It's the way the world was meant to be. Not this follow-the-leader-which-is-just-the-fuck-in-front-of-you-just-as-dumb-as-you BS. Patterning ourselves after our collective misjudgements and perpetuated fear-ignorance via meme-behavior in the form of social pressure; I see your comment of "Fuck-it", I instantly relate to you and your superior "boss" attitude. Thus agreement is unofficially created, and a thread of social structure formed.

Fuck you. Fuck everything. And love it. Good for her, indeed. Grow a beard or don't. What's the difference? I married a woman for her boobs. Does it matter if that's an acceptable attraction for a man? I'm also attracted to her large clitoris. It's like a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee penis.

I would give my left clitoris to go out there and troll these cretins!

BTW, I've had my tonsils removed, and I had sex before the age of consent, so I hope you won't think my opinion is too biased. All I was trying to point out in that link is that there are, at very least, scientific and moral arguments to be made. Had I known that the author was a Jew, I would've reported him immediately.

It's too bad I lost some respect points hp, as I respect you as well. I'm not saying that I have a lock on whether circumcision provides that many benefits, but I think that to say there is no medical or ethical argument is going a little too far. This debate has been going on for a long time. I definitely see why some people choose to keep their kids uncircumcised and I think the fact that so many people find the uncircumcised penis disturbing is disgusting. Hopefully that perception will change, and it's certainly not something that influenced my decision, neither was religion. One of the most intelligent people I know is uncircumcised and we had a long discussion about it prior to my son being born. In the end, it was the talk that I mentioned above with my mother in law that influenced me over to this side. She had seen instances of medical problems that could have been avoided by circumcision, and for right or wrong her practical experience is what I chose to go with. I could even be wrong. I'm willing to accept that, had I seen a video like this before I made my decision, it might have influenced me the other way.

One thing I'm sure of is that what I did to my son is not child abuse. It caused him no pain at all. And I'll be sure to explain to him when he's old enough that some people are circumcised and some aren't. I don't think he'll go through any real image issues, just as I never have with my circumcision. As for the idea that circumcision lessens sexual pleasure, there are actual studies with results that show that it does and results that show that it doesn't. Without going into detail, I can assure you that my own sexual appetite is quite prolific.

And another thing, anyone that compares male circumcision done in a hospital by a trained professional, to the removal of the clitoris by any means is clearly misrepresenting the issues. The first is done for (granted) perceived health benefits while the second is done to completely eliminate the sexual pleasure of the girl involved. That's the real difference between the two, even if you overlook the fact that the removal of a girl's clitoris is often performed in an unsanitary environment, by an unsanitary witchdoctor with an even more unsanitary piece of broken glass, or a razor-blade. If anyone were ever to ask me if I wanted to eliminate my son's ability to experience sexual pleasure for whatever reason, I would say no. And I think that difference is pretty obvious.

Saying that circumcision is akin to cutting off toes is ridiculous.

if someone isn't actually TRYING to hurt you, the boob is more sensitive. if someone wants to inflict pain, the delicate nerve endings in your labia and clitoris being slammed between a fist, a boot, a brick.. whatever.. and your pubic bone is horrific... but sure, an accidentally elbow to your nipple hurts like hell. >> ^Shepppard:

>> ^kymbos:
peggedbea, for the love of God stop interrupting!
Sheppard, you were telling us about the female anatomy. Pray please continue...

I'm sorry, are you trying to make fun of me for not knowing that?
I'm not a woman, nor have I ever hit one. I would assume that it hurt less because that's what I've been told, not having a vagina, that's basically all I have to go on. I've been told being hit in the boob hurts most, that's what I was going by.
Bea made a list, I'll respect it. I'm in no position to argue.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING ~!

In reply to this comment by marinara:
In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
one hundred and one thousand percent wrong. try again at another date for another try.


a tuba with a clitoris?

Yeah, not too much into watching Kirsten cut her clitoris off with a pair of scissors, so no.

