Let's not forget that the prostate gland has been referred to as the "male's clitoris."

At first I thought it said "Alan Greenspan on the Clitoris".

The phrase "talking out of your arse" is not an insult. Telling a person to shove something up one's arse might be considered an insult, though. That said, I think my reply was reasonable considering your immediately preceding one-liner which was empty of any explanation.

Mink wrote: "i am just saying he wasn't attacking her femininity, he was attacking her appalling record. so there's a difference."

Wow, you're quite the contortionist! I'm impressed. He didn't say a single word about her "record". He did make a pun about her clitoris, though. Perhaps where you come from "record" has an anatomical meaning I'm not aware of.

And you still don't get it. (lol!) Let me make it even more simple for you. Choggie doesn't like Hillary Clinton's politics. (Neither do I; I think she's ridiculously dishonest, a right-wing warhawk, and shamelessly power-hungry.) Choggie, rather than criticizing her politics embarks on a very sexualized and degrading rant. That is sexism. The language was, by definition, sexist. To reconstruct here a near-perfect analogy for your benefit, imagine if I were commenting on a Louis Farrakhan sift. There are many things that disturb me about Farrakhan. I feel that he's racist, anti-semitic and disturbingly authoritarian. Now, to make the analogy, it would be deeply racist of me to attack Farrakhan's specific ethnic physical features rather than the features of his ideology that I find disturbing.

It's irrelevant whether "your girl" (omg!) feels offended by Choggie's vile comments. (She probably didn't even see them as he edited his post pretty quickly.)

Like I said earlier, I feel it's the responsibility of people to confront racism, sexism, homophobia etc., when it occurs.

"When you use that sort of language it is degrading to all women."

bullshit. it's just vulgar. it doesn't degrade everyone with a clitoris, that's just your excuse for attempted censorship.

And choggie's comments might be in response to yours, but they are published out loud on a public forum, not directed solely at you, you're not that special to him i guess. don't take it personal.

I'm not advocating misinformation rembar and religious overtones aside, this video doesn't either. It only leaves out some detail, ie penetration and orgasm and the function of hormones, clitoris etc.

My point is that the level of detail that parents need to impart is completely dependent on the child's age, verbal skills, maturity etc. The level imparted in this video is about what we told our five year olds. We didn't talk about penetration etc until they were school age. We haven't talked about orgasm clitoris, hormones etc. yet and probably won't until later. At 9 and 6, they don't seem to need that information.

Not that I don't want them to know it-I just don't think they need to know at this point. If you have a good line of communication with your kids, I reckon they give you clues as to when they want to know about all kinds of stuff.

How we knew it was time to tell them about penetration, was when in general discussion about sperm meeting with egg, they asked 'how does it get in there?' We took that as our queue and happily gave the reason. I think it was at that time that we used the words 'making love'. Which while we're on the subject of words, has no more literal significance than 'special love time', or even 'having sex'.

Regarding function of the clit, the late 19th century religious nuts that were circumcising boys in England were also dissolving the clitoris in new born baby girls with acid (concentrated citric I think). They eventually stopped this practice concluding that women must enjoy sex a little or they wont have any, thus there wouldnt be enough poor people to go down mines, into factories, up chimneys etc. I thought there was no debate about its function, guess I was wrong.

So nice to see some real vagina love!

I had no idea the clitoris had legs. New mission: find & discover!

the cross-sectioned cyber-vagina kinda weirded me out.

wouldn't it be funny to make total BS, parody videos exactly like this one, but with totally ridiculous things?

(narrator)"High-pitch vocalization close to the clitoris can also have the same effect as a g-spot stimulated orgasm, as illustrated here (enter creepy auto-cad face, unrealistically-smoothly moving towards vagina; movement halts, mouth opens while eyes close, face begins screaming at vagina). Oscillating this tonal stimulation with a carrier frequency between 5 and 10Hz will typically induce orgasm within a window of 5 to 45 minutes. Good luck and let us know how it goes."

Damn it, I should have sent you an invite to my collective earlier today. Freaking clients calling during business hours ...

Anyway, that's a nice little vulva there, although it was amusing to see how huge the clitoris was. I guess it's not just boobs that get exaggerated for effect. I did cringe a bit when he talked about crushing the labia and not having anything sharp near the clitoris. Dude. Duuuuude. *shudder*

I'm sure glad I'm intact! The medical community appears to be leaning towards circumcision helping to avoid HIV infection (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm) but really, it's not a big concern to me. There are enough other reasons to have some cover before going into battle, the biggest disease (in terms of probability * impact) being baby-itis! I can see that in places where suiting up is difficult and considered a sin (much of Africa, partly thanks to the Catholic church's stance) then circumcision has a point if it is proven to decrease the chance of getting HIV, however, this should not be done to anyone who is unable to give their permission, so not to babies. If you're old enough to be sexually active, then learn the facts and make your choice.

It amazes me that reaction of people to an uncircumcised dong. Here, you would get teased if you had a snipped dong which isn't much better, but at least that makes a bit of sense. Sexual performance is improved for both (or more) parties by being intact and that's a pretty big deal for guys these days. One thing they didn't mention is that unsnipped is good for the female(s) not just because it's "ribbed" and generally results in better thrusts internally, but that these shorter thrusts also cause more contact with the clitoris, thus further improving the female's sensations.

Hopefully male circumcision will come be seen in a similar light to female circumcision - a disgusting, brutal act that deserves a prison sentence. If ethical medical research finds conclusive advantages (to either sex) to circumcision (of either sex) then fine, the relevant people (i.e. the person getting snipped and possibly their partner) should talk about it, understand it and make their own choice. Heck, even if there are no advantages I guess it should be offered, if you want to lop off king kong's crown then that's your call, but ... why?


FWIW, spring rain here is quite nice. It doesn't smell ... it's water ... but it's clean and fresh. Some people still have rain barrels to collect it (yes, we have running water thank you), that's probably sold to tourists. And will probably be featured on P&T's Bullshit soon, if it wasn't already in their bottled water segment.