| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Why do they call it circumcision instead of male genitalia mutilation? |
| Kyuubi4269 11/28/18 11:05:36 AM #38: | _AdjI_ posted... Acting like the difference in common terminology is an example of men's oppression, though, is ignoring any of the details on the matter beyond the superficial similarities (namely that they both involve surgically altering genitals without consent). Driving is still called driving in India despite being vastly more dangerous, calling it genital mutilation (and bringing in female extraneously) is to propagandise disfigurement on women. And btw, female genital mutilation is almost exclusively brought up in the context of third world countries, where the male equivalent is hardly clean and elegant. _AdjI_ posted... Presumably, they don't like dealing with smegma, which is going to be inevitable when dealing with uncut patients. I don't have a smeggy dick, the presence of smegma is from poor hygiene. Aculo posted... mutilate calling circumcision mutilation is literally an incorrect use of the word. my penis hasn't been put out of commission or injured. skin was taken off, and i can still use it as intended (i'd argue better than uncut), ok? It's look has been disfigured from nature and the nerves have been permanently injured, you have a disfiguring injury. _AdjI_ posted... What did I literally just say about the "men are so oppressed!" approach to the matter? Nothing of value. Aculo posted... i'd argue not having a flap of skin that gets filled with smegma and infected with harmful bacteria is a good thing for performance, ok? It's anti-bacterial bro, your dry, cracked knob is more vulnerable to infection. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |