Derail from Political Rant Funny Images II

[TomC]

I see it as on par with the proposed cartoon Metaphor wants to commission: A woman's face covered by a baby's foreskin. Horrific.

Seriously?

You think male circumcision is on par with Texan law concerning feticide? As a subject for satirical political cartoons?

I don't. I don't approve of male circumcision. I don't think feticide is a human right. But I totally think that the two subjects are on completely different moral levels. Not just a little different, orders of magnitude different levels.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I see it as on par with the proposed cartoon Metaphor wants to commission: A woman's face covered by a baby's foreskin. Horrific.

Seriously?

You think male circumcision is on par with Texan law concerning feticide? As a subject for satirical political cartoons?

I don't. I don't approve of male circumcision. I don't think feticide is a human right. But I totally think that the two subjects are on completely different moral levels. Not just a little different, orders of magnitude different levels.
Tom

No, not the issue: the 'humor' in such a political cartoon. Both gaspingly unfunny. Metaphor's was deceptive, though. Stem cells, sometimes derived from discarded newborn foreskin, are used for many things, including some medical applications. That doesn't quite fit Metaphor's anti-woman tirade, though.

fwiw, I'm agnostic with regards to the issue of circumcision.

 

[Metaphor]

I truly don't think that men get it: The constant images and content that depicts women and girls being raped and abused, or raped and abused prostitutes is just disgusting. A significant portion of the male population loses its mind over circumcision --<snipped>

In what universe do you live in, Toni? It can't be this one.

I have started multiple anti-circumcision threads over the years on this message board. I have gotten responses from 'it shouldn't happen but why make a fuss' from a small minority, to 'you are completely full of shit, circumcision is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, you are fucking mental for daring to voice your objection, how the fuck would you know the difference, what harm can it possibly do, uncircumcised penises are disgusting'.

If a significant portion of the male population objected as you claim, there'd be some country somewhere that bans male infant genital mutilation.

But not a single country in the world does. Not one.

 

[Metaphor]

No, not the issue: the 'humor' in such a political cartoon. Both gaspingly unfunny. Metaphor's was deceptive, though. Stem cells, sometimes derived from discarded newborn foreskin, are used for many things, including some medical applications. That doesn't quite fit Metaphor's anti-woman tirade, though.

fwiw, I'm agnostic with regards to the issue of circumcision.

No doubt you are. Your penis is safe.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor's was deceptive, though. Stem cells, sometimes derived from discarded newborn foreskin, are used for many things, including some medical applications. That doesn't quite fit Metaphor's anti-woman tirade, though.

It's a political cartoon heightening the imagery for effect.

You might as well call the cartoon in the OP 'deceptive' because elephants don't actually rip out uteri.

And, the cartoon I proposed wasn't meant to 'funny', but I would not lose my mind or even care if somebody laughed at it. I don't tell people what art they should consume or how to react to it, because I'm not an authoritarian.

 

[Toni]

Metaphor's was deceptive, though. Stem cells, sometimes derived from discarded newborn foreskin, are used for many things, including some medical applications. That doesn't quite fit Metaphor's anti-woman tirade, though.

It's a political cartoon heightening the imagery for effect.

You might as well call the cartoon in the OP 'deceptive' because elephants don't actually rip out uteri.

And, the cartoon I proposed wasn't meant to 'funny', but I would not lose my mind or even care if somebody laughed at it. I don't tell people what art they should consume or how to react to it, because I'm not an authoritarian.

I’m sorry: I wasn’t clear. Your proposed cartoon was deceptive because it implies that baby boys are sacrificing/being forced to give up their foreskin for the vanity of women. In fact that’s false. Circumcision has a long history that has religious and medical reasons embedded in the practice. The use of foreskin in the medical abs cosmetic industries as a modern offshoot of a centuries old practice.

