Are people/men naturally sexist to women?

No

Not saying it is acceptable. Just saying that you are comparing two completely different situations.

Look into what she was saying. They actually cut out the clitoris and sew up the vagina.

We will weep for your poor useless foreskin. NOT^

reply to post by Edrick


Wow, I have never had a reply like that. Whoo.

You knocked me over with that one, so eloquent.

The comparison of women having their feet bound, that was epic!

You are right. All women should have their clits cut off, feet bound, and be beaten by their men.

I am now reformed!

Cheers.

Originally posted by wclv13
Apparently I got to be the one to point this out to him:

"So what you are saying is... Female genital mutilation is barbaric...

But MALE genital mutilation is Civilized."


Hello sir???? You cut out the clitoris and the female will not have an orgasm! Oh yeah, you THINK just by putting your thing in her thing she orgasms. NOT

The clitoris is there for a reason.

The foreskin does not make a darn bit of difference whether you guys have an orgasm or not.

The ignorance of the female anatomy from alot of men is just uh, LAUGHABLE

oohh nice, I don't see his replies. LOL I guess he did not get me saying I was muting certain people.

This thread is not about sexuality in and of itself, but as this has been brought up in regards to sexism, I would like to clear up some erroneous ideas about circumcision.

Circumcision in men, has many proven benefits. Not only for the man, but for the women they have sexual relations with.

The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. In fact, some uncircumcised men have been known to complain that their penis is too sensitive, leading to pain, and seek circumcision to relieve this. Diminishing sensitivity is in fact desired by many men in order to prolong the sex act by preventing premature ejaculation.

Studies have proven that circumcised men have greater sexual satisfaction than uncircumcised men.

So, some understanding here of circumcision. The foreskin is composed of an outer layer that is "skin". duh foreskin

Without circumcision, the inner layer becomes a repository for shed cells, secretions and urinary residue which accumulates. Creating a hospitable environment for the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms.

Uncircumcised men have a higher risk of infections.

The benefits of male circumcision?

Decrease in physical problems.

Lower incidence of inflammation.

Reduced urinary tract infections

Fewer problems with erections.

Decrease in sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia and syphilis.

Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.

Decrease in urological problems.

Women who have partners that are UNcircumcised have a much higher rate of cervical cancer compared to women who have partners who are circumcised.

Also, women who have uncircumcised partners have a higher risk of breast cancer. This is linked to HPV.

Compared to FGM, which increases all of the above along with many more dangers. I have never heard of a man dying from circumcision compared to women who die from FGM. Men do not have life long pain from circumcision as the women who go through female genital mutilation.

The two are not the same.

So, how again is circumcision mutilation? It is not, circumcision, does not remove the genitals as female genital mutilation does, circumcision removes some foreskin skin that is proven to cause problems, FGM removes partial and or complete female genitals.

Harm None
Peace

Originally posted by wclv13
No

Not saying it is acceptable. Just saying that you are comparing two completely different situations.

I am comparing mutilation of infants, to mutilation of infants.

Seems to be quite similar to me.

And your justification of the mutilation of men is the evidence of your sexism.

I am trying to point out that men are oppressed also, as you seem to think that cutting off a part of a boy childs anatomy is inconsiquential.

As if boys are useless and insignificant.

This is your Misandry.

We will weep for your poor useless foreskin. NOT^

Well then don't expect me to care about female genital mutilations.

You clearly only care about women.

And that is the Dictionary definition of Sexism.

Q.E.D.

You are Sexist.

-Edrick

Thank you to the wonderful females here. The time and effort you put in your posts speak for all women. The subjugation,the humiliation, the rapes, we have endured from these selfish dangerous self appointed masters! It has gone to far, I am afraid they will destroy us completely, I beleive it is their true unconscious agenda.

I had a dream last week that aliens had come from the future to try to save their race. They could not reproduce. They were genetically altered, cloned soulless ugly males from here that had destroyed the atmosphere of the planet and all life form and vegetation. The governments let them "have" some of the females

Click here for more information.

reply to post by amazed


You still are not realizing that those men who had the "Circumcision" had absolutely no say in the procedure, as it was done when they were infants.

Circumcision in men, has many proven benefits. Not only for the man, but for the women they have sexual relations with.

Genital mutilation of women has many proven benefits. Not only for the Woman, but for the men they have sexual intercourse with.

