Today, let’s pay a little visit to the Men’s Rights subreddit, where a FeMRA calling herself Super_Delicious is expressing her gratitude for the warm welcome she has received from the Men’s Rights movement. And then along comes a dude called Eryemil, who’s evidently not pleased with Super_Delicious’ not-fanatical-enough stance on circumcision.
![Super_delicious 12 points 22 hours ago (25|13) As a woman I'm glad I'm welcomed into a movement that helps the men I love. It's rather spectacular. :) permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]Eryemil [-1] -8 points 22 hours ago (22|30) You have a very interesting definition of welcomed. Because here I thought most MRAs that actually know who you are (and I'm not sure many would) hate your guts or shun you. Go post in AVFM where the community is more personal and activism driven and see how welcome you feel. permalink source save parent give gold [–]Super_delicious -11 points 22 hours ago (16|27) No you're just a fucking cunt. No one here has to agree with every part of the men's rights movement to still support most of it. You're delusional if you think every person here agrees with every aspect of the men's rights movement. I bet he only reason you target me is because I'm the only one you haven't managed to best in a debate. permalink source save parent give gold [–]Eryemil [-1] 10 points 21 hours ago (13|3) Are you serious? Need I link you to our last exchange. There hasn't been single time when you haven't left the conversation and refused to address my arguments. Tell me, what's more likely; that you are more intelligent that evey single person I debate who haven't managed or that you are being intellectually dishonest? And for the record, I don't dislike you because you happen to disagree with the one subset of MR activism I am most passionate about. I dislike you because you are a hypocritical princess with a bloated sense of self-importance. permalink source save parent give gold [–]Super_delicious -3 points 18 hours ago (5|8) You mean the last exchange were I wouldn't debate your same tired arguments. And I also didn't want you to link me another picture of a dog dick. permalink source save parent give gold](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/superdelicious1.png?resize=580%2C563&ssl=1)
Argumentum ad Dog Dickum. That’s a new one.
The debate continues on like this for some time, if you can’t get enough of this brilliant intellectual interchange.
I found this exchange through a post on the AgainstMensRights subreddit, a much more welcoming place, provided you’re not a Men’s Rights asshole.
you’re boring, and I won’t respond to you until you give citations
You just did. But do continue with such a “brilliant intellectual interchange”.
When Good has a meltdown, should he be called Chaotic Good?
Well, I’m assuming it wasn’t at all painful for either party, or (a) no one would get them, and (b) no one would sleep (more than once) with anyone who had one… You know, honestly, I’m such a klutz I would probably figure out a way to chip a tooth on it. XD
@Marie
Yea, it was a weird thing to hear. She asked me if I thought that was bad and at first I didn’t know what to say – it was already done, what good would it do now? I eventually told her, yea, that is bad, pretty fucked up actually, and she looked kind of terrified. I don’t know if she was offended or if I made her think about how wrong it is to think like that. We never talked about it again afterwards. In her defense, her husband had it done and probably thought uncircumcised penises were gross too, but… yea… still a bad way to think…
And Good, seems like everyone here is against male circumcision, with some at least unsure about it. What we have a problem with is saying that it’s “just as harmful” as female circumcision because it downplays what FGM is.
Removal of the clitoral hood is classified under type 4 female circumcision/FGM. It is condemned by the WHO just as the more severe forms of FGM while its male counterpart is widely condoned.
It’s not treated as equally severe. In fact, many anti-FGM activists try to convince villages to replace the more severe forms of FGM with circumcision (that is, removal of the clitoral hood only) or a ceremonial nick with a knife, since these procedures don’t cause severe damage to the genitals.
For the record, here are the other three types of FGM listed by the WHO:
Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).
Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Imagine what the male equivalent to any of these would be. It’s not remotely close to circumcision.
cloudiah: it certainly wasn’t painful, and I didn’t chip a tooth. It almost made his penis feel more like a sex toy than actual flesh.
