|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by tudball on 06:19 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"They" didn't throw in religion. The goddamn female attorney for the mother did. In another article on this topic, the same bitch commented on the ex-husband's "failure to make his child support payments", as if that has anything to do with the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither the mother nor the attorney have the right to their own bodies, since they deny the right of the 8-year old to his. Their forfeited that right.
Men deserve at minimum the reproductive right to intact genitalia that women have.
My statistical analysis of circumcision data shows that a consistent .4 standard deviation separates the mean of the distributions of intact men from circumcised men on a number of statistical scales.
For example, circumcised men are more likely to avoid sex; the effect increases with age.
Circumcised men are more likely to masturbate.
Circumcised men need to thrust harder than intact men to feel anything.
I've become so disgusted with the hypocrisy of people on the subject, men included, that I've changed my attitude about the possibility of any hope for the men's movement.
Anthropologist Lionel Tiger believes that the sea change in gender relations (women doing better economically, men doing worse; women doing better educationally, men dong worse) is due to biological and not political or cultural factors.
But now I take this to mean that men are doomed to extinction altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I've changed my attitude about the possibility of any hope for the men's movement."
There is no men's movement and there never was a men's movement. If there had been a men's movement then there wouldn't be feminazis. Those who call themselves MRAs are a bunch of wimps who are controlled by the cunt. They start drooling and shaking like puppy dogs as soon they smell a cunt.
Men's movement? You must be joking.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 02:17 AM June 19th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Bert, I thought you called yourself an MRA?
Little Lion, I wouldn't give up hope yet: that is only one part of the men's rights movement. People aren't nearly as partisan on the issue of circumcision as they are on other issues, especially domestic violence.
Most people can be persuaded against circumcision when you tell them that there is no reason, medical or any, to do it(excluding Judaism). There is no positive effect, nothing to gain. There is a lot to lose, however: size, and with that, confidence, as well as sensation.
I believe the boy should be making this choice, because it's his body. I doubt he would have it done, and that's not a bad thing.
The inflammation the woman speaks of is not her problem. It's his, and if he wants something as drastic as circumcision done about it, that's HIS choice.
Why is it that people always seem to bring this up(inflammation) in the debate, yet don't seem to realize that circumcision isn't the only way to get rid of the pain?
This inflammation is probably caused by uncleanliness. That's what I hear from a lot of anti-circumcision sites.
I hope this works out for the kid, and hopefully it'll bring some light on to the circumcision debate, where people will finally see that mutilating a boy at birth is completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Recently reported