AnneBoleyn;1460925 wrote: Originally Posted by AnneBoleyn
Well, gosh, that sounds so serene & romantic.
I was just being sarcastic (sigh)
Originally Posted by AnneBoleyn
They are wrong in their practices ....
I said IMO! No need to involve the U.N.!
HT: "I have a good idea! Let's ask those primitive Africans what they think about all of that! Naw, the damned heathens would probably just say, "They are wrong in their practices!" What do they know, huh?!"
I'd like to say this about that so .... what I mean is .... you know, like .......
AnneBoleyn;1460925 wrote: What do any of us know except how to bloviate & think we're right? Human Being, Planet Earth--my personal motto. What fools we mortals be.
It turns out I didn't need to explain that my sarcasm was in conjunction with your own obvious sarcasm (sigh and all) neither do I need to respond to the rest or your post BECAUSE this last part clearly demonstrates that we are both on the bottom line of the last page .... and even if we didn't arrive here at the same time (with the same baggage) we certainly have come to the same conclusion. And that's what matters most of all. :):)
High Threshold;1460884 wrote: "Idiot", you say?
Oh! You mean it was you? I haven't been dropping in on this forum enough recently to keep up to speed with when, where and why new themes are added to the discussion.
If there are harmful effects of circumcision...and I'm still not convinced there are...though like vaccinations, I am more inclined to go with expert consensus on the issue than wade through stacks of claims and counter-claims. There are too many issues to try to keep track of these days.
The only subject that I am trying to learn the technical published reports on are environment-especially global warming, and there is almost negligible interest on FG regarding environmental issues.
Well, if the basis for this thread has been determined to be a lie, wouldn't that make the "idiot's" line of thought all the more relevant? Not such an "idiot" after all, I say.
It certainly indicates to me that if someone wants to talk about female genital mutilation, they should be basing it on news stories that are actually based in fact, and not someone's made up propaganda!
For most of us living in the west, the FGM issue is most relevant when it is Somali and other East African immigrants trying to carry out this practice in our countries or sending girls back home to be given these operations. Otherwise, all westerners can and should be doing is supporting local anti-FGM advocates from the sidelines - NOT trying to directly interfere and sending troops half way around the world again under the pretense of "saving the girls." Whether it's the phony ISIS FGM story or one that actually exists: the Boko Haram abduction of schoolgirls in Nigeria, the U.S., France and other western nations are already interfering and making these issues worse/not better!
Without a foreskin the penis builds tougher skins cells "just there": Friction in conjunction with motion, exposure to elements, and all of that. But there is an inverse factor to consider. It deals with arousal versus stamina, but I don't think I want to explain that right now.
Okay, I'm sure anti-circumcision advocates have their points...and I am not at all expert on any possible harms or complications of being circumcised, except that back when I did read some of the literature at a time when the issue was relevant, it seemed that the benefits of circumcision greatly outweighed any possible harms.
The one thing that does seem clear is that circumcision is a factor in reducing disease and certain cancer risks of circumcised males. The foreskin's primary purpose as an evolutionary adaptation, was to provide protection from the elements - especially the Sun...since the foreskin has no pigmentation...that would certainly be a problem in the tropics before clothing was invented. But, in the here and now, it seems that it's one of those evolutionary adaptations that we are better off without.
I get the impression from some of the anti-circumcision writers, that they are following a principle that nature-is-always right...or the most natural solution is necessarily the most optimal. The problem is that evolution many times leads to adaptations that confer some benefits and some drawbacks.....on this theme, the grand design of running the urethra through the prostate gland would definitely qualify as boneheaded evolutionary adaptation!
We have the same sorts of issues when it comes to meat-eating and veganism. Humans...like many other animals developed some adaptations for eating meat, but our digestive tracts are still too long for a diet high in animal fiber. It's another one of those issues that doesn't have a perfect solution because we are still animals that are in never-ending process of transition through evolutionary adaptation.
