COME UP WITH THIS SHIT?
http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/loose-lips-buy-yachts
I don't mean the post. I mean what the post is about.
CLITORAL REDUCTION???? :eek:
Women in other countries are mutilated and disfigured due to oppression and being the equivalent of property.
Here in AmericaTM, the women PAY for it.
Some men are threatened by large clitori?
Some women feel it isn't feminine to have a large clitoris?
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 12:13:41 AM
Some men are threatened by large clitori?
Some women feel it isn't feminine to have a large clitoris?
You'd think that due to certain kinds of humor and anecdotes in our culture that all involved would be appreciative of a larger clit.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on December 05, 2012, 12:15:58 AM
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 12:13:41 AM
Some men are threatened by large clitori?
Some women feel it isn't feminine to have a large clitoris?
You'd think that due to certain kinds of humor and anecdotes in our culture that all involved would be appreciative of a larger clit.
Ya, but a big clit looks like a small penis in some ways.
And that is just gay.
NOT THE GAY! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I shudder to think about what clit-reduction surgery entails.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 12:42:29 AM
NOT THE GAY! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I shudder to think about what clit-reduction surgery entails.
Hacking bits of nerve-ending rich tissue off?
OK, here are some before and after pictures.
NSFW.
http://www.altermd.com/clitoropexy_clitorial_hood_reduction_examples.htm
Other than being iodine-stained, I see not a single thing wrong with any of the "before surgery" clits. They look like TOTALLY NORMAL CLITS.
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 12:42:29 AM
NOT THE GAY! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I shudder to think about what clit-reduction surgery entails.
Hacking bits of nerve-ending rich tissue off?
IT'S
FUCKING
INSANITY.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 12:49:46 AM
OK, here are some before and after pictures.
NSFW.
http://www.altermd.com/clitoropexy_clitorial_hood_reduction_examples.htm
Other than being iodine-stained, I see not a single thing wrong with any of the "before surgery" clits. They look like TOTALLY NORMAL CLITS.
Me neither. but see
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 12:50:17 AM
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 12:42:29 AM
NOT THE GAY! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I shudder to think about what clit-reduction surgery entails.
Hacking bits of nerve-ending rich tissue off?
IT'S
FUCKING
INSANITY.
whimper
:horrormirth:
Fucking insanity indeed.
I see nothing wrong with the befores.
There isn't.
<3 Leigh Cowart.
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 01:02:17 AM
There isn't.
I wonder if in a couple of years they'll be looking for restoration surgeries.
If you feel the need to have your junk chopped up to make it more "attractive", then you are a hopeless fucking Pink.
Note that I distinguish between this and "female circumcision" which is not a voluntary thing, and the people who do it to children should be fed to wild animals. Not hyperbole.
Oh, hey...VAGINAL BLEACHING!
http://www.alternet.org/story/145461/the_6_weirdest_things_women_do_to_their_vaginas
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
HEY DOC, YOU KNOW THAT PART OF MY JUNK THAT'S DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF MY SEXUAL PLEASURE?
YEAH, COULD YOU HACK SOME OF THAT OFF PLEASE?
Also at the link I posted: Vaginal Altoids.
there were a couple that i think looked slightly better after (not enough to warrant a knife, mind you), but most looked worse!
i would also say most looked a bit obvious after that there was a knife involved. that would raise my eyebrows significantly more than if it simply had a clitoral hood that required a little more muzzling to get to the point, or labia that gave a bit to suck on.
also, i can understand the choice of harsh lighting, camera angle, and use of latex gloved hand or some....stainless steel lip spreaders(?!) for the 'before' pictures, but i can't for the life of me figure out why they pretty much used the same methods in the 'after' shot.
for simply making the procedures available to women, i can't rightly fault anyone. but if the reason it is monstrous is due to the slick marketing, i gotta say..... i could really do a better job than this guy. :lol:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 01:18:08 AM
there were a couple that i think looked slightly better after (not enough to warrant a knife, mind you), but most looked worse!
i would also say most looked a bit obvious after that there was a knife involved. that would raise my eyebrows significantly more than if it simply had a clitoral hood that required a little more muzzling to get to the point, or labia that gave a bit to suck on.
also, i can understand the choice of harsh lighting, camera angle, and use of latex gloved hand or some....stainless steel lip spreaders(?!) for the 'before' pictures, but i can't for the life of me figure out why they pretty much used the same methods in the 'after' shot.
for simply making the procedures available to women, i can't rightly fault anyone. but if the reason it is monstrous is due to the slick marketing, i gotta say..... i could really do a better job than this guy. :lol:
That's just one random plastic surgeon that I Googled. There are thousands of websites advertising these surgeries, some slicker than others. Google "vaginoplasty" to get a sense of what I mean.
