penis, which makes guys like rougher sex with unnatural levels of friction.
It's hilarious when a feminist tells you that circumcision isn't genital mutilation. Maybe next time one does, you can slap her and get laid.:D (disclaimer: don't slap the bitches)
my point was that I had actually posted on-topic sentences in my original post. you, however, posted only a call for my post to get modded down based on its redundancy.
considering that you didn't actually mod my post, and that whole moderation thing works all my itself, and based on what i gather at Ye Olde Dictionairey Dot Comme, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant), it seems that your post was far more redundant than mine. so i did you a favor and became even more redundant than you, so that at least in retrospect you weren't completely full of crap.
I read this study (the study itself, fwiw) that actually found a slight negative correlation between their violence metric and males who played violent video games. There was a pretty significant positive correlation among the females, though. All college students.
It's just an interesting study to quote to idiots who think that playing violent videogames makes people violent. I mean, we know that if a child witnesses familial violence they may even shy away from violence, so why wouldn't video games be the same?
Slashdot Mirror
I still think a bodyfat percentage would be meddlesome, but unlike the US, where you have genealogies from all over the world, Japan is much more homogeneous. Which means that there shouldn't be a natural 5% bodyfat difference like there might be between an African and a European.
Also, I've got a problem with healthcare in general. The AMA has created a monopoly for doctors (unlike most fields) and jacked up the price of admittance. This monopoly on healing means that they need to have malpractice insurance (because of their government-backed claim of rightness in all situations). All this has made everything very expensive. Add to it the effect of an insurance industry that is trying its best not to pay people, and you have a doctor that you can't afford on a regular wage.
So, if you're going to have healthcare, you've already violated people's rights to do business with whoever they see fit, and to handle their own health. Therefore, a fat tax is reasonably reasonable. IMO. If you make exceptions for people like the other poster who has had a documented medical history of hypoglycemia.
Being fat is usually the person's fault. I know, because I was fat. I am above my target weight right now, and it's because I just had me some motherfucking turkey bacon and some eggs. and some coffee. With cream and sugar. And no, I ain't doing my yoga today, because I couldn't sleep last night. My fault.
I do, in general, hate anything the government does to nanny me, though.
OK. Good response. And don't apologize for the rant. My post was all but asking for it.
I hope that no one reading this post will ever take advice about a diet without consulting their doctor and assessing their own personal dietary needs. I would go further, and suggest that people will consult with a nutritionist. Doctors are required to know surprisingly little about nutrition before they are let loose on the population by the AMA. And most doctors in Western medicine approach individual cases based on statistics, which is not always the right approach. And, in my experience, if most doctors gave any less of a shit, they'd implode.In my defense, I gave a very light outline of the diet, and it's there so you know what I'm talking about.
The idea that a government is going to make a blanket statement that if you are X tall you must weigh X in order to be healthy without taking anything else into account is, IMO, completely stupid. I agree with that. The waistline thing seems absurd. If they're going to do something, they COULD implement a bodyfat percentage rate, and it would be much more sane. Also, it wouldn't be hard to exempt people like you, because you have a medical history dealing with your health.Also, while the waistline thing is absurd, it's far less absurd in Japan where people have much more similar genetic backgrounds than in the US. So I don't know. I don't live in Japan.
Also, it seems odd to me that you are advocating a diet which instructs you to "force" yourself to eat When I was on the 2000 calorie diet, I was consuming fewer calories than I would have otherwise. Forcing yourself to eat when you don't feel like it maintains your metabolic inertia. It's not like you're full, or anything, but your metabolism has dipped, and it makes you not want to eat.I was also working out a fair amount, but the principles should scale.
when almost everything I've ever heard says that that is really what the problem is...If you are going to change the way you eat, it needs to not be for just a couple months (which, in all actuality, can make you more UN-healthy) but needs to be a conscious decision to alter your LIFE. I agree. Altering the ratio of proteins to fats and carbs is pretty sustainable, and it's something I sustained for years. I've fallen a bit off the wagon, but going through that process kickstarted a condition in which I was very aware of the effect of all the food I was putting in my body.I think we mostly agree. Different things do work for different people.
