b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Sexism » Post 603191 | Search
This is a question Sexism

Freddie Woo tells us: Despite being a well rounded modern man I think women are best off getting married and having a few kids else they'll be absolutely miserable come middle age.

What views do you have that are probably sexist that you believe are true?

(, Sun 27 Dec 2009, 12:23)
Pages: Latest, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, ... 1

« Go Back

Women and genitals.
Male Circumcision = not a big deal. Its traditional and possibly cleaner. He wouldnt feel it at that age and anyway if he does wind up with a desensitised helmet when he reaches sexual maturity, hey he'll just last longer. It'll be a GOOD thing. Shit he might even thank us for it. It was good enough for his dad....etc etc etc......

Female Circumcision = OMG Horrid. You vile monster for even bringing up the subject. NO justification WHATSOEVER and anyone who doesnt think so should be shot on the spot.

I dont disagree, and i do appreciate that the two things are not identical, i just think both are utterly cuntish things to do to a child and neither are okay. Women seem more often to have a very imbalanced view of it, especially here in N America where chopped lad = norm. Poor Bastards.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 3:24, 36 replies)
what's interesting
is that in cultures where female circumcision is practised, it is performed by women and perpetuated by women.
What is women's obsession with carving up genitals?
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 3:31, closed)

i never heard a guy advocate genital mutilation either but I've certainly heard multiple women give the "he had it coming" or similar to the latest story of some psycho giving her adulterous wanker of a husband an impromptu knobectomy.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 4:37, closed)
I am on my phone now, and it is late, but i do have something to say on this matter. this is a reminder to myself to post something.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 3:38, closed)
it's not cleaner!
just a myth circulated by God squad types who want to discourage masturbation.

The main function of the foreskin is to clean + protect the glans.

Poor sods with the end of their widgey chopped off. :[

Don't know what I'd do without my frenulum either
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 5:11, closed)
And I doubt much would grow under there that wouldn't grow in a mimsy anyhoo.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 5:29, closed)
Chopping off your foreskin to prevent willy rot seems a bit like cutting off your lips to stop gum disease.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 9:04, closed)
I dunno
Mine is neat and clean without it. and it doesn't look like its trying to hid something...
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 11:07, closed)
supposedly it's left over from when the jews were journeying through the deserts
sand in the foreskin is not good, so they removed it
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 15:07, closed)
It's the fundamental reason Muslims do it too.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 20:40, closed)
It CAN be cleaner
If a man has trouble with his foreskin, like it doesn't go all the way back. The man essentially can't clean under it, leaving a stinky vile mess that circumcision prevents.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 15:53, closed)
That's for medical purposes then rather than just for the sake of cleanliness
Besides we have a foreskin for a reason. It has evolved to make sex more pleasurable (so to encourage you to procreate more often).
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 16:53, closed)
good points
Also some others ive never got on the subject;

In many religions we are made 'in Gods image.' Yet religious types of certain denominations decide that the lil bit of cock skin is 'evil,' 'unlclean' /whatever and should be cut off. Doesnt that imply that they are in fact smiting the image of their creator? Did the god in question just have some elbow skin leftover in creation he had to stick somewhere, deciding on the end of the knob while safe in the knowledge that the good people of earth would cut it off and discard it in some ritual 'priest/rabbi on young boy penis' action at or near to birth?

Whats more likely is, thousands of years ago when the slaves had no facilities to wash, their knobs got coked up with cheese and rotted ('unclean' anyone?). Solution? cut off the skin, but do it "in the name of god" to make the masses like the idea. Perhaps, somewhere along the way, people forgot the true reason and this horrific practice is continuing reasons it was not intended for. Just a guess.

As for it being 'cleaner' well thats a load of crap. A knob thats washed twice a day smells the same, skin or no skin*

As for a knob being more sensitive when cut, well fuck you if you want to take away the feeling of my foreskin rolling over my glans while im fucking. Its ACE.