Nevermind the fact that this exists, I think it is more troubling that women are getting conned out money to have their vagina's hacked at with the results being touted as better, because to be honest, the afters still look vagina-like enough that along with being on a doctor's webpage, gives those pictures the air of legitimacy of what a vagina should look like, compounded with the censoring of nudity in media in the US.
I lost my train of thought.
Vaginas.
DAMNIT!!!!!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 01:12:50 AM
Oh, hey...VAGINAL BLEACHING!
http://www.alternet.org/story/145461/the_6_weirdest_things_women_do_to_their_vaginas
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
THIS IS AMERICA.
Jesus fucking christ. If your vag smells bad, you either need a shower or a doctor. And FFS, VAGINA LOOKS LIKE VAGINA. I have never in my entire life worried that my VAGINA MIGHT NOT BE PRETTY ENOUGH.
Hey Doctor, I think my VAGINA MIGHT NOT BE VERY PRETTY.
EXCUSE ME MISS, BUT YOUR VAGINA IS A GODDAMN VAGINA. GUESS WHAT, BALLS AREN'T PRETTY EITHER.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 01:46:18 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 01:12:50 AM
Oh, hey...VAGINAL BLEACHING!
http://www.alternet.org/story/145461/the_6_weirdest_things_women_do_to_their_vaginas
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
THIS IS AMERICA.
Jesus fucking christ. If your vag smells bad, you either need a shower or a doctor. And FFS, VAGINA LOOKS LIKE VAGINA. I have never in my entire life worried that my VAGINA MIGHT NOT BE PRETTY ENOUGH.
Hey Doctor, I think my VAGINA MIGHT NOT BE VERY PRETTY.
EXCUSE ME MISS, BUT YOUR VAGINA IS A GODDAMN VAGINA. GUESS WHAT, BALLS AREN'T PRETTY EITHER.
That doctor also offers testicle implants.
DEAR DOCTOR, I'M CONCERNED THAT MY VAGINA ISN'T FEMININE ENOUGH.
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 01:46:56 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 01:46:18 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 01:12:50 AM
Oh, hey...VAGINAL BLEACHING!
http://www.alternet.org/story/145461/the_6_weirdest_things_women_do_to_their_vaginas
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
THIS IS AMERICA.
Jesus fucking christ. If your vag smells bad, you either need a shower or a doctor. And FFS, VAGINA LOOKS LIKE VAGINA. I have never in my entire life worried that my VAGINA MIGHT NOT BE PRETTY ENOUGH.
Hey Doctor, I think my VAGINA MIGHT NOT BE VERY PRETTY.
EXCUSE ME MISS, BUT YOUR VAGINA IS A GODDAMN VAGINA. GUESS WHAT, BALLS AREN'T PRETTY EITHER.
That doctor also offers testicle implants.
OH
FUCK.
You know, testicle implants because you lost a nut to cancer is one thing.
COSMETIC TESTICLE IMPLANTS
BECAUSE YOUR UGLY, WRINKLY, HAIRY NUTSACK ISN'T BIG ENOUGH
:horrormirth:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 01:50:14 AM
You know, testicle implants because you lost a nut to cancer is one thing.
COSMETIC TESTICLE IMPLANTS
BECAUSE YOUR UGLY, WRINKLY, HAIRY NUTSACK ISN'T BIG ENOUGH
:horrormirth:
:lulz:
DOKTOR!!!! I NEED MORE MANLINESS!!!
ACHTUNG!!!! ALLOW ME TO SURGICALLY IMPLANT ZEE LARGER TESTICLES IN TO YOUR SACK!!!! ALZO I GIVES YOU TWO MORE BALLS!!!!!
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 01:52:51 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 01:50:14 AM
You know, testicle implants because you lost a nut to cancer is one thing.
COSMETIC TESTICLE IMPLANTS
BECAUSE YOUR UGLY, WRINKLY, HAIRY NUTSACK ISN'T BIG ENOUGH
:horrormirth:
:lulz:
DOKTOR!!!! I NEED MORE MANLINESS!!!
ACHTUNG!!!! ALLOW ME TO SURGICALLY IMPLANT ZEE LARGER TESTICLES IN TO YOUR SACK!!!! ALZO I GIVES YOU TWO MORE BALLS!!!!!
MAN WITH FOUR BALLS IS AUTOMATICALLY TWICE AS MANLY AS MAN WITH ONLY TWO BALLS!
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 01:58:54 AM
Quote from: American Jackal on December 05, 2012, 01:52:51 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 05, 2012, 01:50:14 AM
You know, testicle implants because you lost a nut to cancer is one thing.
COSMETIC TESTICLE IMPLANTS
BECAUSE YOUR UGLY, WRINKLY, HAIRY NUTSACK ISN'T BIG ENOUGH
:horrormirth:
:lulz:
DOKTOR!!!! I NEED MORE MANLINESS!!!