Foreskins are one potential source for stem cells, which have a variety of therapeutic uses. That’s the part that I am arguing about. It’s not about women’s vanity as I understand your proposed cartoon would depict. What has been previously discarded as medical waste has been discovered to have medical/clinical uses as well as being used in some cosmetic products.

I 100% get that you would not intend your cartoon to be humorous. I don’t think the one in the OP is intended to be humorous. I am horrified by that cartoon in much the same way I imagine that you would intend those viewing your proposed cartoon should be horrified. I’m even more horrified that some men find it humorous.

If I understand you correctly, You view circumcision as violence against boys/men. I view much of the GOP’s platform and all of it aimed at controlling women’s reproductive rights as violence against girls and women.

 

[Toni]

No, not the issue: the 'humor' in such a political cartoon. Both gaspingly unfunny. Metaphor's was deceptive, though. Stem cells, sometimes derived from discarded newborn foreskin, are used for many things, including some medical applications. That doesn't quite fit Metaphor's anti-woman tirade, though.

fwiw, I'm agnostic with regards to the issue of circumcision.

No doubt you are. Your penis is safe.

I’ve researched this issue from a medical and an ethical and sexual perspective. When I say I’m agnostic, I mean it: I can list both pros and cons. I’ve actually known someone who was not circumcised as an infant and had to be as a young child for medical reasons. I also knew someone who converted to Judaism as an adults d so had a bris as adult ( no I did not attend), Definitely if you are going to circumcise, it’s much less complicated and much less fraught when done as a newborn.

As for sexual function/sensation: I have to rely on what circumcised men have told me. The general consensus is that they cannot imagine sex being more fun than it is—more sensation/sensitivity would be too much/unimaginable, etc.

There are some significant risks for any surgical procedure. There are also some significant medical risks in not circumcising.

When I say I am agnostic, it means I can offer arguments for either decision. In the case of our male children, I left the decision to my husband because he has a lot more intimate experience with his penis. It seemed arrogant for me to decide when he had first hand experience.

 

[Metaphor]

No, not the issue: the 'humor' in such a political cartoon. Both gaspingly unfunny. Metaphor's was deceptive, though. Stem cells, sometimes derived from discarded newborn foreskin, are used for many things, including some medical applications. That doesn't quite fit Metaphor's anti-woman tirade, though.

fwiw, I'm agnostic with regards to the issue of circumcision.

No doubt you are. Your penis is safe.

I’ve researched this issue from a medical and an ethical and sexual perspective. When I say I’m agnostic, I mean it: I can list both pros and cons.

That's not what agnostic means. In fact, it is very nearly the opposite of what agnostic means. To be agnostic means that you think nothing is known or can be known. You might mean 'ambivalent'. You are morally wrong to be ambivalent, but that's what you are.

I’ve actually known someone who was not circumcised as an infant and had to be as a young child for medical reasons.

So what? We don't routinely at birth take out organs that might go bad later.

I also knew someone who converted to Judaism as an adults d so had a bris as adult ( no I did not attend), Definitely if you are going to circumcise, it’s much less complicated and much less fraught when done as a newborn.

Cutting the foreskin of your penis off for religious reasons is ludicrous and awful, but if adult men want to do it, that's their choice.

Cutting the foreskin off someone else's penis for religious reasons is ludicrous and awful and no sane society should tolerate it.

As for sexual function/sensation: I have to rely on what circumcised men have told me. The general consensus is that they cannot imagine sex being more fun than it is—more sensation/sensitivity would be too much/unimaginable, etc.

The knowledge of living with an unmutilated penis (jesus christ that I would have to qualify the penis in its natural state) is not something that circumcised men can have (except the rare adult male who gets circumcised). And the Stockholm Syndrome of circumcision victims is not a good moral reason to continue to create more victims.

There are some significant risks for any surgical procedure. There are also some significant medical risks in not circumcising.

Routine circumcision of infant baby boys is not a risk - it's a cruel reality.

When I say I am agnostic, it means I can offer arguments for either decision. In the case of our male children, I left the decision to my husband because he has a lot more intimate experience with his penis. It seemed arrogant for me to decide when he had first hand experience.

Whether you allowed your boys to be genitally butchered I don't know, but neither you nor your husband had the right to cut off parts of your son's body.

I mean to use the strongest possible language here. Genital mutilation of infants is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in a civil society.

 

[Toni]

Like I e said: I’ve seen the all too real negative consequences of not circumcising. Obviously not all uncircumcised boys abs men or even most have negative consequences. But some are quite significant.

As circumcised men cannot know what it is like to be uncircumcised, neither can the uncircumcised know truly what it is like to be circumcised. Circumcision as an older child or as an adult is different than infant circumcision. Then, too, circumcision as done in American hospitals today differs from circumcision performed 50 years ago. Much less foreskin is removed today in most circumcisions, based on the bodies of male babies and toddlers whose diapers I’ve changed.

Interestingly enough, some religious rituals and prohibitions actually make good medical sense.

 

[Metaphor]

Like I e said: I’ve seen the all too real negative consequences of not circumcising. Obviously not all uncircumcised boys abs men or even most have negative consequences. But some are quite significant.

So what? Uterine cancer is real. Do we remove uteri at birth?

As circumcised men cannot know what it is like to be uncircumcised, neither can the uncircumcised know truly what it is like to be circumcised. Circumcision as an older child or as an adult is different than infant circumcision. Then, too, circumcision as done in American hospitals today differs from circumcision performed 50 years ago. Much less foreskin is removed today in most circumcisions, based on the bodies of male babies and toddlers whose diapers I’ve changed.

Interestingly enough, some religious rituals and prohibitions actually make good medical sense.

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

 

[Toni]

Like I e said: I’ve seen the all too real negative consequences of not circumcising. Obviously not all uncircumcised boys abs men or even most have negative consequences. But some are quite significant.

So what? Uterine cancer is real. Do we remove uteri at birth?

As circumcised men cannot know what it is like to be uncircumcised, neither can the uncircumcised know truly what it is like to be circumcised. Circumcision as an older child or as an adult is different than infant circumcision. Then, too, circumcision as done in American hospitals today differs from circumcision performed 50 years ago. Much less foreskin is removed today in most circumcisions, based on the bodies of male babies and toddlers whose diapers I’ve changed.

Interestingly enough, some religious rituals and prohibitions actually make good medical sense.

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

Removing a uterus would impair the ability of a female child to reproduce, should she decide to do so in adulthood. Circumcision does not impair the ability of a man to reproduce or to enjoy sexual function as an adult.

I understand your position. I don't disagree very much. I also understand why people believe circumcision is the best option. I don't disagree very much with that reasoning either.

 

[Metaphor]

Like I e said: I’ve seen the all too real negative consequences of not circumcising. Obviously not all uncircumcised boys abs men or even most have negative consequences. But some are quite significant.

So what? Uterine cancer is real. Do we remove uteri at birth?

As circumcised men cannot know what it is like to be uncircumcised, neither can the uncircumcised know truly what it is like to be circumcised. Circumcision as an older child or as an adult is different than infant circumcision. Then, too, circumcision as done in American hospitals today differs from circumcision performed 50 years ago. Much less foreskin is removed today in most circumcisions, based on the bodies of male babies and toddlers whose diapers I’ve changed.

Interestingly enough, some religious rituals and prohibitions actually make good medical sense.

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

Removing a uterus would impair the ability of a female child to reproduce, should she decide to do so in adulthood. Circumcision does not impair the ability of a man to reproduce or to enjoy sexual function as an adult.

I understand your position. <snipped>

You really don't.

I have used strong language in my circumcision posts because humanity has become so desensitised to the violence and mutilation visited upon baby boys, they get angry at people even suggesting it is, in fact, violence and mutilation. Men in particular, mostly circumcised men, defend the mutilation that was visited upon them and that they continue visiting on their own offspring.