RC: re: "It certainly indicates to me that if someone wants to talk about female genital mutilation, they should be basing it on news stories that are actually based in fact, and not someone's made up propaganda!"
This story came from the United Nations & was reported by reputable press. If it is a hoax, I'm happy to know that. If it is propaganda, it was not deliberately spread with bad intent by me. This thread did lead to talk about FGM, & anxious, irritable men took it over for their own propaganda purposes (LOL, I Swear!).
It can be said with certainty that Isis (there are enough links supporting this) is causing havoc in Iraq's Christian communities, who are suffering forced conversions, seizure of property, & Death threats. With such behavior, propaganda about FGM is not far-fetched.
AnneBoleyn;1460998 wrote: It can be said with certainty that Isis (there are enough links supporting this) is causing havoc in Iraq's Christian communities, who are suffering forced conversions, seizure of property, & Death threats. With such behavior, propaganda about FGM is not far-fetched.
Do you know where their funding predominantly comes from, out of interest? The rulers of Saudi Arabia. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are heavily into suppressing women's rights both domestically and, by the look of it, abroad too. God only knows why the US is their major ally.
As far as "causing havoc in Iraq's Christian communities" goes, that (unlike FGM) is actually chapter and verse out of the Koran.
Týr;1461001 wrote: Do you know where their funding predominantly comes from, out of interest? The rulers of Saudi Arabia. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are heavily into suppressing women's rights both domestically and, by the look of it, abroad too. God only knows why the US is their major ally.
As far as "causing havoc in Iraq's Christian communities" goes, that (unlike FGM) actually is chapter and verse out of the Koran.
Did you know (of course you do) that 15 of 19 9/11 hi-jackers were Saudi? Did you see the photo of George W. holding the old Saudi king's hand like 2 girls skipping?
God only knows why the US is their major ally. I'd say it has something to do with major capitalists. Certainly not me. You're wasting your time accusing me of supporting U.S. Foreign Policies, or even many internal ones. You are becoming a major annoyance to me John. I appreciate your information, but not the accusatory way you are delivering it. Since you make yourself easy to find, perhaps I'll look you up one day. Your punishment will be paying for dinner & showing me the sights.
AnneBoleyn;1461003 wrote: You're wasting your time accusing me of supporting U.S. Foreign Policies, or even many internal ones.You're reeding too much personal comment which isn't in my writing. I quoted your original post, which I took to be an accurate description of your reaction to the lie. I pointed out one of a host of earlier examples of lies in similar situations. I honestly don't understand how you can see the news and believe what's being said, or even your wanting to.
I have two beds now, though neither so far is put together. I do have the right screwdriver and Allen key should anyone arrive seeking sanctuary.
Týr;1461006 wrote: I would hope it's that traditional monotheism is a lethal blight and a permanent shame to the world and has been from its invention.
Along those lines, yes...............but you can't unring the bell.
Týr;1461005 wrote: You're reeding too much personal comment which isn't in my writing. I quoted your original post, which I took to be an accurate description of your reaction to the lie. I pointed out one of a host of earlier examples of lies in similar situations. I honestly don't understand how you can see the news and believe what's being said, or even your wanting to.
I don't know how to reed. But perhaps you're right. We baby-boomers who felt so lied to during Vietnam about what our country actually stood for are possibly an over-sensitive bunch.
To clarify what's happening to Christians in ISIS-controlled areas, there's no such thing[1] as a "forced conversion" - as far as I can see the term is meaningless. Each adult Christian is given the same options: to convert to Islam; or to pay a tax additional to the tax already paid by everyone; or to flee to areas beyond the control of ISIS; or to be killed. The purpose of the tax, according to one medieval interpreter, is "to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief". ISIS is doing exactly what, for example, the Ottomans did when they ruled in those parts.
eta [1]: except, thinking about it, the conversions forced by the Mormons on those who have already died.