ACHTUNG!!!! ALLOW ME TO SURGICALLY IMPLANT ZEE LARGER TESTICLES IN TO YOUR SACK!!!! ALZO I GIVES YOU TWO MORE BALLS!!!!!
MAN WITH FOUR BALLS IS AUTOMATICALLY TWICE AS MANLY AS MAN WITH ONLY TWO BALLS!
Side-effects include ED, but your handy after-surgery prescription of Viagra
* will cure that shit right up.
Google says so.
* Which is covered by your health insurance where-as preventative care visits for women and birth control are not.
:lulz:
As we speak, some shady backroom corner of the bod-mod community is busy slicing open their sacs in less-than sterile conditions to load their ball-bags with teflon spheres, factory second ball-bearings, and stainless steel hardware off the shelf form "Lowes"
Quote from: Richter on December 05, 2012, 02:06:10 AM
:lulz:
As we speak, some shady backroom corner of the bod-mod community is busy slicing open their sacs in less-than sterile conditions to load their ball-bags with teflon spheres, factory second ball-bearings, and stainless steel hardware off the shelf form "Lowes"
:lulz:
And I believe it.
Dave Chappelle used to have a great joke about how, when he's insanely rich/popular, he wants to get botox injected into his balls to make them perfectly smooth. Now it looks like it's not only possible but it's becoming more and more popular. I love it when such outlandish, zany jokes end up becoming reality. It really shows how utterly stupid wonderful the world is. :lol:
I just stared at a page of clits to find problems, and did not.
Okay, women look...you're fine. If you're paying that much attention to the size/shape of your VAGINA, you have worse problems than getting thee to a cosmetic surgeon. If you have a legit deformity, sure. But...just...NO.
AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE STOP TRYING TO PUT SCENTED SHIT INTO AN AUTO-CLEANING ORIFICE. My mom told me to douche after I came back from my first biopsy last year, and I was like, "ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY?!"
I also think she grew up in a different generation, though. Women have been practically forced to be be discreet and nice-smelling and pleasing to their husbands since Eve. Hence the wacky Lysol douche ads from the 20s.
"Your husband won't sleep with you because your clam smells. Here, make it worse by squirting hazardous chemicals into your beef wallet."
I like this guy and the idea behind his Great Wall of Vaginas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27w3wR7ofl4
P.S. - The American Flag of Dickheads is also awesome.
while i can fully get behind the sentiment that actively marketing this stuff (i.e. sending the "Your junk is ugly!" msg out to everyone) is pretty low, and harmful to our collective psyche, i would have to disagree with the parallel sentiment i'm seeing here which is universal genital aesthetic equality.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 02:14:48 PM
while i can fully get behind the sentiment that actively marketing this stuff (i.e. sending the "Your junk is ugly!" msg out to everyone) is pretty low, and harmful to our collective psyche, i would have to disagree with the parallel sentiment i'm seeing here which is universal genital aesthetic equality.
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.
Quote from: holist~ on December 05, 2012, 03:39:02 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:57:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
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.
Mutilate is the correct verb for the situation.
And I think this should be legal, for adults. I do not, however, think that it is acceptable...The distinction being that while I find this sort of thing disgusting, my opinion should not dictate the behavior of other adults.
Lastly, hacking off bits of a clitoris DOES affect its function, so LMNO's point stands.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 05, 2012, 04:13:34 PM
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.
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'?
Quote from: Cain on December 05, 2012, 05:10:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 05, 2012, 04:13:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 05:13:25 PM
mutilate means to make less attractive. so that's, like, your opinion, man.
is a peircing 'acceptable'?
mu·ti·late [ myt'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 it2.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
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 05:13:25 PM
is a peircing 'acceptable'?
I'm not a fan, if that's what you're asking.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:57:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 05:20:19 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 05:13:25 PM
mutilate means to make less attractive. so that's, like, your opinion, man.
is a peircing 'acceptable'?
mu·ti·late [ myt'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
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 05:13:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 06:36:39 PM
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.
:lol:
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...
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.
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)
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
:lol:
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: holist~ on December 05, 2012, 03:39:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
:lol:
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.
Quote from: holist~ on December 05, 2012, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
:lol:
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. :lulz:
We've come full circle.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
:lol:
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 09:35:28 PM
Quote from: holist~ on December 05, 2012, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 05, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
:lol:
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. :lulz:
We've come full circle.
When I was a young girl, I remember comparing clits with some of my friends. We were like, hey, look, some of us have a part here that you can see and some of us don't. Huh.
Unlike the things that have a standard of beauty, like our noses and ears and breasts, we never agonized over whether our clits met a standard of beauty. In order to market a beauty product or procedure, first potential customers must have insecurities about what that product addresses. In order to be insecure about whether something meets a standard of beauty, a standard of beauty first has to exist... and somewhere in the 30-ish years since I was a young girl, marketing geniuses have invented a standard of beauty for vulvas.
Great.
:lol:
alright, alright, i concede!