Your ambivalence about this violence and mutilation betrays that you really don't understand my position.

When people start enumerating alleged benefits of routine circumcision on the right hand side of the inequality, you are forgetting what is on the left hand side of the inequality:

The mutilation of the genitals of an infant boy, with no individual medical indication.

Not that the reasons on the right hand side of the inequality make any fucking sense whatever. "Women prefer the look of circumcised penises". This is a justification I've heard, as if the routine mutilation of the genitals of baby boys is justified by the sexual preferences of women.

I am still staggered, gobsmacked, that a woman could go through labour, give birth to a boy, see in that boy's features a reflection of her own and the father's, and look at that boy, and think 'when can I cut off his foreskin?'

Only religion can so warp people, including the secular religion of male infant genital mutilation.

 

[Toni]

Like I e said: I’ve seen the all too real negative consequences of not circumcising. Obviously not all uncircumcised boys abs men or even most have negative consequences. But some are quite significant.

So what? Uterine cancer is real. Do we remove uteri at birth?

As circumcised men cannot know what it is like to be uncircumcised, neither can the uncircumcised know truly what it is like to be circumcised. Circumcision as an older child or as an adult is different than infant circumcision. Then, too, circumcision as done in American hospitals today differs from circumcision performed 50 years ago. Much less foreskin is removed today in most circumcisions, based on the bodies of male babies and toddlers whose diapers I’ve changed.

Interestingly enough, some religious rituals and prohibitions actually make good medical sense.

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

Removing a uterus would impair the ability of a female child to reproduce, should she decide to do so in adulthood. Circumcision does not impair the ability of a man to reproduce or to enjoy sexual function as an adult.

I understand your position. <snipped>

You really don't.

I have used strong language in my circumcision posts because humanity has become so desensitised to the violence and mutilation visited upon baby boys, they get angry at people even suggesting it is, in fact, violence and mutilation. Men in particular, mostly circumcised men, defend the mutilation that was visited upon them and that they continue visiting on their own offspring.

Your ambivalence about this violence and mutilation betrays that you really don't understand my position.

When people start enumerating alleged benefits of routine circumcision on the right hand side of the inequality, you are forgetting what is on the left hand side of the inequality:

The mutilation of the genitals of an infant boy, with no individual medical indication.

Not that the reasons on the right hand side of the inequality make any fucking sense whatever. "Women prefer the look of circumcised penises". This is a justification I've heard, as if the routine mutilation of the genitals of baby boys is justified by the sexual preferences of women.

I am still staggered, gobsmacked, that a woman could go through labour, give birth to a boy, see in that boy's features a reflection of her own and the father's, and look at that boy, and think 'when can I cut off his foreskin?'

Only religion can so warp people, including the secular religion of male infant genital mutilation.

Except for the grown man who converted, none of the males I know who have been circumcised were circumcised for religious reasons.

I'm not ambivalent. I have an opinion about what decision I would make with regards to any of my male offspring if it were my decision alone. I decided that my husband had more relevant experience and insight than I did. I do understand both pro and anti circumcision positions. . However, I do NOT see it as genital mutilation, particularly the more modern circumcisions.

 

[TomC]

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.

But I'm pretty sure you changed the subject of the thread from abortion to circumcision, as though the two things are somehow comparable.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Like I e said: I’ve seen the all too real negative consequences of not circumcising. Obviously not all uncircumcised boys abs men or even most have negative consequences. But some are quite significant.

So what? Uterine cancer is real. Do we remove uteri at birth?

As circumcised men cannot know what it is like to be uncircumcised, neither can the uncircumcised know truly what it is like to be circumcised. Circumcision as an older child or as an adult is different than infant circumcision. Then, too, circumcision as done in American hospitals today differs from circumcision performed 50 years ago. Much less foreskin is removed today in most circumcisions, based on the bodies of male babies and toddlers whose diapers I’ve changed.

