Jump to content

Vendredie

Regular Member
  • Posts

    1,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Vendredie last won the day on February 10 2013

Vendredie had the most liked content!

About Vendredie

  • Birthday 01/05/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Twenty minutes north of the Vortex of Suck and Fail, NC
  • Interests
    Religion, writing, music.
  • More About Me
    College student.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Science

Vendredie's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

41

Reputation

  1. Yep, how I feel about it. And how most men who have weighed in on forum discussions about this that I've seen have felt. Still not getting any of my future sons circ'd. There's no point, but if it somehow happened anyway (as hospitals have been known to disrespect the wishes of the parents regarding this) I wouldn't freak out and pronounce him "mutilated" or "mangled". Like any procedure it carries risks of infection and accidents... but most of the time, that's simply not the case. I'd be more pissed that the hospital did not respect my wishes or the bodily autonomy of my hypothetical son... well, what little bodily autonomy a newborn baby has, anyway. It deserves to be questioned and parents ought to have a right not to choose it for their children. All the guys I've been with have been cut, they certainly had no problems with sex.
  2. Yeah, that's no big deal. Thanks mom, for decreasing my sensitivity on my sexual parts for my entire life because you're a fucking moron. I know I shouldn't blow the issue out of proportion though. It really is no big deal. So you'd rather be in pain for the rest of your life while having sex? I'm jsut saying that circumcision and FGM aren't comparable to each other. I'm not even for circumcision and I agree that parents who go along with it are fucking morons, I just think that a lot of "intactivists" try to appropriate the suffering of others when they can still experience sexual pleasure and achieve orgasm and suffer no pain long-term.
  3. Male and female circumcision are absolutely the same thing. They differ only in degree (of severity). There is very little difference in principle, origins, or common justifications. But saying the experience of one is exactly like the other's is very ignorant and even arrogant. It is not at all okay to say your pain is the exact same as someone else's, when it has far fewer and less severe effects. There is no difference in origins, but there is a HUGE difference in practice and in effect. It's not right that boys who are circumcised go on to have reduced feeling, but comparing it to an extremely painful procedure INTENDED to have painful, life-long effects is very ignorant and arrogant indeed.
  4. In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do. I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around. Interesting. I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on. And without anesthetic? That is barbaric. Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all. And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation. But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated." True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not. Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth. The two are not comparable. Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.
  5. Because anatomically speaking there's far too much distance between the anus and chest cavity to roast anything, let alone a marshmallow. You're better off shoving said marshmallow down the throat.
  6. IT doesn't even have to be vague, just emotional.
  7. Yeah. the good cops made me want to go back a few times and at other times I just couldn't come up with an argument against them. But they're definitely appealing to emotions, and emotions can be hard to fight with logic.
  8. I actually seem to meet way more "good cop" Christians than "bad cop" Christians. I think it's a general cultural tendency to "look on the bright side" rather than something genetic. Some of it could be ingrained, but I think it's just mostly culture. Even the bad cops are ditching their fire-and-brimstone scare tactics for the 'good cop' veneer... they're still out there and still as nasty as ever, they just spout off a bunch of meaningless buzzwords and euphemisms to cover up their hate. The genuine "good cop" Christians tend to be more liberal, and the fake ones tend to be evangelical.
  9. Okay, let's tell someone to just roll over and let someone else do something blatantly illegal to him because he's so desperate for a job. WTF? If we let assholes like that get away when the economy is tough, they'll go ahead and try to make it normal when the economy gets better. Because they've already gotten away with it. American workers are already treated badly enough *legally*, let's not let employers get away with bullshit that is already illegal.
  10. True, but it's no more of an option than alien intervention or a giant beanstalk. All questions that are unanswered (so far) don't need to default to the supernatural to fill the knowledge gaps. The god of the gaps argument by any other name... Right, and until we understand, I think an honest position to take is: I don't know. Ignostic. I don't know what is a god means that I don't know yet what is responsible for the process of creation.... That's all. Atheist means I'm so pretty damn sure there is no god...I'll piss off those damn fundies lol and debate on the subject. Which is fun by the way. Belief in god is absolutely irrelevant at this point and "ignosticism" only serves to make yourself feel smarter than all of us silly atheists while kowtowing to Christians and other theists who have made atheism Not An Option. You get your Pascal's Wager cake and can eat it too. Except it doesn't work that way, and you're relying on a very loose definition of "deity" to declare atheism invalid.
  11. I think it's absolutely stupid to say "YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE" re: whether or not there is a god, while admitting that modern science has all but debunked every damn religious myth that supposedly proves there is a God. It's truly distressing to see fellow atheists fall into the same trap that Christians and other theists have set up for us, that we cannot say "there can't possibly be any way a God can exist." Even atheists must declare themselves agnostic according to the loosest definitions of the terms "theism" and "deity." I know there isn't a God. Why? Because I'm a child of the twenty-first century, and I believe in science, which has made anyone's concept of a God irrelevant. We know and understand the natural processes that made the universe as we know it; we know what leads to natural phenomena such as weather as well as cosmic events beyond our planet's atmosphere, we have a very good idea of how life formed and continues to exist and evolve. We understand human psychology to a point where we can observe the effects of religion on the brain-- not through someone's behavior, but by ACTUALLY seeing what is going on with their brain! It is time we stop paying lip service to prehistoric myths and realize that if religion is not true, then the existence of God, like anything else religion preaches, is not true either. The burden of proof is not on me, the atheist, it is on the theist who insists that God does exist. I know there isn't a god how I know there are no unicorns or teapots orbiting Mars. Until someone can prove to me that God exists without using one of many religions (which as we all know are pretty unreliable sources), personal experiences/feelings (which can be explained away by psychology) and saying "you don't know either!!1" then I will refuse to kowtow to theists who demand my respect without any thought for my feelings and knowledge on the matter.
