I'm not defining what is and is not gay, I'm saying that "one who is sexually attracted to those of one's own sex" is how we define homosexual and 'gay' is just a slang term for that. I'm just citing the definition, not deciding what it is. If you don't feel that 'gay' is synonymous with 'homosexual' in this context, then we won't be able to have this debate.

To address your claims about me, no, I'm not saying I'm only willing to tolerate a plain vanilla male personality. I don't mind a guy wearing a pink shirt; I don't mind an effeminate guy; I don't mind a gay guy; and I don't mind any combination of these things.

However, if he shoves a picture of his asshole in my face, unprompted and at work no less, then he's an asshole. If he accuses me of being homophobic just because I don't like him, then he's an asshole.

If this character was a straight woman with penis paraphernalia all over her desk, a picture of her asshole on her phone, and detailed genital descriptions of the guy she slept with last night, I wouldn't like her either.

I totally agree that you should vocalise your disapproval.

That said, a little physical reinforcement is entirely warranted IMHO. I'm not talking about crippling the guy or permanently injuring his genitals, but you can better believe that if someone did that to me a knee to the balls would be the least of their worries.

Besides, it might make him think twice about doing it to other people.

All that said, it was your situation to deal with and what you do is up to you. I just probably wouldn't have been so philosophical about it.

That self defense class I took? Where I learned some skills that are available to me to this day?

They didn't teach them to men. The class I was in was women only (except for the martial arts instructors, a mixed bag gender-wise.) But they consciously did not offer those same skills to men.

Precisely because of your advice here.Which is why they don't teach those self defense skills to men.

A little guy pushing his erect penis into my ass on a sunny day is not a physical threat to me. Hell, I could have just pushed him and sat on him, and the fight is over.

Crushing someone's genitals is not something you do unless it is NECESSARY.

It is not "either/or." It is appropriate response to the threat. It was inappropriate in that situation to physically assault that man.

Turnabout IS fair play. He did not hurt me physically. He hurt me psychically.

The appropriate response is a psychic blow back.

And if every girl was taught to stand their ground (take that, Florida!!!) with their voice, this shit would end.

Your video, Amazon introduces adults to their own genitals, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

dupe
http://videosift.com/video/Amazon-introduces-adults-to-their-own-genitals

parody of *related=http://videosift.com/video/Amazon-introduces-adults-to-their-own-genitals

Amazon introduces adults to their own genitals has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

>> Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

A medical procedure to address a medical problem is fine. I wouldn't advise healthy women to have mastectomies on a whim...

However, the majority aren't for medical problems. The following video is an ad about people who do an unnecessary procedure to infants and children out of ignorance. I tried to sift it but the embed is broken or something, so be warned, while only stills, it's NSFW and somewhat graphic.

Let me know how you feel about genital mutilation for no good reason after you watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-t93r4ejlE

Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

If you decide as an adult male that you want to be circumcised, that's your decision. But I have no idea how it is considered socially acceptable to mutilate infants like this.

If I could vote on my own salary, you could bet your genitals that I'd be there to have my say and furthermore you could be sure I wouldn't vote for less money.
And if I received that salary wether I show up for work every day or not, I'd spend much more time at home masturbating to my favourite Teletubbies video.

Maybe that's a problem. Maybe some people shouldn't be able to control the terms of their own employment that much. I certainly can't.

Since it's bad for productivity if their personnel keeps "analysing" pornographic pictures, GHCQ gives preferential treatment to pictures with faces in 'em.

So to increase your chances of remaining undetected, your webcam should be pointed at your genitals -- and you should be nude. Just like Chatroulette.

Well, it has been confirmed: GHCQ is indiscriminatly vacuuming webcam footage as well.

Remember when folks said that meta data doesn't bother them, it's not as if they were being spied upon when they're at home, naked? It's not as if they'll mind this time...

Ironically, being naked in front of your webcam might be the way to avoid ending up in their database.

"The documents also chronicle GCHQ's sustained struggle to keep the large store of sexually explicit imagery collected by Optic Nerve away from the eyes of its staff"

Peeping toms and wankers, the lot of 'em. So in order to have a private video chat, just use the chatroulette method and focus the camera on your genitals.

Or being born in a hospital in a sane country.

The only reason circumcision is common in america is because of some wack job puritan superstitions in the mid 20th century.

Frankly, it's a fucking disgrace that it is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged to surgically mutilate your child's genitals.

If you're an informed adult and you want to hack at your penis for whatever reason, go nuts. But doing it to kids is nothing short of violation.