AnneBoleyn;1460998 wrote: This story came from the United Nations & was reported by reputable press. If it is a hoax, I'm happy to know that. If it is propaganda, it was not deliberately spread with bad intent by me. This thread did lead to talk about FGM, & anxious, irritable men took it over for their own propaganda purposes (LOL, I Swear!).
I believe the part about the story having come from the U.N. was also part of the hoax, but that's beside the point. I, for one, and I imagine I speak for the vast majority in here, have no doubt at all that it was posted with the best of possible intentions, believing, at the time, that it was a genuine report, and for that you can in no way be blamed.
The fact remains, though, that FGM (and MGM - not the one with the lion, before you say anything) remains a very serious problem when instigated among certain Barbaric Cultures in the name of their Enlightened Religions. As far as we see it, 99.99% of the population would agree that it's absolutely intolerable (although that percentage is probably decreasing as the residential population of those cultures continues to increase). Do we want to do something about it? Of course we do. I'm afraid the question is, though, "What CAN we do?" It's one thing to ban it over here. It's quite another to stop them from taking their kids over to countries, away from the reach of our laws, to where it's a commonplace procedure. It's like telesales. They're banned over here (at least with TPS), so companies turn to offshore Call Centres so that they remain outside of the law. The principle is identical.
AnneBoleyn;1461015 wrote: While offensive to those living, the actions of the Mormons are absurd & for naught.
But what other conversions could you describe as forced? We were trying to define the term.
LarsMac;1461020 wrote: Well, there was our favorite Inquisitor, ... The Inquisition was a Christian body which had power solely over other Christians, it had no effect whatever on members of any other faith unless it was investigating cases of apostasy. I don't see how it bears on this odd term "forced conversion".
Týr;1461021 wrote: The Inquisition was a Christian body which had power solely over other Christians, it had no effect whatever on members of any other faith unless it was investigating cases of apostasy. I don't see how it bears on this odd term "forced conversion".
Not entirely true
The Inquisition | Jewish Virtual Library
In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
LarsMac;1461022 wrote: Not entirely trueI think you need to be careful who you blame for what. I can well imagine the Inquisition burned books, yes. But the burning of Jews at the stake in France in 1288 was, as far as I can tell, a reaction to the old false blood libel which doomed Jews all over Europe for centuries whenever it broke out. To what extent the Inquisition, as opposed to the secular authority, was responsible for the trial I have no idea, but you can scarcely say the event was anything to do with forced conversion. They were Jews, they were falsely accused of killing Christian children for their religious rites, they were found guilty of murder and they were burned at the stake.
Can we collectively try very hard to define what a forced conversion is, since ISIS has been accused in this thread of doing it?
recovering conservative;1460995 wrote: If there are harmful effects of circumcision...and I'm still not convinced there are...
You're joking , right?
recovering conservative;1460995 wrote: .... I am more inclined to go with expert consensus on the issue than wade through stacks of claims and counter-claims. There are too many issues to try to keep track of these days.
Good. I agree. Much too much fact and counter-fact to “wade through†for sure. So think about these instead …..
….. Pain, the destruction of nerve endings, and the removal of natural protection against “the elements†such as infections . Are those not sufficient “harmful effects†for your concern? Or perhaps admitting ill-judgement is a pill too bitter to swallow.
But of course, you're right: " ... more inclined to go with expert consensus ... ". Certainly the prudent route to take. Such as
High Threshold;1461032 wrote: But of course, you're right: " ... more inclined to go with expert consensus ... ". Certainly the prudent route to take. Such as
Videos removed.
Týr;1461023 wrote: I think you need to be careful who you blame for what. I can well imagine the Inquisition burned books, yes. But the burning of Jews at the stake in France in 1288 was, as far as I can tell, a reaction to the old false blood libel which doomed Jews all over Europe for centuries whenever it broke out. To what extent the Inquisition, as opposed to the secular authority, was responsible for the trial I have no idea, but you can scarcely say the event was anything to do with forced conversion. They were Jews, they were falsely accused of killing Christian children for their religious rites, they were found guilty of murder and they were burned at the stake.