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe>> ^Norsuelefantti:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Rowan-Atkinson-No-one-called-Jones-smut-audio-nsfw

Pretty much everything Atkinson has done is superior to Mr. Bean. It's so sad that most non-British people only recognize him for that role.
>> ^EMPIRE:

Black Adder is infinitely superior to Mr. Bean.

Your video, Clitoris......where are you Clitoris?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^CyberViperDriver:
His assertion that if morality changes then in the future we as different cultures would do things we find offensive and be fine with them makes the case for the absurdity of religious morality.
History CLEARLY shows the evolution by cultural means of morality... there are more then a few examples of things having been considered morally acceptable in the past that are generally considered reprehensible now.
You can even see examples of wide moral divergence in the modern world. The easiest example would be cultures in which it is morally acceptable to cover females from head to foot and remove the clitoris of infant females. so it is clear that morality is much more subjective than theists or deists are willing to admit.
He seems to believe that "moral" acts have always been static, not so. not even two centuries ago it was normal and acceptable even in the western world for a 40 year old man to betroth, marry and copulate with females as young as 12. The notion of a perceived age of consent is a VERY young concept and yet is embraced as a part of this perceived moral constant.
I wont even go into the many acts that are justified in the bible that are rightly viewed as absolutely morally unacceptable in the modern world.


I would argue that religion controls morality less than people think; rather, morality is controlled by finite resources (Which education falls under, because without a university or resources, education withers and dies...etc.)

For example, Spartans slammed deformed babies against cliffs. Nations sacrificed humans to appease volcano deities. People danced to appease farm gods and men had sex with 10 year old girls to ensure the human race procreated. All these "horrors" were caused by survival instincts and lack of education (Resources.)

Now, fast forward. Add vast resources, like technology, to the world. Then examine communities. Nowadays we cannot rely on our own next-door neighbors. Why? Well, technology (a resource) has broken up communities and allowed everyone their distance. We no longer rely on each other because we don't need to. Oh, freedom this, freedom that. Bah. Freedom = antithesis of community.

One example of resources/morality would be an island that had a very advanced culture. When trees ran out, they started eating each other. What changed in less than 100 years? (Hint, resources.)

I will say there are a myriad number of contributing factors--religions, resources, social growth, etc.--that will affect "morality," but then, to blame a natural instinct (Belief a higher power) is to exaggerate cause and effect. Religion is evil, yes... And so are people.

His assertion that if morality changes then in the future we as different cultures would do things we find offensive and be fine with them makes the case for the absurdity of religious morality.

History CLEARLY shows the evolution by cultural means of morality... there are more then a few examples of things having been considered morally acceptable in the past that are generally considered reprehensible now.

You can even see examples of wide moral divergence in the modern world. The easiest example would be cultures in which it is morally acceptable to cover females from head to foot and remove the clitoris of infant females. so it is clear that morality is much more subjective than theists or deists are willing to admit.

He seems to believe that "moral" acts have always been static, not so. not even two centuries ago it was normal and acceptable even in the western world for a 40 year old man to betroth, marry and copulate with females as young as 12. The notion of a perceived age of consent is a VERY young concept and yet is embraced as a part of this perceived moral constant.

I wont even go into the many acts that are justified in the bible that are rightly viewed as absolutely morally unacceptable in the modern world.

...yea, but can he find the clitoris?

>> ^laura:
>> ^DrivelsAdvocate:
Stay tuned for the next episode, in which she demonstrates how to wrap a sanitary towel around her clitoris to make a turban.

^most unfortunately, because of her religion, she probably doesn't have one. ...and that comment is ridiculous.


Thanks boss, I try my best.

>> ^DrivelsAdvocate:
Stay tuned for the next episode, in which she demonstrates how to wrap a sanitary towel around her clitoris to make a turban.


^most unfortunately, because of her religion, she probably doesn't have one. ...and that comment is ridiculous.