People who actually can't lose the weight are statistical outliers. I agree with you that these people will be punished by the Japanese system, but you can't say it's common, because it's not.
I know that hormonal issues can cause you to gain and retain weight, but I have a hard time believing someone when they tell me they can't lose the weight. I know it gets harder as you get older, and under differing circumstances, but here's what you do:
1. Exercise daily. At LEAST 15 minutes of moderate cardiovascular activity daily. If you're fit enough to do yoga, do the sun salutation (while focusing on proper breathing) 12 times in a row (or work up to that). That takes 15 minutes, and about 1 x 2 meters of floorspace. Also, a rowing machine or an elliptical crosstrainer is a good way to simulate running-style cardio without blowing your knees.
2. Shift your diet toward proteins. Shift simple carbs to complex carbs. Shift towards eating more insoluble fiber. If you're willing to pick up exercise, a generalized Zone-style diet of 40% calories from protein, 30% carbs and 30% fats will do wonders.
3. Build muscle. Muscle increases your metabolism, gives you energy, and makes you stronger so you can exert yourself more often without injuring yourself.
4. Eat 5 times a day. Eat right when you wake up, and space it evenly until 6pm or so (this is assuming a "normal" schedule). And don't eat for 3 hours before you go to sleep. So if you're eating 1500 calories, you get 300 calories/meal. You get stuff like 2 cans of tuna fish, a tablespoon of olive oil and 1 slice of whole grain bread. Eating that meal is goddamn rough when you're not hungry, let me tell you.
And then tell me you can't lose the weight. I lost 65 lbs (that's putting on maybe 10-20lbs muscle), and completely changed my metabolism from one where I couldn't lose weight to one where I could eat anything I wanted and not gain weight. Admittedly, I was young.
I don't want to sound like I'm on your case, because I realize you're sensitive about it. I just can't believe you, based on what I know. I also wanted to put this here as much for anybody who comes along and reads your post so there's decent information for them. And of course, I could be wrong about you. I've been wrong once before. :-)
Cheers,
Nathan
Dude, you are pretending I'm looking at shit from a perspective I'm not, and then getting your feelings hurt. It's no wonder you're bitter about women, and it's no wonder you don't get the ones you want.
Neither have I in the past. But it's a failing of myself as someone who does my best to be good that I am not fully integrated emotionally and spiritually.
Stop being such a judgmental cock,
Nathan
OK, so it's Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge said that. I shall look them up.
Thanks,
Nathan
The other thing I find offensive about calling sex with men violent is that presently 50% of the males born right now in this country get some of the most sensitive parts of their penis removed in a routine medical operation (furthermore, when the "sex with men is violence" meme arose, it was closer to 80% of male babies).
Now that I pointed out that there are cases where circumcision is medically justified, you're changing the tune to the bare definition of the word "mutilation", as if you originally assigned no "moral" values to it. Mutilate yourself, godspeed. Mutilate a baby, it's wrong. However, it's a moot point. We still agree on the routine neonatal circumcision being unnecessary (to say the least). I don't we have to agree on the issue of "morality". I barely ever agree on such issues with my USA co-humans anyway. But it's OK.I think that mutilating people who are either not of the age of reason or have had their reason stunted is wrong. I'm just not letting my kids be circumcised.
Oh, and one more point: I know a lot of highly educated, emancipated women (my wife being one of those), who would take quite an offense, if they heard that you put them into the same basket as some extremist feminists. Just to warn you in case you come into a situation this article was all about...I know all too well the tendency of some people to climb in the same boat with the people one is denouncing just because they choose to share a label with them. :-)
No, I'm saying that a person that a "bad boy" is more likely to be himself even when it might hurt another person's feelings. A "good boy" is more likely to have a background process that checks to see if what they're about to say or do is going to hurt someone.