Can we collectively try very hard to define what a forced conversion is, since ISIS has been accused in this thread of doing it?
I am not trying to blame anyone. Many Jews were, indeed forced (or at least, strongly encouraged) to convert, and the principle drive of the early inquisition was to test the faith of those converted, to assure that their conversion was 'genuine.'
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
LarsMac;1461044 wrote: I am not trying to blame anyone. Many Jews were, indeed forced (or at least, strongly encouraged) to convert, and the principle drive of the early inquisition was to test the faith of those converted, to assure that their conversion was 'genuine.'
I agree that the Inquisition tested some Christian converts and their descendants for the veracity of their conversion, yes, and that most of those converts had originally been born into the Jewish faith.
If we're talking about Spain, though, I don't think anyone was forced to convert. As in several other European states - notably England - everyone who practiced the Jewish faith was told to leave the country on pain of death. Nobody was forced to convert, everyone had the opportunity to leave if they preferred that option.
When you say "forced", what precisely do you think you mean? It may be that it's true but nobody's said what it involved. Nobody, for example, describes the early Christian martyrs in pagan Rome as being forced to renounce their faith. If nothing else, self-evidently, it's clear that they chose not to.
Bruv;1461060 wrote: Was it about that time the phrase "Hobson's choice" came about............flippant answer with hidden depth?
I'm really trying to make sense of this matter but I simply don't understand what you mean. Hobson famously only offered one horse from his stable and you either took it or you didn't. ISIS offers a number of alternatives: extra taxes, leave now unhindered, convert or die. The 15th century expulsions had three choices: renounce your faith, leave the country within four months or die. Christians in ancient Rome didn't have the option of leaving Rome as far as I know, but you ignored my point that the ancient Roman Christians aren't ever referred to as forced anythings, they're called martyrs or apostates. So - what does "forced conversion" mean, and does your definition cover what ISIS is quite likely doing.
This story came from the United Nations & was reported by reputable press.
It came from a UN spokesman and has been repeated in MSM, which doesn't count for a hill of beans anymore! It has long been discredited, so there's no point in arguing the details. I think a tipoff should have been when ISIS spokesmen denied it...this being an organization that admits and even brags about beheadings and severing limbs of thieves! I mentioned previously that female genital mutilation is a cultural practice that might have been Islamized if it had been adopted early and widely throughout the Muslim World; but it remained isolated in pockets of East Africa, and has been practiced in tribal groups that include Christian and Animist.
I think a general rule has to be applied to MSM that their news has to be treated as suspect until it can be confirmed by more than one "original" source...and that doesn't include the same source...like "Curveball," the source of the Saddam WMD stories being recycled back and forth between the Whitehouse and their favorite MSM mouthpieces.
On that topic, one of the primary reasons why so called respectable news sources like the New York Times and Washington Post can no longer be trusted anymore, is because they have followed a clear policy of exiling reporters who actually do their job and break stories that their government sources and friends in Washington don't want the public to know about/ while the liars and idiots who either make up their stories or embellish them even after they know that they are false (Judith Miller at the Times) fail upward...just like their political friends in Washington! We had another taste of this when Seymour Hersh discovered that the Administration - through John Kerry, was presenting a false case claiming proof that the Syrian government was behind the poison gas attack a couple of years ago. More recently, there is nothing to confirm whether the downed Malaysian airplane was hit by a ground-to-air missile (as Obama repeats over and over) or was hit by an air-to-air missile, as some Russian Government officials claim is a possibility...claiming that they have proof through radar images that a Ukrainian fighter came in close proximity to the plane. And, when it comes to the MSM repeating a story from a mid-level UN official...that hardly counts as proof of anything anymore!
If it is a hoax, I'm happy to know that. If it is propaganda, it was not deliberately spread with bad intent by me. This thread did lead to talk about FGM, & anxious, irritable men took it over for their own propaganda purposes (LOL, I Swear!).