  12. The other fact of the matter is... even in this day and age, people can write a book and have whatever name they wish be printed on the cover. Like J.K. Rowling herself. Her real name is Joanne Murray. She has no middle name. Rowling is her birth name (though she was going by that name when she started the series). Why would a Joanne Rowling (later Murray) choose to go by J.K. Rowling? Because publishers thought that boys wouldn't read anything that was obviously written by a woman, and a name with initials in it would make her seem more masculine. So she took on her grandmother's name, Kathleen, so she could go by J.K. Rowling... even after she married Mr. Murray and changed her name. The reason we know all of this is because it's been recorded, and Rowling herself has stated it, and a lot of people have fairly easy access to this information. Imagine how easy that shit was back when the Bible was written. Hell, the first five books are popularly thought to have all been written by Moses, even though that's clearly not true (most Bible scholars don't think so). So anyone could have written anything under virtually any name back then, and if it was popular enough and circulated enough without the author being very well known, it's unsurprising that over time the work would be attributed to someone else. There's no telling if any of this was recorded, and the information is very hard to access by the average person, so it's hard for *anyone* to prove. So if reliable sources that don't cave in to "popular knowledge" say that the book of Luke wasn't written by Luke, then it wasn't fucking written by Luke. Seriously, what the fuck do they teach in seminaries? I thought they were supposed to be the next step after college for aspiring preachers?
  13. I live with my boyfriend now, with no plans for marriage. I don't feel like I've given anything sacred up, or that I've ruined myself for some unknown future guy. It's very patronizing to tell someone that they will regret doing something that does not necessarily cause any harm. My boyfriend isn't the first person I've had sex with, and I'm not the first person he's had sex with. We don't feel like we've 'cheated' or 'robbed' each other. It's not easy, living together, but living with someone else no matter the relationship never is. And expecting people in their early 20s (like me and my bf) to do it FOREVER... yeah, it's not going to last forever. Marriages can and do last, but it requires respect and maturity, more than most people have no matter their age. In societies where divorce is either illegal or extremely hard to obtain, the partners simply develop separate lives and become little more than roommates who hate each other. In my opinion, that's worse than divorce... because at least a divorce is a sign that everything is over, and life can continue, and both partners can recover and even become friends again. I've seen that happen before. Marriage is not a sign of maturity, it is an exercise in it. And so is cohabitation.
  14. And not only does this thinking lead to teen pregnancy and widespread STDs, it also leads to wonderful things like relationship abuse and sexual assault. After all, women only matter when men are horny, and then they owe men sex, and if they don't give men sex they're bitches, but if they do give men sex outside of a very specific context they're sluts and therefore worthless. It's a catch-22. And then we teach boys that their penis is some sort of magical tool that can make them god-like, and make women do whatever they want them to do, and that they are owed sex because they're awesome. In my experience it's painted as empowerment, but it's the sort of "empowerment" that the god-awful Komen Foundation peddles: let's act/look as girlish, childlike, and as innocent as possible, bowing to the patriarchy, and pretend that we in fact have all the power! Can you explain what exactly you have against the Komen Foundation? Lots of things, but what sticks out is its idea of "empowerment." It started out with the goal of making everyone aware of breast cancer; back when Susan Komen died of it, if a woman had breast cancer, she could tell absolutely nobody because nobody talked about breasts, especially if they were cancerous. If that woman died of breast cancer, her death certificate would only say "cancer" or worse, "natural causes." So the best way to go about making women okay with saying they had breast cancer, and finding better ways to treat it was, in Nancy Brinker's view, to color every last goddamn thing pink, especially household cleaning items and cosmetics (which contribute to the disease!) and make the "battle" against breast cancer into something so stereotypically feminine it winds up leaving a lot of women out. There's also the "Boobies!" campaign, which... yeah, women and girls say something about breasts in general to get attention (in particular, that of men) and when they get it, say "it's for breast cancer awareness!" The end result of these rose-colored gimmicks is that women continue to be infantilized and objectified, not empowered; they're encouraged to use the very products that harm their health; and nobody is told how exactly to reduce the risk of breast cancer, just to grope themselves to check for lumps and get mammograms. However, breast cancer has more symptoms (something I didn't know until I saw a Scottish ad campaign about checking for breast cancer). Mammograms are typically considered something only 40+ women do. This achieves nothing for men who get breast cancer, and not much for younger women who do have a risk of getting it. Barbara Ehrenreich has an excellent piece on her experience with breast cancer and the whole "yay pink1!!" phenomenon, I'll link to it once I find it again.
  15. Maybe it's just where I'm from then, because if guys had sex before marriage it was no big deal, and they were even cool for it. Of course I stopped attending church altogether when I was 13, and was never all-out fundie. So I stand corrected. But Christianity's teachings on marriage and wifely submission give guys a hell of a lot of power, and based on my church, then all they have to do is wait until they're 18, then marry the first girl who is okay with the idea of fucking them. So it's still bad for women, because then women are never told that men are supposed to please them in bed and are supposed to give men pretty much whatever they want. It may not be easy being a guy, but guys still get a hell of a lot of power and it obviously doesn't stop them from having sex anyway. And it's still no coincidence that all this purity ball/purity ring bullshit is targeted toward girls rather than boys.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.