Blah. Blah. Blather.

* I wont admit how i know this.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 6:17, closed)
According to religion, sex for pleasure is bad
take away a foreskin and it's not as pleasant. That's the theory I think anyway.

I still have mine, and my German is extremely sensitive because of it. Skin back and she uses a bit of oil and I can't do anything but writhe, tremble and moan in ecstacy. I aren't giving that up for anything.

Plus, if I did have it removed, it'd rub on the inside on my pants and my knees would constantly be giving way.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 16:59, closed)
a male friend...
once got his caught somewhere, somehow during sex and it ripped and bled EVERYWHERE. it tickled me thoroughly which i know was wrong but it was funny at the time. Mr Sprinkles, however, hasn't got one, apparently they offer it as a choice in the hospital now when babies are born. His parents opted to off his and not only is he asthetically happier with his, he also never has to worry about the possibility of something mentioned above happening. plus sides, downsides...
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 8:23, closed)
Ah, so it's fine for women to bleed from those regions, but not men?

Mind you, I'd still rather chance a repairable injury...
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 8:54, closed)
I don't know where to begin
Maybe watching this: www.channel4.com/programmes/the-day-i-will-never-forget/4od#2934850 might help people realise just how "not identical" the two things are.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 11:18, closed)

Sure. Brutal. However just cos one thing is utterly cuntish, that doesnt make the other alright, does it?

And fwiw its IS more of a N American phenomena than back in the UK.
I sat in on a conversation where a (youngish) mom to be was definitely getting her son chopped because "that what the girls will expect when he's older, i dont want him to be a freak or get rejected".

They probably say similar things in Sudan etc whilst they are sharpening the rocks. Thats my point. i wasnt saying either was okay. My bad for the ambiguity.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 13:04, closed)

No, not identical. Equivalent.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 21:18, closed)
I hope you are writing this as an attempt at humor
The one thing you appear to have misunderstood about female circumcision is it is not the removal of a piece of skin which, although I would not want to do without it, is not essential for the enjoyment of sex.

Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris, the direct comparison to male circumcision would be cutting off the penis entirely and leaving you with a small tube to piss through.

So don't go saying that women have an imbalanced view of it, that makes you appear an utter retard.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 12:47, closed)

you did read the last line didnt you?
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 12:56, closed)
Female circumcision may refer to the removal of any part or all parts of the external genitalia. It may just involve the removal of the labia, the clitoral hood, and or the external part of the clitoris.
A side effect of removing the labia is to cause scar tissue, and a much smaller vaginal opening.
First time sex is usually very painful and sometimes even fatal. Sex enjoyment is definitely reduced, but to varying degrees. Interestingly, one of the arguments put forth for both male and female circumcision is that it increases the pleasure for the partner.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:31, closed)
I'm with you on this
Not saying they are equivalent practices, but the very notion of dividing gential mutilation of a baby into "acceptable" and "non-acceptable" based on gender is like saying it's ok to kill an old man with no family but not a popular teenage girl.

Ultimately it's all about nerve endings. Yes, there are *more* nerve endings in a clitoris than there are in a foreskin, but it's the same fucking principle. Both are monstrously barbaric practices that have no place in the 21st Century.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 13:22, closed)

(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 13:54, closed)
What the fuck are you even talking about?
This has made me so angry. Female 'circumcision' doesn't involve taking your baby into a nice clean hospital and having a bit of them chopped off, it involves forcibly pinning down a young girl often in unsanitary conditions with no after care, chopping bits of her off including the clitoris then sewing her up to leave a tiny hole so her future husband has the pleasure of tearing her open again.
Male circumcision is nothing to do with this.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:02, closed)
well... actually
Female circumcision is carried out in hospitals in some parts of the world, and male circumcision is carried out in 'unsanitary' conditions. The vast majority of both happen forcibly to minors.
What the original post is trying to do is make clear the parallels between the two practices, what the above post does is to say that although the two are different, they are relevantly similar in the way they might be objectionable.
So, yes you might well say that chopping off bits of girls genitals is in some ways worse, but both are bad in that they interfere with the integrity of someone's body and are carried out without consent. (I acknowledge that some men and some women voluntarily have their bits of their genitals chopped off)
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:39, closed)

thanks for proving my point popiella, ntm missing the main one.
So would it be okay with you if FGM were done in a sanitary hospital or is it the chopping off bits of a nonconsensual child that is the ugly bottom line?