Yes, but like I said previously, there are real FGM issues to deal with, why base it on one that is likely part of another scam to justify another invasion or moving back into the Iraq War again?
I don't appreciate the addition of circumcision into this issue, which constantly gets tossed in every single time I see an FGM story anywhere on a news thread that allows comments! It trivializes an issue that is not only excruciating, but extremely dangerous for young women. Circumcised male babies face far fewer complications that can be balanced out by the health benefits to males later in life....all I know is I don't miss my foreskin!
It can be said with certainty that Isis (there are enough links supporting this) is causing havoc in Iraq's Christian communities, who are suffering forced conversions, seizure of property, & Death threats. With such behavior, propaganda about FGM is not far-fetched.
I don't know if you are aware of this...because it was rarely reported early on in the Iraq War...but U.S. forces stood by and did nothing while more than a million of Iraq's large Christian populations went into exile early on when the Shia/Sunni conflicts and terrorist attacks were ongoing. The original Al-Qaeda in Iraq specifically targeted Christians, while the Shias who were rising to positions of power, felt no desire to protect them...as the Christians had been a large segment of the Baath Party, the military and the civil service under Saddam...another one of those stories rarely mentioned in the west, because they were still trying to build their Saddam-is-Hitler story.
It's going to be hard to protect Iraq's remaining Christians, because the few news sources that are actually covering their plight (I did hear a segment on the CBC radio show "The Current" this weekend about them), have noted that the remaining Christians are the poorest ones with little or no money to travel. Many from Mosul (the Iraq hq of ISIS) have found refuge in the Kurdish territories in the north, along with the other fringe Islamic sects that are declared heretics by the Sunni and Shia majorities. To me, it sounds like it would be one more situation where western interests motivated by oil and disguised as humanitarian efforts, would likely create more harm than good through ignorance and hubris...but that would follow the pattern of events since overthrowing Saddam I suppose!
High Threshold;1460907 wrote: It's a sad state of affairs. Who killed the labia? It comes as no surprise ... it's the Americans again. Here's my personal view.
Playboy magazine was at the forefront of general-use “Girlie†publications. They began photographing women in full bodied swimsuits, BUT WOW exposing their bare legs!!! Whew! Playboy pushed the limits further and further until they hit a brick wall: Pubic hair and labia. Both had to go if Playboy wanted to publicize women completely dis-robed. So off they came!
The common woman, it seems, gets her beauty inspiration from magazines so now it's a full shave and an elective labiaectomy . Too bad! There's nothing quite as exciting as the untampered female body.
Ummm, it didn't show much really...but the big scandal with that original issue of Playboy was a Marilyn Monroe nude centerfold. The chronology of men's mags that I recall from about 1970 onward was that they showed pubic hair/but airbrushed out genitalia. I think it was Hustler - Larry Flynt's magazine that became the first to feature the real thing...and that's why Hustler could not be sold over the counter where I was back in the early 70's.
When it comes to shaving....this is difficult to discuss without turning hardcore, but back then getting a mouthfull of pubes was part of the price you paid when you were going to reciprocate when it came to oral sex. I think the trend that went beyond trimming to shaving got started some time after I was married...had young kids running around the house...and wasn't paying attention to the porn market, because by the time I became aware of this trend, it seemed to have already become the standard of the porn industry. I suspect that guys watching porn started wanting the women in their lives to shave too, just as they try to talk them into doing anything and everything they see in porn....remember how there was no anal sex at all in the days of the old 8mm stag movies...now it's become standard...but, I still avoided the trend anyway. I doubt many women say to their guys:"take me through the back door!" I'm sure it starts with the guy, and that starts with what he learns from porn in modern consumer society.
Týr;1461070 wrote: I think "forced" is being used in this context as a synonym for "put under pressure". I don't think the word ever warrants such usage.
I warned you I'm kind of out of it, BUT...........when your life is at stake, Forced is the only word. Not that I've read the last few posts or anything.
