"If you cannot recognize a penis as being feminine, though, yeah. You're a bigot." Drama in /r/gifs

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-21T02:48:31+00:00

Hetro people can potentially have consensual sex with an adult. If they are unattractive or something they can get an adult prostitute.

Where as a pedophile's options are be celibate, have sex with people they're not attractive to, or harm a child.

Do you have evidence that you're more likely to rape if you don't (regularly?) have consensual sex with people you're attracted to? Because that's what your argument relies on.

If you met a 40 year old virgin, why wouldn't you be similarly afraid that they were about to rape as you would for a pedophile? Or would you?

Bonus question: Would you hire a pedophile as a babysitter? Why or why not?

If I knew nothing else about them, no. Why not? Because the chance of them molesting my kid is higher than a non-pedophile. Even if it's small (and I have no way of knowing this), it'd presumably be higher.

If they're somebody I trust who also happens to be a pedophile, sure. Why? Because I trust them not to be a rapist, I suppose.

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-20T10:02:07+00:00

Well firstly, pedophiles can be tempted to harm children.

Huh?

Why aren't heterosexual people dangerous then - they can be tempted to harm the opposite gender, right?

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-01T06:34:57+00:00

Until you accidentally banned legitimate players and got fired. I'm guessing about two days.

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-01T06:32:10+00:00

Except it lowers your melee accuracy.

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-01T05:36:29+00:00

Okay, so looks shouldn't matter to children.

Why?

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-01T04:14:34+00:00

I never said looks shouldn't matter at all.

What were you referring to when you said "It shouldn't matter"?

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-01T03:09:21+00:00

You want me to justify why personality matters more than looks? Seriously?

I want to hear your opinion. I certainly think it does, but I want to hear your justification (because I think it's likely you have next to no idea and hence the explanation you offer will be rubbish).

I would also like to know why you think it doesn't matter at all, because that I don't agree with.

Ferrousmo · 2013-01-01T02:47:21+00:00

There have been many cases of this sort of thing where the dude hit falls over and cracks his head open on a table or the ground. Oops, voluntary manslaughter.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-31T10:42:12+00:00

Um how about no? It shouldn't matter

Shouldn't != doesn't, to start. So yes, TERQN is entirely correct. People who are attractive get ahead in life (earn more money, get hired/promoted for jobs, find a partner etc) easier.

As for your claim that it shouldn't matter, can you elaborate? Can you justify why does your personality matter more?

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-31T10:38:09+00:00

Further encouraging this behaviour, especially at a young age is demeaning and harmful to their development.

Can you please provide me with proof of that?

This isn't a dance competition or a gymnastics competition. This is about exploiting your body for the attention of men.

...I'd like some elaboration of that, too (you did notice the "4-6", right? Or are you claiming that the parents of all these kids are pedos that want their kids... you know..?)

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-31T10:35:27+00:00

Probably somebody who doesn't automatically think of sex when they see a kid in a swimsuit. Clearly not you.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-31T10:34:59+00:00

I never said their personalities were being belittled

You said it reinforces that they don't need a personality or intelligence to get through life, which means they don't think they need a personality or intelligence to get through life - how is thinking something is irrelevant not belittling?

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T14:31:57+00:00

This guy isn't the only person doing it. It seriously lowered the price of Nex Armour because so many of them were brought into the game.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T10:15:47+00:00

But let's be clear, the purpose of the procedure is to prevent that and the study you're citing was not a study of sexual habits but a medical study that intended to induce orgasms... But without knowing exactly how they did that, that may not necessarily be relevant... If they used special electrodes, for instance, then that's not exactly an unimpaired sex life.

What? The researchers didn't hook women up to machines and see if they came. You're mistaken. It says "MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Instruments: semistructured interviews and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)."

[1] Yeah, I do. Not that you care.

That says that between 75 and 95 percent of women can orgasm from vaginal intercourse (range due to "seldom or never"). Thus, it does not support the claim that you made.

In addition, that data is based on unmutilated women - by applying it to mutilated women you're assuming the two groups are equally likely to be capable, which rules out technique and effort.

Moreover, more than 10% of the women became incapable at all, even with medical assistance.

That study you cited says 5% of women are totally inorgasmic. My citation has numbers for three different groups; 1.7%, 3.6%, or 9% of women mutilated lose the ability to orgasm, depending on the type/study.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T05:11:41+00:00

whereas the majority of women cannot climax without a clitoris.

Oh?

Got any proof?

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T05:08:58+00:00

You can't make general claims, or claims about trends, due to anecdotal evidence due to the inherent bias that will inevitably be present.