Interestingly enough, some religious rituals and prohibitions actually make good medical sense.

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

Removing a uterus would impair the ability of a female child to reproduce, should she decide to do so in adulthood. Circumcision does not impair the ability of a man to reproduce or to enjoy sexual function as an adult.

I understand your position. <snipped>

You really don't.

I have used strong language in my circumcision posts because humanity has become so desensitised to the violence and mutilation visited upon baby boys, they get angry at people even suggesting it is, in fact, violence and mutilation. Men in particular, mostly circumcised men, defend the mutilation that was visited upon them and that they continue visiting on their own offspring.

Your ambivalence about this violence and mutilation betrays that you really don't understand my position.

When people start enumerating alleged benefits of routine circumcision on the right hand side of the inequality, you are forgetting what is on the left hand side of the inequality:

The mutilation of the genitals of an infant boy, with no individual medical indication.

Not that the reasons on the right hand side of the inequality make any fucking sense whatever. "Women prefer the look of circumcised penises". This is a justification I've heard, as if the routine mutilation of the genitals of baby boys is justified by the sexual preferences of women.

I am still staggered, gobsmacked, that a woman could go through labour, give birth to a boy, see in that boy's features a reflection of her own and the father's, and look at that boy, and think 'when can I cut off his foreskin?'

Only religion can so warp people, including the secular religion of male infant genital mutilation.

Except for the grown man who converted, none of the males I know who have been circumcised were circumcised for religious reasons.

Yes, that's why I called it a secular religion, for most of the circumcisions in America.

I'm not ambivalent. I have an opinion about what decision I would make with regards to any of my male offspring if it were my decision alone. I decided that my husband had more relevant experience and insight than I did. I do understand both pro and anti circumcision positions. . However, I do NOT see it as genital mutilation, particularly the more modern circumcisions.

Reality does not give a shit about your fantasy. Circumcision is genital mutilation. A mutilation is cutting off or causing injury to a body part of a person so that the part of the body is permanently damaged, detached or disfigured.

If you kidnapped an adult man, strapped him down, and cut off his foreskin against his will, you would be committing a grave violation on him. Nothing in the equation changes just because you are doing it to an infant.

You would not tolerate female genital mutilation, even in its mildest form, but you can 'see both sides' of male genital mutilation. Incredibly, you can't see how ludicrous your own position is, even when you articulate its contradictions. Modern circumcisions take less skin. They are therefore better!

You know what takes even less skin than modern circumcisions?

NOT FUCKING CUTTING OFF ANY FORESKIN AT ALL.

Baby boys don't need to be fixed. They are fine just as they are.

 

[Metaphor]

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.

But I'm pretty sure you changed the subject of the thread from abortion to circumcision, as though the two things are somehow comparable.
Tom

No, I didn't. I explained the function of a political cartoon, and demonstrated I was not a hypocrite because not only would I not object to seeing a fictive image of violence on an infant boy, I would in fact commission such a thing with a particular political message.

 

[TomC]

No, I didn't.

Who brought up male circumcision?

I'm confident it wasn't me.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

No, I didn't.

Who brought up male circumcision?

I'm confident it wasn't me.

Tom

Shaggy made the same claim and I don't know that I believed him.

 

[TomC]

No, I didn't.

Who brought up male circumcision?

I'm confident it wasn't me.

Tom

Shaggy made the same claim and I don't know that I believed him.

Do you mean this Shaggy?

I don't think he's a member on IIDB.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

No, I didn't.

Who brought up male circumcision?

I'm confident it wasn't me.

Tom

Shaggy made the same claim and I don't know that I believed him.

Do you mean this Shaggy?
View attachment 38037
I don't think he's a member on IIDB.
Tom

C'mon Tom you are old enough to remember the noughties.