It's completely congruous with what I said. You're just telling me what I think and feel, and going from there. Have you ever tried young earth creationism? It should be a good fit for you.
If a girl wants a mate who's gentle and smiles a lot, you'd better hope you find lots of shit funny. :)
My original post talks about neonatal circumcision, buddy. That's what I'm morally opposed to.
Regardless of the age, it's still genital mutilation. It's no longer immoral if a person chooses to do it, but it doesn't make it NOT mutilation. Scarification? it's mutilation, but an adult gets to do it to himself. Tattoos? Mutilation. Boob jobs? Mutilation.
I'm glad we agree. :)
But it still causes emotional trauma. If it doesn't, let me know at which age it becomes immoral to molest babies. Because if they're not conscious enough for it to matter later, we need to get clear on what the exact age is.
Your statement is insane. My tool is hygienic, and it looks nice. When I get an erection, the skin retracts. Also, when I'm having sex with a girl, the skin slipping over the corpus of my penis--which is a trait that developed evolutionarily because it's a good idea--feels nice to girls.
I was actually talking mainly about neonatal circumcision. sorry i wasn't clear enough for you. the statement 'circumcision is genital mutilation' is still true, though. and people take mega issues with it.
if it's a consensual adult, i think that mutilating yourself slightly if it's your idea is no big deal. but then, adults are generally underinformed about the entire process and the dangers inherent in it.
but still, go ahead and cut off your toes if you're an adult. i couldn't give less of a shit about it.
that's why i put bad in quotes. I think being less self-conscious helps with getting casual sex is all. i don't see how you could disagree with that.
i agree with your statement as well.
which argument, oh almighty coward?
you misunderstand. being a nice person is not always about being honest. sparing someone's feelings is an important part of being nice. suppressing negative urges is an important part of being nice.
if you think that only people who are internally pure are nice, then you have a very narrow view of the world.
Who equates all sex with violence? Sounds like they have a personal problem. And what feminist says that circumcision is not genital mutilation? Have you possibly surrounded yourself with straw (wo)men?
The sex = violence thing is an old feminist thing that still floats around a bit. I haven't heard it directly from anyone I associate with, however.You would be surprised how many people think circumcision is fine, since it's an institutionalized form of violence that 50% of the population takes part in. I have gotten some really violent reactions from people when I call circumcision genital mutilation, because some people can't get their heads around the fact that two separate and inequally atrocious acts (because I agree that female genital mutilation tends to be consistently worse) could both be called the same thing.
Even going beyond directly saying sex = violence, though, you hear that men are brutish and insensitive. Men are faulted for being insensitive lovers, and I wonder if people never consider that if you desensitize somone's lovestick, they might pound your pussy a bit too hard.
Cheers. :)
Nathan
I've never heard of women claiming sex with men would have anything to do with violence
I think it comes from 2nd wave feminist era propaganda. But I'm not sure.
circumcision is NOT a genital mutilation.
Your example is excellent. I never meant there weren't extenuating circumstances necessitating the procedure. However, doctors botch it at a fairly high rate--the quoted 1 in 10,000 only counts problems that arise in the week or two following the procedure. They don't take into account mutilated glans, excess skin removal, or anything that would arise at puberty.
Equaling
Who said that calling male circumcision genital mutilation (which it is, by definition) means that it is equal to female genital mutilation?
removal of a completely unnecessary piece of skin
yeah, well the main symptom of the removal of an eyeball is decreased sensitivity. Same with the foreskin. go figure.
which - by coincidence - is also found shit ugly by most women I know
Coincidence? You mean that these women who live in a culture where roughly a high percentage of the male population has a specific genital mutilation find that specific genital mutilation to be attractive?
They found in a survey of the southern USA that 80% of women preferred circumcised men. They also found that 75% of those women had never seen an uncircumcised penis.