You see how it is a sexist statement now?

The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. In fact, some uncircumcised men have been known to complain that their penis is too sensitive

Let me get this straight.. you claim that the foreskin has no known additive effect to sexual pleasure, but in the same sentance you say that men have it chopped off because of TOO MUCH sexual pleasure?

That is known as cognitive dissonance.

So, some understanding here of circumcision. The foreskin is composed of an outer layer that is "skin". duh foreskin

So is the labia, does that mean we can chop that off when women are born also?

Without circumcision, the inner layer becomes a repository for shed cells, secretions and urinary residue which accumulates. Creating a hospitable environment for the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms.

The Vagina becomes a repository for shed uterus linings and blood to accumulate, creating a hospitable environment for the growth of bacteria, yasts, and other infections.

Maybe for health concerns, we should just cut that part out ow women, right?

Heck... your MOUTH is a repository for infections diseases and microorganisms...

Should we remove that as well?

Your feet?

Your hands?

The benefits of male circumcision? ..... Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.

Maybe we should chop off women's breasts, as that would completely eliminate breast cancer...

Sounds perfectly logical!

I have never heard of a man dying from circumcision compared to women who die from FGM.

Well, perhaps if they preformed FGM's with better equipment, and under sterile hospital conditions these things would not occur.

Seems to work pretty well for circumcisions.

So, how again is circumcision mutilation? It is not

Mutilation:

1. an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

Seems like the Definition of mutilation to me.

-Edrick

Ya know? You are correct. They should not be doing circumcision on an infant.

Keep the whiny boys tied to their mothers via the umbilical cord.

Don't cut away ANYTHING

edit spelling

[edit on 22-6-2009 by wclv13]

Originally posted by wclv13
Ya know? You are correct. They should not be doing circumcision on an infant.

Keep the whiny boys tied to their mothers via the umbilical cord.

Don't cut away ANYTHING

edit spelling

[edit on 22-6-2009 by wclv13]

Women, so much more kind, empathetic, and understanding than men.



-Edrick

Another thing to remember, is that if you are a woman who has been divorced, society looks down on you far more than men who have been divorced.

A woman who is divorced with children, even more so. If she then chooses to date, society looks down on her even more. Calling her a "bad parent" when she hires a sitter so she can go on a date, telling her she had better not introduce her children to her date unless and until she decides to marry the man.

Though society expects and even encourages the man to date, even when he is the one with custody.

It is a double standard, a divorced women with children shall not date, a divorced man with children is expected to.

Another form of sexism, who is the one expected to take care of birth control? The woman, and if birth control does not work, the woman is the one who is looked down upon. The woman is then the one who ends up with all the emotional strain of societies view upon an unwed mother, but we do not have the same stigma for unwed fathers VERY double standard, and sexist.

It takes two to create a child, at least for now, and BOTH parties should be responsible for birth control, not just the women. How many people are aware that we do have birth control that men can use? Not many, as men even hate the idea of using a condom much less have to take a pill everyday to keep their wife/girlfriend from getting pregnant. Oh NO NO NO, that is "the woman's job". How about both parties use birth control to assure no pregnancy when not wanted instead of putting the onus of responsibility on ONE party? That would require men to actually grow up.

Takes two people, not just one, meaning TWO people should be responsible, not just the woman.

Another form of sexism towards women.

Harm None
Peace

Originally posted by amazed
Another thing to remember, is that if you are a woman who has been divorced, society looks down on you far more than men who have been divorced.

By "Looks Down on" you mean "Gets the man to pay for"?

Right?

A woman who is divorced with children, even more so. If she then chooses to date, society looks down on her even more. Calling her a "bad parent" when she hires a sitter so she can go on a date, telling her she had better not introduce her children to her date unless and until she decides to marry the man.

Yeah, because introducing your children to an endless series of men as surrogate fathers is perfectly fine for their upbringing...

Though society expects and even encourages the man to date, even when he is the one with custody.

Men get custody VERY rarely, and society deems that children in a Single father household should have a "Mother Figure" in their lives, Thus, Divorced men with child custody are encouraged to find another "Mother" for them, but not necessarily to have an endless series of girlfriends.

It is a double standard, a divorced women with children shall not date, a divorced man with children is expected to.

That is not even nessecarily true.

Society expects children to be raised by a mother and father.

