WHAT KIND OF MONSTERS

[Elder Iptuous]

mutilate means to make less attractive.  so that's, like, your opinion, man.

who's talking about legality?

the link i saw just had labia and clitoral hood reduction.  (which is all i'd heard about as widespread practice)
reducing the clitoris itself seems to be ridiculous in the manner that LMNO describes, but doesn't evoke strong emotion.  it doesn't disgust me, make me think they're crazy, anger me, etc.

is a peircing 'acceptable'?

[Elder Iptuous]

The problem here is that your ears aren't connected to the best sensations you can have without being on drugs.

To me, having bits of your genitals cut off for aesthetic reasons is like having an eye removed as a fashion choice.

But having an eyepatch is pretty badass, you must concede.

which is true.  however, if you have both eyes good, you can still wear the patch, and then occasionally switch eyes just to fuck with people.

whenever i think of eyepatches i am reminded of a patron at the crappy little bar i tended in austin.  he was having thanksgiving dinner with his family, everyone was drunk and happy.  he was using a steak knife to cut the string around the turkey's legs.  he was pulling up on the knife. he now wears an eyepatch.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

mutilate means to make less attractive.  so that's, like, your opinion, man.


is a peircing 'acceptable'?

mu·ti·late [ myt'l àyt ]   1.destroy body part: to inflict serious injury on the body or a part of the body of a person or animal by removing or destroying parts of it
2.ruin something by removing parts: to damage or spoil something such as a piece of writing or a movie by removing important parts of it
3.damage something seriously: to inflict serious damage on something

is a peircing 'acceptable'?

I'm not a fan, if that's what you're asking.

[Don Coyote]

there is some validity to that concern, however, i don't believe it is the root of the emotional reaction here.
the analogy is dramatic hyperbole, from where i'm sitting.

I'm kinda tired, so I'm going to ask a couple of questions:

1.  Are you suggesting the members here expressing disgust are engaging in dramatic hyperbole, and

2.  Are you suggesting that mutilating your genitals to make them look different is an okay thing?  Not whether or not it should be legal, but okay as in terms of not batshit crazy?

1 - not entirely.  mass marketing to convince people that their genitals are ugly is, in fact, disgusting.  the procedure itself seems to be having this emotion transferred to it, however, and that i find odd. saying that "having bits of your genitals cut off for aesthetic reasons is like having an eye removed as a fashion choice" is hyperbole.  in fact, i would say that it isn't just an emotional exaggeration, it is a completely broken analogy because the one doesn't inherently impact functionality, whereas the later does.
2 - i'm suggesting that the emotions that would cause you to use the word 'mutilate' is more interesting than what would cause someone to have some part of their body altered for cosmetic purposes.  for the record, i've got nothing against any form of body modification, regardless of how unattractive i find it personally.  i knew a guy in austin that i would use the word 'mutilate' to describe what he did to his junk (in fact he used the same term), but i wouldn't consider him batshit crazy.  just.... odd.  (and attention craving) nice enough guy, though.  legality?  not even thinking about that.

hacking or otherwise mutilating a prime sensory organ in the name of fashion is directly comparable. I see no hyperbole in  equating putting out an eye and chopping bits of a vagina off. Both are important clusters of sensory nerves.

[Elder Iptuous]

mutilate means to make less attractive.  so that's, like, your opinion, man.


is a peircing 'acceptable'?

mu·ti·late [ myt'l àyt ]   1.destroy body part: to inflict serious injury on the body or a part of the body of a person or animal by removing or destroying parts of it
2.ruin something by removing parts: to damage or spoil something such as a piece of writing or a movie by removing important parts of it
3.damage something seriously: to inflict serious damage on something

is a peircing 'acceptable'?

I'm not a fan, if that's what you're asking.

you forgot to bold some parts of that definition.  your view that this ruins, damages, and destroys can only reference the aesthetic aspect (barring the chopping of clit thing.  can't see how that's a good idea) and your insistence that this is some objective truth appears to me to be an unwarranted emotional reaction.

regarding the piercing, i wasn't asking if you like it.  just asking whether it was 'unacceptable' to you in the same way that the cosmetic surgery is.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

and your insistence that this is some objective truth appears to me to be an unwarranted emotional reaction.

Sorry, Dr Spock.  I'm a fucking primate.  It's what we do.  I can only aspire to your clincal detachment and flawless logical thinking.

TGRR,
Leaving this conversation now.

[Elder Iptuous]

 

i knew i was going to get spock in the reply as soon as i hit enter.  that came out kinda lame.
what i mean is i don't understand why people get their feathers ruffled over what people do to their junk more than they do to other parts of their body for aesthetic purposes, with a dose of 'it's bad/wrong', or as you put it 'unacceptable' (not sure what you meant by that exactly)

i guess evolutionarily it would make sense to have an aversion to doing any junk modification, so maybe that's all it is...

[LMNO]

Ok.  The function of the clit is to experience pleasure.  That cascades a whole bunch of different stuff the body does, from oxytocin dumps to lubrication of the vagina.

