@raphjd said in Party of family values part 1 
:
MGF became a thing in the last half of the 1800s. Not only was it supposed to cure evil masturbation but it also prevented or cured several diseases caused by masturbation.
There has been no argument from me that the procedure - whether performed on men or women - is ill-conceived and brutal. Circumcision in men has been around for thousands of years - its commonality has waxed and waned over the centuries, but it has been a part of the Jewish & Islamic faiths from their formations! (Christians essentially "inherited" circumcision from their Jewish foundations, but aren't supposed to practice it - see reference to Paul below...).
NOTE: Islam, not unlike the Jewish faith, has some differing "factions" - some of which REQUIRE circumcision (as Orthodox Jews do), others do not. (YES There is such a thing as an uncircumcised modern Jew - I've tasted one!) LOL! Worldwide, Christians largely DO NOT circumcise their male children (other than in the US and a few smaller countries), because Paul (aka: Saint Paul) taught that the many "laws" of Leviticus were overturned by the "New Testament of Jesus Christ"... The Vatican (Catholic Church) strictly prohibits circumcision for religious reasons - but allows it for medical ones... The point being that: even the 3 major Abrahamic religions can't make up their minds on circumcision!
Quick Rabbit Hole: I once caused quite a stir in college when I said that it (circumcision) was proof that God was a woman or queer! After all, sacrificing humans & animals to the One God was forbidden, but penises? By God, the One God wanted those! ROFL...
MGF was not made illegal in western countries, but female circumcision was. Thankfully the SCotUS saw the bigotry in the law and threw it out.
If you're just presenting a fact, no argument here. But if you're referencing my writing, you're conflating "legal" with "religious and social"...
Liberals call it mutilation when it happens to girls, but call it circumcision when it happens to boys. I flipped it around.
This isn't (at lest as I can see in my area if the US) a Liberal vs. Conservative issue at all... I know both liberal and conservative parents (remember, I'm active in the Foster and Adoptive Parent communities 'round these parts - so, I know a LOT of parents!) who have decided both ways on the question of circumcision. When I am asked, I always counsel AGAINST... for one thing, because it is something that cannot be UNDONE, but also because it IS something that can be done LATER.
BULLSHIT about girls being body-shamed but guys are not.
As usual, you can't see a nuanced argument - you see only black and white. I didn't say women were the ONLY ones body-shamed, only that they were MORE... FAR MORE... body-shamed by Western Culture (esp. in advertising) than men are... but I ALSO pointed out that there is "movement" in that difference... and that the movement is in the WRONG direction: men are starting to be body-shamed (also largely in advertising) more and more...
Also, in your typical all-or-nothing mentality, you cannot seem to accept that some positive action has occurred - because it wasn't everything you wanted, it was a complete and utter failure in your eyes. Pity... Progress is progress!
Men have always been body shamed, in the same way, women have. The only difference is that women have been whining about it forever and a day.
You're either willfully blind or ignorant. I don't need to provide evidence to counter your argument: literally every reader out there will have experienced the falsity - no: absurdity - of your argument in their actual lives.... at least any who have any women (sisters, mothers, daughters, friends) in their day-to-day lives!
Even the fat assed heffers don't want fat men. This is made clear by several surveys.
Clearly you don't frequent fetish porn! There are people who ADORE obese men and women! But we're talking about "societal norms" here. And body shaming isn't recognizing people who "look good" - it's about shaming people who don't fit the current criteria for what's supposed to be "looking good"!!! Especially for criteria that may be genetically defined!
Ask any man who is, say, 40 lbs overweight if he is often called FAT by his friends or coworkers? Or if they ever reference his weight - even with terms like "he's a big man"... and at just 40 lbs overweight, he likely will say "not so much"... or "a little"...
Ask the same of a woman who is, say, just 20 lbs overweight the same - and they will say "all the time" or even "constantly"...
Again: this issue isn't whether it is happening more or less to men or women - it's that it's happening at all, and whether steps are being taken to minimize it - for any!
The 80/20 rule of dating exists for a reason.
I have no idea what 80/20 rule of dating you're referring to... my understanding of the 80/20 rule of dating is that if 80% of your time together is "great", your relationship is doing OK... the other 20% being "not great" is normal...
Good-looking people, of either gender, do better than ugly people.
LOL - once again, you conflate body shaming with "fairness" - life isn't fair, and it cannot be. While there is a "bias" towards "beautiful people", the definition of what is beautiful changes:
- 100 years ago, most of today's "beautiful" women would be excoriated as "sickly stick figures"... women were expected to "have curves" - including significant breasts and wide hips!
- 50 years ago, chest hair was "in" - if you had it, you showed it off (this was parodied by Mike Meyers in the Austin Powers series)
- 10 years ago, chest hair in men was OUT - some men were even LASER removing hair from their chests! Only to find that particular pendulum swinging BACK in favor of chest hair again currently...
- When I was growing up, having a deep, "bronze" tan was "the in thing" (clearly for whites!)... not so much now, as we realize that this tanning caused serious skin damage - even skin cancer!
Body shaming is cruel - especially when the body "parts" in question may well be genetically defined. (This includes shaming men with small penises and women with small breasts!) The only people who should be talking to a man or woman about their weight should be their Dr.! If their weight is "healthy" for them, then it's none of the rest of our business. If it is NOT healthy, then it is up to the patient and Dr to figure out a plan of action - it is NOT up to me or the rest of society to weigh in!
Does that mean it doesn't (or won't) happen? No! We'll never be able to make society "kind and accepting" - but we can STOP making it socially acceptable to call someone "fat" or whatever... especially in public.
The psychology behind ugly ass guys being in porn is that when guys watch it, they think that even they can get the good-looking chicks.
Yeah - that's why the guys in porn also have average-to small dicks! Because they want the "average guy" to think "that could be me!"... makes perfect sense to me now!
If you ask me (and I've DONE porn)... the only part of a male actor STRAIGHT males look at is their dick... while they look at the whole package when they look at/fantasize about the women. (Exception: in fetish porn, they look at the fetish - e.g. large breasts - not the whole body...)
Because of the constant portrayals of almost solely large-dicked men in porn, it is a common "belief" by men in counseling that "I'd be more successful in life/sex if I just had a bigger dick"...
Locally, an injury law firm is actually satirizing that very thing... their billboards all proclaim "Size DOES matter!" (they claim to be the largest injury law firm in the country...)