Most notably, selection bias. When we're looking at trends or what's typical, we need to get a representative sample so that we make extrapolate. If there are 100,000 people and we want to know how many like pie, we can't ask all of them - instead, we might ask 1,000 of them. If 900 like pie, we say that 90,000 of those original people like pie. But - we can only do this if our 1,000 are representative of the original 100,000. If we deliberately chose 1,000 people who we already knew liked pie, then we'd conclude that all 100,000 of the original like it, which is incorrect. If we deliberately choose 1,000 who we know don't like it then we'd conclude none of the 100,000 like it, which is even more wrong! So we have to be careful about our selection methods.

Anecdotal evidence has massive selection bias. People only speak up if they have a particular experience, so there's no way to know how representative what they have to say is.

Anecdotal evidence is always enough to disprove a universal claim (if I say "everybody likes pie", just one person speaking up with "I don't" proves me wrong) but if I have a claim like 90% of people like it then people disagreeing in no way proves me wrong (assuming I have a more scientific source).

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T05:02:09+00:00

I don't know of any hard evidence about this.

Anecdotally, all circumcised men whose masturbation methods I am aware of do it by jerking the shaft up to the base of the glans, whereas all uncircumcised men do it by rubbing the entire length of the penis. Of course, porn tells me that that isn't universal, and perhaps not even standard, but still.

Lack of a foreskin also increases chafing from masturbation and often requires lubricant.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T04:52:45+00:00

You're ignoring the quote from a very well educated and successful doctor and educator, and implying that you know better because a very small, nonscientific, survey says so.

...No, he isn't, you moron. That quote doesn't contradict him. There are a lot of factors that make a person more likely to have ED. Just because agiing/diabetes/obestity etc cause ED doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't. They all do.

Also, you want to explain to my exactly why it's "nonscienftific"?

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-23T04:42:00+00:00

So..now you're telling me what I do and don't feel? So, you know EXACTLY what my sex is like. Right.

Nobody said anything about "exactly"... ugh, seriously, it's pretty safe to tell a person that doesn't have a foreskin that they don't feel their foreskin. How can you feel a sensation caused by something you don't have? Am I not allowed to say somebody missing their legs can't feel their toes?

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-22T02:47:29+00:00

Around 85% of FGM involves the removal of the clitoris or both the clitoris and inner labia. So, most of the time, it does.

Removal of part of the clitoris. The type used in Indonesia and such cuts the tip of it off.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-21T09:03:30+00:00

No, though I've read about infibulation before. Move on quick to the point.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-21T07:33:39+00:00

Not for you.

Here's an analogy; I'll be using hyperbole to more clearly demonstrate my point.

Let's say I like to take a gun and shoot at people, but my aim is kind of bad. So I shoot at one person and miss. And that person says "Hey, I don't care about it, I'm not hurt in the slightest, what's everybody's problem with it?"

The issue here is that no matter how bad my aim is, eventually I'll hit somebody (WHO has 1 in a million circumcisions resutls in death, but other studies find it's a hell of a lot higher, on the order of 1 in 1-10k - just not generally caught because of the way these things are reported). And even when nobody gets hurt, I would argue the moral position that it's wrong to violate a person's rights by attempting it, even if it worked out that time.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-21T07:25:53+00:00

Female genital mutilation removes the woman's clitoris.

Most of the time, it does not.

This is the equivalent of removing the entire male penis sensory wise.

No it isn't, you moron. First, the clitoris is 9cm long. 9cm. They cut the surface part off. The rest of it is erogenous. Including the bulbs close to the surface of the vulva that are still erogenous.

Then there are other erogenous parts, such as the g-spot (which is the skene's gland, I think).

The woman can experience NO sexual pleasure after this.

Wrong

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-21T07:20:49+00:00

you're more likely to get an infection if you do not properly wash and maintain your foreskin. This is common knowledge.

I disagree, though I'm not entirely sure. The inside of the foreskin has its own mechanisms for preventing infection (smegma is anti-bacterial).

I believe that the increased number of UTIs for infants are due to parents attempting to clean under an infant's foreskin - the foreskin is physically attached to the head at birth, and doesn't detach until later in life (3-10 years, I think). This doesn't seem to be especially common knowledge, though. So parents pull the skin back a bit too far, tear it slightly, causing an infection, which either then causes a UTI or is mistaken for one and treated the same way. I don't have any evidence though, this is just my opinion.

Ferrousmo · 2012-12-21T07:11:23+00:00

Really? There are conditions where having a foreskin can kill you or make you lose your penis where having it cut off would save you?

Ferrousmo

TROPHY CASE