• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

Social penis size preference

nepalnt21 said:
why would i answer a complete list of bad faith, off topic fallacies?

do you have any REAL arguments to bring forth against anything i (a circumcised person) have said?

@mal3volent
Click to expand...

yeah I already presented an argument that highlights your hypocrisy, but you have no answer for it so you're just going to continue to dodge.
 
So do the doctors just ask within minutes/hours of being born if the parent(s) choose to circumcise?
The only bloke I know IRL in the UK that's circumcised had is done cos he had a monster cock and tore his foreskin really baddddly
 
axe battler said:
So do the doctors just ask within minutes/hours of being born if the parent(s) choose to circumcise?
Click to expand...
Apparently. I dunno I'm European, it's not really a thing here. Jewish people do it and I already find it sick for 'religious' reasons. So you believe that God created your body in his image apart from your foreskin which was seemingly created just in order to be cut off...

Doing it because it's supposedly 'cleaner' is even more messed-up. It's functional tissue which protects and lubricates the head of the penis, helps guard against urinary tract infection and contributes to sexual sensation. If an adult male chooses to be circumcised, that's fine. It's his body. But no parent should have the right to make that decision on behalf of a child that cannot consent. Male infants should be left intact unless there's some actual medical necessity to having it done.
 
Yeah I'm English and find the practice a little bit non-consentual.
 
From the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

Newborn Male Circumcision

It is your choice whether to have your son circumcised. Learn how it is done and what to think about when making the decision.
www.acog.org www.acog.org


Why do some parents choose to have their infant sons circumcised?
One reason why parents circumcise their newborn sons is for health benefits, such as decreased risk of urinary tract infection during the first year of life and decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) later in life. Others may choose circumcision so that the child does not look different from his father or other boys. For some people, circumcision is a part of cultural or religious practices. Muslims and Jews, for example, have circumcised their male newborns for centuries.
Click to expand...

Circumcision reduces the bacteria that can live under the foreskin. This includes bacteria that can cause urinary tract infections or, in adults, STIs. Circumcised infants appear to have less risk of urinary tract infections than uncircumcised infants during the first year of life. Some research shows that circumcision may decrease the risk of a man getting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from an infected female partner. More research is needed in this area.

After studying scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh the risks of the procedure. But the AAP also found the benefits are not great enough to recommend that all newborn boys be circumcised.
Click to expand...

All surgical procedures carry some risk. Complications from a circumcision are rare, but they can occur. When they do occur, they usually are minor. Possible complications include bleeding, infection, or scarring. In rare cases, too much of the foreskin or not enough foreskin is removed. Complications generally are less likely if the circumcision is done by someone well trained in the procedure. It also is less likely for complications to arise if the circumcision is done in a medical setting.

Some parents also may worry that circumcision harms a man’s sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction. However, current evidence shows that it does not.
Click to expand...
 
Canadian Pediatric Society:

Potential benefits of circumcision​

A few studies suggest that boys who have been circumcised may be:

  • Less likely to develop cancer of the penis later in life – although this form of cancer is extremely rare.
  • Less likely to get HIV and HPV infections.
  • Less likely to get a urinary tract infection during childhood.
Female partners of men who have been circumcised are less likely to get cervical cancer.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm I was circumcised at birth and I wish I knew how the other side is having one that isn't always heard it's less sanitary but that's probably bs from what I hear now.
 
mal3volent said:
yeah I already presented an argument that highlights your hypocrisy, but you have no answer for it so you're just going to continue to dodge.
Click to expand...
as i have said, it was fallacious. if you want to discuss how i feel about those topics, read the other topics in their own threads and tag me there in your response.

but since you seem to have very little grasp of logical fallacies, i'll bite (just ta larn ya a bit).

wanting adults to have the right to get surgery, not wanting to genocide (culturally or otherwise) trans people has NOTHING to do with supporting or not supporting infant genital mutilation.

not wanting my wife to die, nor my children suffer due to pro- forced- birther virtue signalling has NOTHING to do with whether or not i am ok with forced genital mutilation on very young children.

as you can see, there is no hypocrisy, aaaaand your response was fallacious... as i had already said. nice try, definitely not the fantastical slam dunk rebuttal you high fived yourself over.
 
nepalnt21 said:
as i have said, it was fallacious. if you want to discuss how i feel about those topics, read the other topics in their own threads and tag me there in your response.

but since you seem to have very little grasp of logical fallacies, i'll bite (just ta larn ya a bit).

wanting adults to have the right to get surgery, not wanting to genocide (culturally or otherwise) trans people has NOTHING to do with supporting or not supporting infant genital mutilation.

not wanting my wife to die, my children suffer due to pro- forced- birther virtue signalling has NOTHING to do with whether or not i am ok with forced genital mutilation on young children.

as you can see, your response was fallacious... as i had already said. nice try, definitely not the fantastical slam dunk you high fived yourself over.
Click to expand...

ok so you didn't actually make any arguments here. You just restated your opinions.

I support trans people being able to get surgery. But you cannot logically call circumcision "mutilation" while claiming that a vaginoplasty is "gender affirming care". You are weighing your own personal biases too heavily and not being objective.

Mutilate: inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.

What is more violent and disfiguring to a penis? Removing some skin while retaining its primary form and function, or cutting it open and inverting it to create a vagina-like opening using skin grafts from the scrotum?

Feel free to google surgical images of both procedures to see which looks more gruesome. Hint: it's not the circumcision.