Society fully expects divorced women to seek a new mate to help raise her children.

But like the previous explanation I gave you for men, society looks down upon a woman bringing a series of males into their children's lives.

Another form of sexism, who is the one expected to take care of birth control? The woman, and if birth control does not work, the woman is the one who is looked down upon. The woman is then the one who ends up with all the emotional strain of societies view upon an unwed mother, but we do not have the same stigma for unwed fathers VERY double standard, and sexist.

Yes, this topic is VERY sexist.

Especially since no matter WHO is *Responsible* for the birth control, the Woman essentially ends up with all of the Rights to those children, while men must obey the mothers decision (Be that abortion, adoption, carrying to term and being saddled with the child support bill for 18 years, etc)

Essentially, men have the Responsibility for The children, but women have the Right to "Own" those children.

Seems pretty sexist to me too.

It takes two to create a child, at least for now, and BOTH parties should be responsible for birth control, not just the women. How many people are aware that we do have birth control that men can use? Not many, as men even hate the idea of using a condom much less have to take a pill everyday to keep their wife/girlfriend from getting pregnant. Oh NO NO NO, that is "the woman's job". How about both parties use birth control to assure no pregnancy when not wanted instead of putting the onus of responsibility on ONE party? That would require men to actually grow up.

You say that the onus of responsibility is placed on ONE party, and you are right.

Because no matter WHO forgets to use birth control, the Women choses whether th child is born, or adopted, and the man has the responsibility to PAY for her desicion (Time, or Money)

Takes two people, not just one, meaning TWO people should be responsible, not just the woman.

Another form of sexism towards women.

Another form or Sexism towards men.

-Edrick

Looking at history, I have changed my mind to a degree - men DEFINITELY oppressed women, but I think it's because of their physical size and women would have done the same if they could.

However, maybe not, because women also oppress other women! Which is why women aren't angels compared to men because ....

Originally posted by HulaAnglers


Thank you to the wonderful females here. The time and effort you put in your posts speak for all women. The subjugation,the humiliation, the rapes, we have endured from these selfish dangerous self appointed masters! It has gone to far, I am afraid they will destroy us completely, I beleive it is their true unconscious agenda.

I had a dream last week that aliens had come from the future to try to save their race. They could not reproduce. They were genetically altered, cloned soulless ugly males from here that had destroyed the atmosphere of the planet and all life form and vegetation. The governments let them "have" some of the females

Yeah, the aliens are sick freaks ... far worse than any human pervert.

Originally posted by wclv13
No

Not saying it is acceptable. Just saying that you are comparing two completely different situations.

Look into what she was saying. They actually cut out the clitoris and sew up the vagina.

We will weep for your poor useless foreskin. NOT^

Idk I think both are bad but yeah FGM is definitely worse than male circumcision. Not sure it's as common tho, though it could be more common, I'm not an expert in the field. They are the same thing though, when a baby boy is circumcized it DOES hurt.

IMO, no feminist should support male circumcision either.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by wclv13
No

Not saying it is acceptable. Just saying that you are comparing two completely different situations.

Look into what she was saying. They actually cut out the clitoris and sew up the vagina.

We will weep for your poor useless foreskin. NOT^

Idk I think both are bad but yeah FGM is definitely worse than male circumcision. Not sure it's as common tho, though it could be more common, I'm not an expert in the field. They are the same thing though, when a baby boy is circumcized it DOES hurt.

IMO, no feminist should support male circumcision either.

Not being a feminist myself, let's make that clear, I am a supporter of equality on all sides. Meaning neither sex is viewed as better, or more important than the other. Both sexes are important, and have qualities that this world needs. Without either, no one, would be here.

Now about circumcision. This is something my husband and I researched intensely when our son was born, as we do not have the religious beliefs behind following through on circumcision.

All the positives of male circumcision, compared to the negatives on non circumcision, made the decision for us, and we did have our son circumcised. My husband at first did not like the idea, and I did not either, until we both studied the material in regards to circumcision. Once we realized that male circumcision had more to do with than just religion, and the medical and emotional benefits to male circumcision, we were no longer questioning as to if it should be done or not.

Being that my husband is circumcised, he had the same thoughts as the men here who are against circumcision, and I basically agreed with him, until we read the medical research.

