FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-24-2002, 11:02 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 7,895
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Arrowman:
<strong>

Oh, all right But I can't promise anything - what I wrote might have sounded like "this is what happens to me all the time" but in fact it has been a rare treasure. Very real, but rare.

I'm willing to broaden the experimental base, however...</strong>
WOOHOO!!

*squeals with delight as she thinks of the possibilities and the fact that she still, thankfully, has a clitoris and a sexual imagination! Heh.*
lunachick is offline  
Old 10-24-2002, 11:21 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: OH
Posts: 1,292
Post

in response to arrowman's first post, on my first post....

so we have agreed that the female form is (traditionally) much more severe than the male...but physical integrity is the basis of my original post...why is it that some forms of physically altering one's body are seen as OK while other's are seen as proposterous? Even if in a doctor's office, w/ anesthesia and a nice clean scalpel, the doctor were to remove even just the hood of the clitoris, we would be outraged...
Megusic is offline  
Old 10-24-2002, 11:50 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: b
Posts: 673
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Megusic:
<strong>in response to arrowman's first post, on my first post....

so we have agreed that the female form is (traditionally) much more severe than the male...but physical integrity is the basis of my original post...why is it that some forms of physically altering one's body are seen as OK while other's are seen as proposterous? Even if in a doctor's office, w/ anesthesia and a nice clean scalpel, the doctor were to remove even just the hood of the clitoris, we would be outraged...</strong>
Because we are not used to it. We, at least those of us in the US, are very used to some forms of mutilation and are not used to other forms. We accept male circumcision, ear peircings, and to a lesser extent, tatoos and more exotic peircings. We are very uncomfortable with with anything we have not seen before, or have seen very rarely such as putting a plate in one's lip.

Tradition, on the other hand, can enure one to all sorts of horrors. Sometimes it is necessary to look again at certain practices that are common place but questionable. When I was pregnant I had decided, in the event that I had a boy, that would have him circumcised. I wanted him to look like most everyone else, I thought "like father, like son", and I am technically Jewish and so my son would be as well. Who ever heard of an uncircumcised Jew? Now, thankfully, I realise how stupid those reasons are. I am appalled that this ritual still takes place. It's pointless and cruel. If I have a baby boy I will not have him circumcised and I am relieved I didn't have to make this decision before I woke up.

Glory
Glory is offline  
Old 10-25-2002, 12:00 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: b
Posts: 673
Post

Quote:
Women do seem to enjoy the additional sensation of penetration, but that's just a bonus over a clitoral orgasm which could have been achieved by other means. (IMHO some women enjoy intercourse only, or mainly, because of the pleasure of watching their partner get off rather than any terrific vaginal sensations; for their own pleasure they're just as happy with an orally- or manually-stimulated orgasm.)


I get plenty out of intercourse. There are a lot of sensations from penile penetrattion which, while not orgasm, are still quite wonderful. I find that even after I have had an orgasm I still won't really feel satisfied unless I get intercourse. There is also the peripheral physical contact. I love being body to body with someone. As I am sure you're all aware, orgasm is the brass ring but it isn't the only goal of intercourse.

Glory
Glory is offline  
Old 10-25-2002, 12:16 AM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: OH
Posts: 1,292
Post

yay glory! i'm really happy you have thought about this and not become just a slave to tradition...you are absolutely right, it is done too much in tradition and I myself just don't get how ppl are able to continue to turn the other cheek...

as George Bernard Shaw said, "Custom wil reconcile people to any atrocity; and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom"
Megusic is offline  
Old 10-25-2002, 12:32 AM   #46
Ut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 828
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by lunachick:
<strong>As I see it, MGM is about hygiene and 'looks'.</strong>

FGM is about controlling womens sexuality. If she doesn't derive much pleasure from sex, she will be less likely to stray. Womens sexuality is sinful and the root of all evil. The whores of Babylon.
Not a safe bet at all.

As I pointed out in my previous posts, MGM is about much more than hygiene or 'looks'. It removes large quantities of very sensitive material while denying adequate protection and sensitivity to the remaining material.

Also, it should be known that MGM was first hawked in English-speaking countries as a cure to masturbation. Watch any intact man masturbate and you'll see him rubbing and rolling his foreskin over his glans. For him, that's simply a no-brainer. The doctors and fundamentalist Christians who promoted MGM at the end of the 19th century were very aware of the pleasure to be gained through stimulation of the foreskin or through stimulation of the glans with the foreskin, and they did not even try to hide that elimination of that pleasure was their aim.

As late as the 1940s, fundies parents would justify circumcising their son by saying they wanted to ensure "he would not play with it".

And MGM has broader implications than simply impairing masturbation. Intact men usually experience this gliding of the foreskin over the glans during intercourse. The sensations that are felt through this gliding cannot be duplicated by other means. A trombone can play more notes than a bugle.


It is relevant to look at the intents of those practicing a practice only if we want to assess the morality of those people. However, when evaluating the morality of the practice itself, we should only pay attention to the effects of this practice. In the case of MGM, this is a violation of physical integrity followed by a diminution of sexual function and sensitivity.
Ut is offline  
Old 10-25-2002, 10:40 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: b
Posts: 673
Post

Quote:
Also, it should be known that MGM was first hawked in English-speaking countries as a cure to masturbation.


I never knew that but it makes a lot of sense. Nothing gets white people more upset then masturbation.

Glory
Glory is offline  
Old 10-25-2002, 11:00 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

It is worth mentioning that the original form of circumcision involved severing only the tip of the foreskin rather than removing it in its entirety. Now, while I am opposed to infant and other non-consetual circumcision, I do not think that it compares to most female genital mutilation.

Is circumcision about "looks"? It is only going to make a significant difference when someone is naked and not sexually excited, which limits worries about the "look" to a small number of trivial viewings. Is circumcision about hygiene? It is extremely easy to keep clean, so it will only marginally improve the hygiene of those unconcerned with hygiene.

Anyway, I love my foreskin - it protects my glans from drying out or rubbing on clothes, and is extremely useful for masturbation.
tronvillain is offline  
Old 10-29-2002, 04:03 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Marcos
Posts: 551
Post

MGM is about some stupid "Covenent of the Flesh" superstition. I suppose it may have been stylish at one time, who knows why. Perhaps now it's considered "stylish" as well, but I dun see why. To me it just seems like another superstitious practice carried on by inertia that is prolly better ended.
Primal is offline  
Old 10-30-2002, 06:38 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 712
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Glory:
<strong>[/b]

I never knew that but it makes a lot of sense. Nothing gets white people more upset then masturbation.

Glory</strong>
Lol true. And just in case you guys and gals are into Kellog's breakfast cereal, thank Dr. Kellog for keeping you virtuous.

It seems Dr Kellog, inventor of Kellog's cereal and a devout Seventh Day Adventist, invented his cereal as a calming food to lessen the evil of masturbation and sex drive.
<a href="http://www.bullymag.com/4.2.01/masturbate-040201.asp" target="_blank">http://www.bullymag.com/4.2.01/masturbate-040201.asp</a>

I've also seen old-time picrures of devices with metal prongs, and clasps, and all kinda pointy painful things which some parents made their kids wear to bed as guard against masturbation. If there is an erection, these devices acted as such painful and effective deterrant that the wearer promptly abandoned any evil thought.
DigitalDruid is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:45 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.