What are you trying to achieve here, Good? Are you somehow of the opinion, despite everything that has been expressed in this thread, that we are all in favour of circumcision for boys?
What you’ve given us is 2 1/2 decade old study measuring women’s preferences for or against circumcised penises in a country which prefers circumcision. Well done, and apples taste of apple. What do you expect to change? Why are you showing this to people who have demonstrated a distaste toward cosmetic circumcisions? Why are you wasting time that could be spent actually changing public opinion?
I mean, “cauterizing the genital area.” Those are not words that belong together in a just world.
I don’t really want to give a citation supporting good because he/she is an asshole and FGM and circumcision are not the same thing but I’m going to share this because I think its pretty interesting mostly because the guy behind the spread of circumcision to stop masturbation is also the guy behind most of our cereals John Harvey Kellogg. http://english.pravda.ru/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/
Hah, cloudiah, I actually have a friend who did chip his tooth on one! (Actually, I don’t think it was a PA exactly, but a similar… piece of jewelry.) Much teasing ensued.
@good
clarification: I won’t respond to your arguments (which I have yet to find out what are…) until you cite something. Poking you is all fine and dandy.
@ally
::giggles::
You know what *would* stop masturbation? Cornflakes under your foreskin.
I wish I hadn’t written that now… eshcisdfsdfbsdfkn
Athywren: welcome to Lesser Good’s School of Argumentatio. He drops outdated, poorly designed studies and thinks he’s dropping TROOFBOMBS. He’s incredibly stupid.
D:
And people thought prince alberts were scary!
@john h
so it was to stop masturbation (at least somewhere/time). bleh :/ That’s creepy.
The fact that it is possible to do so means that I would inevitably find a way to do it.
But I am glad to hear it confirmed that it isn’t painful.
I knew one guy who got one, but he was an asswaffle of epic proportions so I never really wanted to ask him any questions about it. (He was a Scientologist, and would harass anyone he found out was seeing a psychiatrist or taking psychiatric meds.)
I read the wiki page about Kellogg and it turns out he also advocated applying carbolic acid to the clitoris to stop women from masturbating and covering children’s genitals with cages I think the USA is pretty lucky that only infant circumcision caught on.
Kellogg was an asshole, although they do make a good Corn Flake. *nod*
@john H
all of those are so….. confusing O_o
@hellkell, thanks for the intro! That’s probably my favourite form of argumentation….. well, after the one were people argue that homosexuality is unnatural… until it’s pointed out that it’s common throughout almost all mammal species… at which point, yeah… well… eating poop is natural!
Irrationality is fun to watch sometimes. It’s just a shame that the world is so often in step with it.
Kellogg sounds like a bit of a freak.
Oh, Good Good Good…
1. The study you linked to is over 20 years old. This is relevant because circumcision rates in the U.S. have been on the decline since then, thanks to better public education on the issue.
2. The quote you pulled seems chosen to imply that women support circumcision and men don’t. But the study you linked to surveyed only women. Also, it surveyed only 150 women. That’s a ridiculously small pool to draw sweeping conclusions from.
I found the abstract for a more recent (2010) study on parents’ preferences regarding circumcision, and it didn’t look like the sex of the parent was a major factor in preference for circumcision. The most significant difference was between ethnic groups, with Hispanic parents being the most opposed to circumcision.
When I told my mother that my husband and I weren’t planning to circumcise our hypothetical children, she gave me the “but won’t he want to look like his father?” argument. Which led to an awkward conversation about how, er, if he’s uncircumcised he will look like his father.
That is something my mother did not need to know.
I’ve never understood the “won’t he want to look lie his father?” question. I can’t say I know what my father’s penis looks like… I can’t say I’m in any particular rush to find out what it looks like. I imagine… penisy. His hair, before it became grey, was blonde, mine is a deep, reddish brown. Should I bleach my hair to look like my father? I don’t get it… I just don’t get it.
I was going to refer to Kellogg as loopy but that would have sounded like a Fruit Loops joke which is too lame for even me.