AnneBoleyn;1461073 wrote: I warned you I'm kind of out of it, BUT...........when your life is at stake, Forced is the only word. Not that I've read the last few posts or anything.
The thread makes it clear ISIS offers various alternatives, of which conversion to Islam is only one.
Sorry R.C. I just can't concentrate enough to make any sense right now & that's brave for me to say, IMO.
However.....for me, credibility was lost during the W. Bush Iraq wars when the print & television news were more involved with being embedded with the military and exchanged any truth for that privilege. There was no critical thinking by the press during the Iraqi invasion, none that I can recall. It was all swallowed whole. The lies by those involved have never been punished in any way, & no one in the press has called for their heads. Please don't forget Rupert Murdoch's Empire in all this. They just make stuff up, period. There's no effort at all to investigate or stray into truth.
The Bosnia/Serbia thingy involved Christians persecuting Muslims. I don't recall seeing any Arab or Muslim state rushing to defend them either. I guess we all suck, to make a long story short.
LarsMac;1461079 wrote: Some choices. And this has been going on for centuries.
1. Pay us lots of money and we may not bother you for a while (at least until your money runs out)
2. Pack up and leave the home of your ancestors and try to find a home somewhere else
3. Convert to our religion
4. We will kill you. (Maybe torture you, and THEN kill you. we'll see.)
Want Fries with that?
I thought we'd made it clear that every major monotheistic religion, with the single exception of the Mormons, has done exactly the same in the past, except only Islam has allowed the humane choice of heavier taxation.
Where does the reference to torture come from? I don't recall that being part of the deal since the hyenas of the Roman Catholic church were finally obliged to stop using it... umm - relevant Wikipedia quote time?Legal basis for some inquisitorial activity came from Pope Innocent IV's papal bull Ad extirpanda of 1252, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics. By 1256 inquisitors were given absolution if they used instruments of torture.At a guess they stopped around 1958.
Týr;1461081 wrote: I thought we'd made it clear that every major monotheistic religion, with the single exception of the Mormons, has done exactly the same in the past, except only Islam has allowed the humane choice of heavier taxation.
Where does the reference to torture come from? I don't recall that being part of the deal since the hyenas of the Roman Catholic church were finally obliged to stop using it... umm - relevant Wikipedia quote time?Legal basis for some inquisitorial activity came from Pope Innocent IV's papal bull Ad extirpanda of 1252, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics. By 1256 inquisitors were given absolution if they used instruments of torture.At a guess they stopped around 1958.
I was including "every major monotheistic religion" in my comment. This kind of thing has been going on since at least the fall of the Roman Empire, if not long before, and I am not sure it was even limited to monotheistic religions.And, BTW, even the Mormons had their moments.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
recovering conservative;1461069 wrote: Ummm, it didn't show much really...but the big scandal with that original issue of Playboy was a Marilyn Monroe nude centerfold. The chronology of men's mags that I recall from about 1970 onward was that they showed pubic hair/but airbrushed out genitalia. I think it was Hustler - Larry Flynt's magazine that became the first to feature the real thing...and that's why Hustler could not be sold over the counter where I was back in the early 70's.
When it comes to shaving....this is difficult to discuss without turning hardcore, but back then getting a mouthfull of pubes was part of the price you paid when you were going to reciprocate when it came to oral sex. I think the trend that went beyond trimming to shaving got started some time after I was married...had young kids running around the house...and wasn't paying attention to the porn market, because by the time I became aware of this trend, it seemed to have already become the standard of the porn industry. I suspect that guys watching porn started wanting the women in their lives to shave too, just as they try to talk them into doing anything and everything they see in porn....remember how there was no anal sex at all in the days of the old 8mm stag movies...now it's become standard...but, I still avoided the trend anyway. I doubt many women say to their guys:"take me through the back door!" I'm sure it starts with the guy, and that starts with what he learns from porn in modern consumer society.