So regardless of our shared opinion that adults should have the right to seek out either procedure , your insistence on referring to one as mutilation and not the other is extremely illogical and doesn't reflect scientific reality.

I would encourage you to shed whatever insecurity you have that compels you to use this kind of vitriolic language.
 
mal3volent said:
ok so you didn't actually make any arguments here.
Click to expand...
again, i was responding to your fallacious rhetoric. my argument in the last.comment is that you made a fallacious response, and i supported my claim just fine.

mal3volent said:
you cannot logically call circumcision "mutilation" while claiming that a vaginoplasty is "gender affirming care". You are weighing your own personal biases too heavily and not being objective.
Click to expand...
have NEVER used ANY terminology related to gender affirming care, and typically stay out of the debate when it comes to such things in the medical contexts. but i think you highlight the differences yourself right here:
mal3volent said:
Mutilate: inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.
Click to expand...
the key difference to me is the important matter of consent.

i do not support any body modification without the consent of the person undergoing the procedure, or otherwise a VERY good medical reason (like to remove a lead bullet or set a broken bone, or blood transfusion for a dying person, or whatever along those lines)

mal3volent said:
I would encourage you to shed whatever insecurity you have that compels you to use this kind of vitriolic language.
Click to expand...
i will use whatever language i find appropriate to getting my point across: routine infant circumcision is sick, wrong, twisted, disturbing, and evil.
 
nepalnt21 said:
i do not support any body modification without the consent of the person undergoing the procedure, or otherwise a VERY good medical reason (like to remove a lead bullet or set a broken bone, or blood transfusion for a dying person, or whatever along those lines)
Click to expand...

so you don't support gender affirming surgeries for minors then? Or do you think minors can consent?

nepalnt21 said:
i will use whatever language i find appropriate to getting my point across: routine infant circumcision is sick, wrong, twisted, disturbing, and evil.
Click to expand...

Right. You will bend your words and language to support whatever asinine claim you are attempting to make. Definitions of words, facts, logical consistency ... they can be manipulated at will as you see fit.

Kill the fetus if you wish, but don't you dare perform a routine, safe medical procedure on his penis after he's born! That's mutilation!

But if in a few years he wants to cut his testicles off and invert his penis, that's "care".
 
mal3volent said:
so you don't support gender affirming surgeries for minors then? Or do you think minors can consent?
Click to expand...
i'm not going to comment on it, i don't know much about it (especially considering trans surgery is almost never done on minors)... but putting myself in those parent's shoes (to paraphrase another forum member here), i'd rather have a trans kid than a dead kid.
mal3volent said:
Right. You will bend your words and language to support whatever asinine claim you are attempting to make. Definitions of words, facts, logical consistency ... they can be manipulated at will as you see fit.

Kill the fetus if you wish, but don't you dare perform a routine, safe medical procedure on his penis after he's born! That's mutilation!

But if in a few years he wants to cut his testicles off and invert his penis, that's "care".
Click to expand...


it looks like you'd rather argue with a strawman, i'll leave you to yourself.

oh, and have fun killing moms with your pro- forced- birther bullshit. hmu in the 'is abortion healthcare?' thread if you wanna go in on that topic.
 
nepalnt21 said:
i'm not going to comment on it, i don't know much about it (especially considering trans surgery is almost never done on minors)... but putting myself in those parent's shoes (to paraphrase another forum member here), i'd rather have a trans kid than a dead kid.
Click to expand...

just as I thought. You don't actually give a shit. A baby can't consent to a circumcision therefore it's wrong. But a few years later a he can consent to hormones and potential "life saving" cosmetic surgery.

nepalnt21 said:
it looks like you'd rather argue with a strawman, i'll leave you to yourself.

oh, and have fun killing moms with your pro- forced- birther bullshit. hmu in the 'is abortion healthcare?' thread if you wanna go in on that topic.
Click to expand...

Do you just throw out words like fallacious and straw man when you don't know what else to say?

I support safe and legal abortions for women who need them. I support trans adults to make whatever decisions they choose. I support the right for men with circumcised penises to not be labeled "mutilated" against their will.
 
mal3volent said:
I support the right for men with circumcised penises to not be labeled "mutilated" against their will.
Click to expand...
i honestly don't care about the feelings of other people who have been circumcised when it comes to words i use. if they are hurt by my words, i can't help them.

if they underwent routine circumcision as an infant, it was not their choice and ought to be labelled under 'crimes against humanity.'

mal3volent said:
I support safe and legal abortions
Click to expand...
good

mal3volent said:
you just throw out words like fallacious and straw man
Click to expand...
when it's obvious that it's happening and is anathema to good faith and productive dialogue.
 
why should i care how people react to my words? it's fucking words, i'm not even directly insulting anyone (adults that choose to get it done certainly have their reasons, some of them aren't even [redacted ableist slur] reasons)

if you can't take the heat then get out of the fucking kitchen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mal3volent said:
would you say the same to a trans person being misgendered ? Just words right?
Click to expand...
personally, i would never use a derogatory term against a person from a marginalized group. calling a grotesque and evil mutilation procedure against defenseless infants "mutilation" is not the same as bullying someone about an immutable quality of theirs.

mal3volent said:
please don't use ableist slurs.
Click to expand...
i would never call a person with developmental disabilities that word, and considering i've been bullied all of my life for having learning/ intellectual disabilities and have also suffered from mental disorders since i was a kid, and have been called 'retarded' for said disabilities, yeah... i'm reserving my right to use the term 'retarded' against an adult that has no intellectual disabilities and should know better than to do retarded shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top