Many of the positives jumped out at us, but the two big ones were, men who are circumcised have a much more satisfying sex life, and penile cancer is basically completely eradicated. Personally, I wanted my son to grow up and have a satisfying sex life, go figure that a mom would think such a thing. I guess that makes me sexist against men and a bad ole feminist. (end sarcasm) AND I knew in my heart that eradicating the chances for penile cancer was a big positive.

We were lucky as well, as we knew men who were not circumcised, and one who decided to get circumcised as an adult. He said he would not change the decision and had felt better in many ways since he had the procedure done. Then, my dad was not circumcised, never was, and he explained the problems with being non circumcised.

In our opinion, the positives far outweighed the negatives. In FGM, their are zero positives. The only reason FGM is done, is for religious reasons and control over the women. I understand that many people have their son's circumcised for religious reasons only, though that does not negate the positives.

All I can say is, please do your research before jumping to conclusions about male circumcision. And stop equating male circumcision to FGM, the two are not the same, other than they involve the genitals. Cutting some skin, which creates many positives, and partially removing or completely removing the genitals, are in no way comparable situations.

You can bet, that if male circumcision involved the removal of part or all of the male genitals, and had zero positives, that I would be fighting to stop circumcision. To be able to compare FGM with circumcision, the mans scrotum, testicles and penis would have to partially or completely removed.

Does that help with understanding the difference between the two? As FGM equates in a male the removal or partial removal of the scrotum, testicles and penis. The idea is a horror. FGM is a horror.

Circumcision has many many positives, FGM does not, and even causes death in many many situations. No man has ever died from being circumcised, nor has a man ever lost his ability for a satisfying sex life, and it is proven to increase the satisfaction a man has in his sex life.

In curiosity, I would like to ask, with all the proven facts that male circumcision has many many positives and almost zero negatives, why are men fighting over the idea? Serious question here. I would like to know.

Harm None
Peace

As we were discussing circumcision, I thought I would post an article in regards to a new study, HIV and circumcision.

Circumcision helps protect men, not women from AIDS
www.healthjackal.com...

The male foreskin is comprised of cells that are particularly susceptible to infection by the HIV virus, and the removal of this skin makes infection much less likely.

Keep complaining men, and trying to link male circumcision to FGM (female genital mutilation).

Still no answer to my previous question as to why some men try to link male circumcision with FGM. And why with all the positives of male circumcision that men complain about the procedure.

Harm None
Peace

reply to post by amazed

The male foreskin is comprised of cells that are particularly susceptible to infection by the HIV virus, and the removal of this skin makes infection much less likely.

So, which parts of your body would you want to have removed from you (without your consent) just because they are more susceptible to a disease than other parts?

Still no answer to my previous question as to why some men try to link male circumcision with FGM.

Because Cutting flesh in a child's nether regions is COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE to you, so long as those nether regions in question are MALE.

That is Sexist.

Circumcision OF ANY KIND is barbaric and uncivilized... MALE OR FEMALE.

Your inherent SEXISM, and subsequent hatred of men leads you to believe that doing this to a male child is somehow Good.

Read about it, would you...
www.cirp.org...

Information about Circumcision and Foreskin (Warning: Pictures of Intact Penis)
indra.com...

You seem to think that the foreskin is a vestigial and useless flap of skin... you are SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG.

Just DEAL WITH IT.


You chastise FGM as removing pleasure from Sexual intercourse for females.

And this is PRECISELY what Circumcision does to males.

YOU IGNORANT HYPOCRITE (Yes, both of those words are by definition accurate how I have used them)

-Edrick

reply to post by amazed


Since you probably are not going to do the research yourself (You would rather FEEL right, than BE right)

I will now proceed to SHOVE THE TRUTH DOWN YOUR THROAT until you can adequately regurgitate something OTHER than MALE GENITAL MUTILATION APOLOGETICS.

Fine Touch Pressure threshold in the Adult Penis:
www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...

"In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine touch-pressure sensitivity of the glans penis. The most sensitive regions of the uncircumcised penis are those ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis, (Locations) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."

Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infection
www.cirp.org...

"Urinary tract infections (UTI) are a complication of circumcision. They are bacterial infections of the urinary tract (kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra)."

