Absurd logic

[Someone mundane]

Tell me what you all think of this. It is NOT intended to be interpreted as serious by any means, but I came up with it anyway because it seemed oddly familiar to me. Along the lines of how the pro-circers argue.

"A decent analogy to make would be drugging up a woman sufficiently first before gently raping her while wearing a condom, so that she will never remember or mind the ordeal when all is done. She wouldn't even be put at a physical risk. That suddenly makes it all humane and socially acceptable, am I right? I think so. It's a good idea. Where would the problem be in a rape like that? I see none. In fact, that's a great way to conduct rape on a woman. She won't remember, and she's not at any risk for physical harm, diseases, or pregnancy. As all precautions have been taken to ensure that. There is of course the ethics involved and lack of her own given consent to being used for the mans sexual pleasure crime, but that's just moral bigotry in light of the fact that you can encourage rapists unable to contain their urges worldwide to conduct their rape in these far safer conditions so that there will be fewer harms done by the act."

Does it sound thoroughly ridiculous? I aimed to make it particularly belittling of the woman's plight... They do the exact same thing when it comes to the infant I think. I believe this is pretty much (almost) a mirror image of the mental state involved on their side of things. Just decided to throw it up here, because I used it in an argument I had recently. Critique at leisure.

EDIT: When I take a look at that... And then when I start to think really hard about it... It makes circumcision seem as though it's nothing more than a petty regulated abuse. Down at the core it is still morally warped. The above displays the mindset well I think.

EDIT2: Ahh... I am even reminded of a dogs tail being docked. There are so many things that are roughly the same, they're easy to recognize now. Just random musings...

[Saracen_restorer]

Bit harsh don't you think? I'm not sure the rape analogy is all that great though, as it usually doesn't do unrecoverable physical damage. Mostly psychological (and I say this as someone who was worked with multiple victims).

[Someone mundane]

I am sure. They minimize circumcision because of the very fact that it's an infant. What is done can't be reversed in the true sense of having your original back. To be condemned to live with a choice over your body that you did not make for yourself... In some ways, I do think it is more cruel. I'm the sort of person who values freedom above all else. This fact that I had an aspect of it forever torn from me? I can't truthfully forgive that... I'd be lying and fooling myself if I said that I could honestly. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I want to be a bitter bastard either so don't get me wrong there. This sucks through and through. Nothing more to say. How would you define which kind of psychological damage as being worse? They're both awful. Elevating one above the other tends to miss the point... But it's often done. *Sigh* Annoying nitpicking.

Of course it was harsh, though... That was the sole purpose. The main point of the analogy was in the similar situations or lines of thinking presented. THAT'S where the devil lives.

[greg_b]

I think you need to be careful with analogies. People advocating RIC are doing so because they feel there are significant benefits for the child. In your analogy, there are no benefits to the woman.

As I see it, your analogy simply says that if you can do something in a way that the victum remains comfortable, unhurt, leaves no long term consequences, and remains unaware, then it is OK to do so for you sexual gratification. I do not think any of the RIC advocates would agree with that stance, nor would agree that they are advocating it because it turns them on.

I do agree that there are aspects of RIC that make it seem to be very close to sexual abuse and torture/unreasonable pain, and I also agree that I see no argument that sways me about the benefits, but I would not use this analogy.

I think a far better analogy is to suggest we could prevent all testicular cancer by cutting the balls off all male children. This is ridiculous because it is easy for people to see the negative consequences: Hormone imbalances and the inability to father children far outweigh the benefit. This one is also interesting in that it was actually done at times in history, but for different purposes than preventing testicular cancer. Castratis for instance were boys castrated before their voices changed, so they could sing beautifully {mod: in service to religion}.

There are other good analogies as well. Keep thinking, we need all the thinkers we can get.

Regards

[Someone mundane]

As I said... It was not meant to be taken that seriously. I even mentioned this when I used it in my argument. I asked, "Does that sound ridiculous now? Good. I tried to make it as belittling of the woman's plight as possible, because that's about how some of the pro-circ arguments sound to me regarding the infant." hoping to make it a bit more personal you see.

As I see it, your analogy simply says that if you can do something in a way that the victum remains comfortable, unhurt, leaves no long term consequences, and remains unaware, then it is OK to do so for you sexual gratification. I do not think any of the RIC advocates would agree with that stance, nor would agree that they are advocating it because it turns them on.

This is true, but I've thought of it the same way when they mention the "benefits". The point that I saw was, usually rape can physically hurt. If you do it that way, there isn't any significant hurt. But it does completely disrespect her wishes. However, if you encourage people not to do it as violently, despite it being an immoral practice, then you might be able to say that there is a benefit that outweighs the harm; because she won't catch anything or be harmed as per the usual. The same thing with circumcision, it isn't always done in completely sanitary or even safe conditions. But, when it's regulated... Then they start touting nothing but benefits despite the physical injury of loss. And they LOVE to mention how the infant won't remember. As if it can somehow justify the invasion... That just annoys me.