These surgical procedures remove parts of the clit, reducing the pleasure experience, thus reducing function.

Piercings, when done right, enhance the pleasure experience.

By your own logic, you should condemn this procedure.

[Elder Iptuous]

as i stated previously, i was only talking to what i saw on that link posted, which was labia and clitoral hood reduction (which is all i had known was widespread these days)

chopping off parts of the clit seems pretty drastic.  i know there are some women with really large clitoris, which i could understand might give them some anxiety.  but even in their case, i would think it a rather cringe inducing procedure for aesthetic purposes.

piercings when done right can enhance the experience. when done wrong, can ruin it.  no skin off my back either way.

by my logic, i'm not condemning any procedure done voluntarily.  which is my whole point.

also, i know that some women have enhanced experience from clitoral hood reduction. (data point of one admittedly, and she had it done for aesthetic purposes)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

i knew i was going to get spock in the reply as soon as i hit enter.  that came out kinda lame.
what i mean is i don't understand why people get their feathers ruffled over what people do to their junk more than they do to other parts of their body for aesthetic purposes, with a dose of 'it's bad/wrong', or as you put it 'unacceptable' (not sure what you meant by that exactly)

i guess evolutionarily it would make sense to have an aversion to doing any junk modification, so maybe that's all it is...

1.  No worries.  I'm just having an emotional and dramatically hyperbolic response.

2.  It is unacceptable to me.  On a personal level.  I find the notion of doing this sort of thing to be the height of pinkdom, right up there with people who used to run out and have their butt altered to look like J-Lo.  It's the IDEA or MOTIVATION that I find off-putting.  People who have body modification because it turns them on are weird, but so are lots of people.  On the other hand, people who have surgery to conform to a body image that is sold to them for the purpose of selling surgery are engaging in the very example of what RAW and Stang and DeVries tried to warn us about.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, but it's subjective. A look you find aesthetically unappealing may be a huge turn on for someone else. Basically, normal genitals are normal, and there's no good reason to try to make them look like someone else's normal genitalia.

Some guys love big labia.

Some women love dangly balls.

the above doesn't seem consistent to me.
ears stick out more on some people, less on others.  it's all normal, doesn't effect performance, and what is attractive is subjective.  i had a friend in high school with ears that stuck out a pretty fair amount. (more than Perot)  He went under the knife, and had them set to what he thought more attractive.  was this understandable?  i would think it a fairly small minority that would find this type of cosmetic surgery questionable.
i see little difference to the question at hand, but it seems to get people emotional because it's genitals.

It's the idea of creating insecurity in people who otherwise would never have given two shits in order to market a new kind of cosmetic surgery that makes it disgusting.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

there is some validity to that concern, however, i don't believe it is the root of the emotional reaction here.
the analogy is dramatic hyperbole, from where i'm sitting.

Oh, yeah, totally, everyone here is incapable of reacting to genital cosmetic surgery rationally except you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

i knew i was going to get spock in the reply as soon as i hit enter.  that came out kinda lame.
what i mean is i don't understand why people get their feathers ruffled over what people do to their junk more than they do to other parts of their body for aesthetic purposes, with a dose of 'it's bad/wrong', or as you put it 'unacceptable' (not sure what you meant by that exactly)

i guess evolutionarily it would make sense to have an aversion to doing any junk modification, so maybe that's all it is...

What I am disgusted and horrified by is that the very IDEA that a vagina or balls need cosmetic surgery in order to look more appealing IS A MARKETING CONCEPT.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

i knew i was going to get spock in the reply as soon as i hit enter.  that came out kinda lame.
what i mean is i don't understand why people get their feathers ruffled over what people do to their junk more than they do to other parts of their body for aesthetic purposes, with a dose of 'it's bad/wrong', or as you put it 'unacceptable' (not sure what you meant by that exactly)

i guess evolutionarily it would make sense to have an aversion to doing any junk modification, so maybe that's all it is...

What I am disgusted and horrified by is that the very IDEA that a vagina or balls need cosmetic surgery in order to look more appealing IS A MARKETING CONCEPT.

It's what *I* can't see that sells YOU. 

We've come full circle.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

i knew i was going to get spock in the reply as soon as i hit enter.  that came out kinda lame.
what i mean is i don't understand why people get their feathers ruffled over what people do to their junk more than they do to other parts of their body for aesthetic purposes, with a dose of 'it's bad/wrong', or as you put it 'unacceptable' (not sure what you meant by that exactly)

i guess evolutionarily it would make sense to have an aversion to doing any junk modification, so maybe that's all it is...

1.  No worries.  I'm just having an emotional and dramatically hyperbolic response.

2.  It is unacceptable to me.  On a personal level.  I find the notion of doing this sort of thing to be the height of pinkdom, right up there with people who used to run out and have their butt altered to look like J-Lo.  It's the IDEA or MOTIVATION that I find off-putting.  People who have body modification because it turns them on are weird, but so are lots of people.  On the other hand, people who have surgery to conform to a body image that is sold to them for the purpose of selling surgery are engaging in the very example of what RAW and Stang and DeVries tried to warn us about.

This, exactly.