And for what it's worth, I think that you shouldn't mutilate your child to increase his sexual attractiveness. And women who mutilate their little babies because they think an unmutilated body is ugly are bad people.
regardless of the reason this removal was done
I don't. I just wasn't clear enough.
to the *real* genital mutilations performed on young girls in Africa, practically crippling them for the rest of their lives, is actually an unbelievably ignorant thing to do!
You misuse the word real. You might mean 'more egregious.' However, the women in that culture were quite happy with the procedure. Also, some of the cultures just trim the labia minora, which is quite similar to male circumcision.
Crippling only occurs in some cases. Same as with the males.
It seems like you think that if I stand up for a man who is beaten by his wife, I'm detracting from the efforts of those who stand up for female victims of *real* spousal abuse. Who's ignorant now?
Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven.
I think that the fact that the foreskin makes the penis a more hospitable environment for HPV, which HAS been directly linked (statistically) to cervical cancer might be what you're talking about.
Also, they've found that removing the labia minora decreases the likelihood that a woman will contract HIV, which has given anthropologists pause in reforming cultures where HIV is rampant. However, it seems like you could inform people of the increased risk, rather than strapping babies down and cutting a part of their body off for no reason whatsoever.
Not to mention that there isn't a single medical association in a modern developed nation that recommends circumcision. Look it up.
I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you?
What the fuck are you talking about? It's not a living part of your body. I can't believe I just got suckered into explaining that to a grown man.
Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure.
Physicians are in general as incompetent as the next guy. The procedure is treated as a trivial one, and not with the care it should be.
This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post.
The ci
Someone who doesn't give a shit, ergo, will exhibit a much calmer and freer demeanor, which is attractive.
i think a big part of it is nice guys try to be nice, whereas "bad boys" are just themselves without reservation, for good or bad. so the bad boys seem more honest.
being honest will get you laid. it will also get you scoffed at, laughed at, rejected, etc. but it will find you what you're looking for. it's hard to be honest and considerate. just get lots of practice flirting.
Therefore, this is being biologically ingrained in us by women. Which is not to say that it's not biologically ingrained in them, too.
The other thing I find offensive about calling sex with men violent is that presently 50% of the males born right now in this country get some of the most sensitive parts of their penis removed in a routine medical operation (furthermore, when the "sex with men is violence" meme arose, it was closer to 80% of male babies). This is mutilation, even when there are no complications, such as the skin ending up too tight, or the shaft getting damage, resulting in a dysfunctionally bent penis, or part of the glans being removed, or hemmorraging. Anyway, best-case scenario, you desensitize the penis, which makes guys like rougher sex with unnatural levels of friction.
It's hilarious when a feminist tells you that circumcision isn't genital mutilation. Maybe next time one does, you can slap her and get laid. :D
(disclaimer: don't slap the bitches)
Are you still quoting that distortion of Al's words?
In Soviet Russia, Al Gore quotes YOU!And the Internet invented AL GORE!
And you reply to ME!
And I downmod YOU!
that, and people who are full of shit.
my point was that I had actually posted on-topic sentences in my original post. you, however, posted only a call for my post to get modded down based on its redundancy.
considering that you didn't actually mod my post, and that whole moderation thing works all my itself, and based on what i gather at Ye Olde Dictionairey Dot Comme, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant), it seems that your post was far more redundant than mine. so i did you a favor and became even more redundant than you, so that at least in retrospect you weren't completely full of crap.
no hard feelings,
nathan
*stops rubbing*
excuse me?
I try not to snoop, but when my OS generates thumbnails of my client's home porn, I really have a hard time.
Heh. I said hard.
But really, I don't descend into directories even, unless the client can't tell me what data he or she needs backing up. Then I look at the shit.
I read this study (the study itself, fwiw) that actually found a slight negative correlation between their violence metric and males who played violent video games. There was a pretty significant positive correlation among the females, though. All college students.
It's just an interesting study to quote to idiots who think that playing violent videogames makes people violent. I mean, we know that if a child witnesses familial violence they may even shy away from violence, so why wouldn't video games be the same?