I do agree that there are aspects of RIC that make it seem to be very close to sexual abuse and torture/unreasonable pain, and I also agree that I see no argument that sways me about the benefits, but I would not use this analogy.

That's fine. It was only my opinion, and I have no problem with conceding to the possibility that it may not have been too great of an idea or has problems with it. Seemed like one at the time, but that may only have been because I wanted to get under some peoples skin (oh wait... they probably didn't have any. I wonder when it comes to the balls...) at that point.

I think a far better analogy is to suggest we could prevent all testicular cancer by cutting the balls off all male children. This is ridiculous because it is easy for people to see the negative consequences: Hormone imbalances and the inability to father children far outweigh the benefit. This one is also interesting in that it was actually done at times in history, but for different purposes than preventing testicular cancer. Castratis for instance were boys castrated before their voices changed, so they could sing beautifully

You're right. However, again exactly like you said I'm not sure that many of the pro-circs would agree with you that the damage involved amounts to anything that severe. And unfortunately it is true in some part. It does not stop the penis from being able to harden, sense SOME pleasure, or ejaculate... That seems to be enough for those twisted fucks. I just have little to no tolerance or even patience with them anymore.

What about removing breasts to eliminate the possibility of breast cancer as a preemptive measure? Breast cancer for males is even more frequent than penile. (I think?) That seems even closer. And the negatives aren't technically too severe. Unless you mean aesthetics, sensation, or giving milk, (only for a woman) but the last can be rectified artificially. But I'm sure that wouldn't matter to most pro-circs, they seem to be fans of artificial stuff. And I think most pro-circs would agree to ignore the factor of aesthetics and sensation. I'm just ranting at this point. This was more of a venting thread than anything.

[greg_b]

No worries, I was just offering advice in case you were planning to use the analogy with others.

Cheers!

[Saracen_restorer]

Well, the most absurd argument I've come across is from a man of African origin who said the circumcised penis looks better (given his background, one wonders if he's seen an intact penis). Unfortunately he'd already had his three year old mutilated as an infant. Oh, and he argued that only the glans provides any sensitivity - of course I countered that but he refused to believe the studies.

[Someone mundane]

Originally Posted by Saracen_restorer

Well, the most absurd argument I've come across is from a man of African origin who said the circumcised penis looks better (given his background, one wonders if he's seen an intact penis). Unfortunately he'd already had his three year old mutilated as an infant. Oh, and he argued that only the glans provides any sensitivity - of course I countered that but he refused to believe the studies.

Okay, well I'm pretty certain now that is BEYOND retarded. Only the glans has sensitivity? How STUPID do you have to be? Even I myself being circumcised can feel the inner skin being a bit different from other shaft skin despite how calloused it is. And my frenulum remnant is sensitive enough to elicit an orgasm from light tickling. I'm sure it would be better though if it hadn't been ravaged...

I guess what he said would be true if you have had a very tightly done job, with no skin mobility whatsoever, or inner skin remaining, or frenulum parts. At this point actually all I need to do is slide my looser skin up and down a bit, and that too is sufficient to bring an orgasm. Not very powerful, though..

And we all know that beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder. Hmmph.

[Saracen_restorer]

Originally Posted by Someone mundane

Okay, well I'm pretty certain now that is BEYOND retarded. Only the glans has sensitivity? How STUPID do you have to be? Even I myself being circumcised can feel the inner skin being a bit different from other shaft skin despite how calloused it is. And my frenulum remnant is sensitive enough to elicit an orgasm from light tickling. I'm sure it would be better though if it hadn't been ravaged...

I guess what he said would be true if you have had a very tightly done job, with no skin mobility whatsoever, or inner skin remaining, or frenulum parts. At this point actually all I need to do is slide my looser skin up and down a bit, and that too is sufficient to bring an orgasm. Not very powerful, though..

And we all know that beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder. Hmmph.

Sounds like you have a lot more sensitivity than I do at this stage.

[Someone mundane]

Originally Posted by Saracen_restorer

Sounds like you have a lot more sensitivity than I do at this stage.

Well, like I said, if I'm not being very rigorous the orgasm doesn't tend to be very strong. Actually I'm not sure if I would call it an orgasm by comparison to ejaculation... And even then it just drizzles out. There is not much force behind it. I actually haven't gained enough to have any sort of coverage beyond a small bit of bunching near the corona and skin sliding, but I've stopped for now because of other concerns. That growth was actually accidental... I had a period where I was very depressed and OCD. kept tampering with certain details on my penis... Etc. (Even tore a tiny piece of mucosa off... I'm a damn fool. Well... I only hope it was a part of what I wanted gone and not a part of that skin.) Those details still exist though, which is what I hope to treat first off then bother with restoring.

How tightly were you cut exactly, and are you free from mental stressors whenever you try to masturbate? Thoughts on circ has made me lose an erection a few times. I also do use a little bit of vague fantasizing or simply concentrate on the good feelings. So that may play a role in it too. The brain is just as important. But unlike some idiots I wouldn't call it a sex organ... It just influences the response. But, it is still quite good at this regardless.

Keep in mind that everyone is different too. And none of us here ever got off easy. We're all united in the face of this harm.