Oh and yeah. Sanitary. Sterile.

I never thought my cherry pop post would be so controversial tbh.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:47, closed)
Neither is right
My point is that they just have absolutely piss all to do with each other, its like saying chicken is better than cement. I am against circumcision (mostly because it looks funny, its not fair to the baby and guys have said it must be so painful it being constantly exposed like that) but that is completely incomparable to female genital mutilation.
Also if you want to find horror stories, David Reimer might be a better bet than some mad rabbi.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 18:46, closed)

Oh, come on, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, do you? You're even loading your opinion into the choice of words. Circumcision is male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation is female circumcision. Using the nastier sounding term just for the female one does not help you.

They are both an assault on a child that causes permanent damage, it's just one is acceptable in our society and one is not. They are very much the same thing. Saying that you're against lopping off part of a child's body for no reason because it wouldn't look as nice is, frankly, disgusting.

And chicken is better than cement, you dumb bint.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 21:24, closed)

I don't like to rollerskate on chicken =(
(, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 8:20, closed)

bollocks they are incomparable, they are both outdated pieces of religiously inspired genital barbarity aimed at making sex or masturbation too painful to be done for fun.

IS FGM more invasive than MGM? yes, i never said any different, now did i?

Other than that you have totally proven my point that some women make light of mutilating little boys cocks whilst getting a case of the vapours at even the mention of FGM. Thanks for that.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 21:44, closed)
I'm sorry but I find the ideal of male circumcision a horrid idea!
I don't understand it. Why not ask the guys when they reach an age able to decide? Also, it looks awful! Leave it on.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 13:58, closed)
Who cares what you guys think...
... you're all schmucks anyway.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:12, closed)
The simple principle is thus:
No child should ever be subjected to non-essential, cosmetic body modifications before they're of such an age to be able to make an informed decision as to what they want to do with their OWN body.

That includes any type of circumcision - and also piercings too. It sickens me to see babies with earrings. What if the child grows older and decides that they'd rather not have a hole through their earlobe, thank you very much? Sorry - tough luck. It's irreversible. Your parents already decided before you could voice ANY opinion whatsoever.

If I ever became prime minister, I'd make it law that no form of irreversible unnecessary cosmetic changes could ever be carried out on another person's body, when that person is unable to make their own wishes clear.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 18:12, closed)

I was circumcised for medical reasons a year ago (it was too tight, whenever I had sex it would go back halfway and jam, it was bloody painful). I admit I was bricking it before the operation but I have to say it was nowhere near as painful as I was expecting. Bearing in mind my knobend had never been exposed in its life it was very sensitive at first, to the point of extreme discomfort. The most painful thing was, you know you get erections in your sleep? I can assure you all you'll know exactly how many you get when it pulls on your stitches. It is much less sensitive now, but at least I can actually look forward to sex.
(, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 19:03, closed)
...is a bullshit argument made up to justify it after the fact.

I'll have you know my (uncirc) bellend is pristeen.
I got athletes foot once, but I didn't blame my toes.
(, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 11:46, closed)
On desensitivity
The desensitivity argument doesn't fly with me. My trooper still has his scarf and I tend to last longer than average. I could just be special though...

But you're right, both practices are not nice and neither should be forced upon someone (without good medical reason of course).
(, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 19:55, closed)

« Go Back

Pages: Latest, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, ... 1