"Studies have demonstrated that Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, to which the infant has no passive immunity, can be colonized from the glans of circumcised infants and those infants whose foreskins have been forcibly retracted, tearing the protective synechia. Although E. coli is one of the most common bacteria on the surface of human skin, strains found in hospitals tend to be particularly virulent. In infant girls UTIs generally originate in the colon, whereas in infant boys they originate from the external environment, strongly suggesting that for boys such infections are iatrogenic. Premature retraction and circumcision expose boys to hospital strains of E. coli that can cause."

"In order for the E. coli bacteria to bind to the glans penis of the infant, it needs an entry such as retraction of the adherent foreskin or circumcision."

Now I'm just getting Mad.


You don't see the Stupidity of your position, because you are not thinking.

And this is entirely understandable from the "Goddess" camp of Non-Thinking that you have been indoctrinated into.

You believe that the Female is inordinately superior to the brutish animalistic Male that you so vehemently shun, and spurn with contempt from the normal compassion that you so easily give to all women by virtue of the similarity of your Genitals.


You have no compassion for Males, in general, and your position in advocating the cutting off of a portion of male anatomy AT BIRTH, and indoctrinated by society for "Medical" reasons is as absurd as all of the Debunked "Rational" that you would use to justify, and advocate the procedure.

You claim that FGM is unquestionable and cruel because it removes a pleasure center from females that assists in orgasm, and sexual gratification, and yet you claim that the Foreskin is completely useless in this rearguard, despite the SCIENTIFIC PROOF in contrary to your position.

A position that you hold merely because you have been indoctrinated to parrot the ideals of a society that has been conditioned by religion going back thousands of years that pleasure is a SIN, and for the good of the SOUL, must be forcibly and surgically removed from MEN AND WOMEN "For Their Own Good".


This is the PRIMARY REASON for genital mutilation of ANY kind...


A removal of PLEASURE.


That you cannot see that circumcision is GENITAL MUTILATION is primarily due to your own ignorance, arrogance, inhumanity, and insensitivity to those humans who do not posses the same HOLE that you do.



Circumcision does NOT prevent diseases, in most cases IT CAUSES THEM!

Circumcision does not remove useless skin, it removes the MOST DENSELY PACKED region of Nerve clusters in the male genitals.



THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF GENITAL MUTILATION!



To remove pleasure.


But you don't Care, because only women are worth protecting, and men should be resigned to a life of Dying for your freedom in a world that despises them, and doing all of the dangerous jobs that YOU WILL NOT DO, that are more necessary for society to function than ANY job that women actually DO.


You are SEXIST.

You do NOT know what you are talking about.

Stop posting, because you are just *WRONG*


-Edrick

OH, And just for the Record...

Originally posted by amazed
As we were discussing circumcision, I thought I would post an article in regards to a new study, HIV and circumcision.

Circumcision helps protect men, not women from AIDS
www.healthjackal.com...

The male foreskin is comprised of cells that are particularly susceptible to infection by the HIV virus, and the removal of this skin makes infection much less likely.

Keep complaining men, and trying to link male circumcision to FGM (female genital mutilation).

Still no answer to my previous question as to why some men try to link male circumcision with FGM. And why with all the positives of male circumcision that men complain about the procedure.

Harm None
Peace

Your "Proof" from this article, that the author *JUST FOUND* is an inconclusive study that was over 20 years old concerning Langerhans cells in the epidermis (Skin) the study concluded that since HIV binded to these Langerhans Cells, that circumcision was beneficial.

They were of course, COMPLETELY WRONG, and has already been debunked.


The thing is, these Langerhans Cells actually create a protein called langerin, that actually PREVENTS the spread of HIV to the Langerhans Cells.

In fact, the scientific community is studying this Foreskin created protein as a potential preventative measure for the transmission of HIV.

My source for this information is a study by the Vrije University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

The abstract for this study, titled "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" can be found here:

www.cirp.org...




So, seriously... stop, you are just Embarrassing yourself.


-Edrick

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Edrick]

Unless a man is intellegent enough to fully understand the worth of a woman, and the woman lives up to her worth. He will be sexist. We are really no different than most other animals. The males naturally feel the need to dominate.

I think all people naturally feel the need to be better than others. At times they will go to any legnth necessary to feel like they are supreme. Gender is an easy one to go after. Prove yourself better than a woman/man and you are automatically more supreme than half the population.

I do, however, also feel that there are times when a man feels overly protective of a woman. That is usually because he understands her worth and fears loosing her. Some see that behavior as sexist, I do not.