A very enlightening contributiion.
Was pubic hair actually displayed in Playboy? I don't remember it that way but I'm getting old and senile. Yes, I remember the Marilyn Monroe ruckus. That is what launched Playboy in the first place – aside (a-hem) from "the intelligent and interesting articles".
“A mouthful of pubes� Can we say things like that on FG? Ho-ho! It's not the ones in the mouth that are troublesome but the ones that find their way into the throat that I detest.
SHAVING: You think it's the guys who demand it of their women? Hmmm. Could be, but I'm still sceptical. But then I'm a swinging 60's kind of guy – "fill your head with hair, long beautiful hair" – well, and other parts of the body too. My wife doesn't shave her legs or her armpits and I love it.
ANAL SEX: I never was very keen on it. There have been 4 or 5 women who insisted. Yes, they actually did say, "Take me through the back door!", though only one in English. I obliged, but it didn't last, thank G_d. I don't like it.
I saw a UK documentary that seems to confirm it's the woman who're fixated with the appearance of her own genitals. Here it is:
Note it's stated a couple of times in the film that these women who claim it's to be more attractive for their men might find that men are not in agreement at all.
Not that I am an aficionado on the subject but it would seem to me that if one does get “A mouthful of pubes†one is not doing the job correctly.......for anybody involved.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Bruv;1461103 wrote: Not that I am an aficionado on the subject but it would seem to me that if one does get “A mouthful of pubes†one is not doing the job correctly.......for anybody involved.
High Threshold;1461097 wrote: A very enlightening contributiion.
Was pubic hair actually displayed in Playboy? I don't remember it that way but I'm getting old and senile. Yes, I remember the Marilyn Monroe ruckus. That is what launched Playboy in the first place – aside (a-hem) from "the intelligent and interesting articles".
“A mouthful of pubes� Can we say things like that on FG? Ho-ho! It's not the ones in the mouth that are troublesome but the ones that find their way into the throat that I detest.
SHAVING: You think it's the guys who demand it of their women? Hmmm. Could be, but I'm still sceptical. But then I'm a swinging 60's kind of guy – "fill your head with hair, long beautiful hair" – well, and other parts of the body too. My wife doesn't shave her legs or her armpits and I love it.
ANAL SEX: I never was very keen on it. There have been 4 or 5 women who insisted. Yes, they actually did say, "Take me through the back door!", though only one in English. I obliged, but it didn't last, thank G_d. I don't like it.
I saw a UK documentary that seems to confirm it's the woman who're fixated with the appearance of her own genitals. Here it is:
Note it's stated a couple of times in the film that these women who claim it's to be more attractive for their men might find that men are not in agreement at all.
I can't watch the video because it has an age restriction requiring sign-in, and I haven't signed in to Youtube since the Google takeover. But, if I can take a guess at it - the major complaint a lot of women have about porn images is that vaginas are usually smooth, even and appear virginal...which rarely happens in real life after women have sex...let alone have babies! In the earlier years of porn, it seemed to be an attitude of what you see is what you get, but as time went on, the porn actresses who somehow through sheer luck of genetics, managed to maintain that virginal appearance in spite of having sex with hundreds of different sized men, became the favorites and the big money-earners. I'm sure that provided all the incentive needed for later porn stars and their producers to favour the virgin look.
Playboy was always a little more conservative than the other men's magazines that I found in my older brothers' closets back when I was 12 or 13, but I'm pretty sure that by about 1971 they were featuring centerfolds with discreet displays of pubic hair.
SHAVING: I don't appreciate that underaged, childlike look myself, and a lot of guys it seems, also feel that maybe a trim is all that is needed. But it's likely the porn industry that has become desperate to push the envelope in order to sell a product that is difficult to earn money from in the internet era....they may be rich, but they don't have a Comcast or Disney behind them enforcing copyrights! So, they push towards greater and greater extremes, which is why some feminist writers in recent years, who had previously been neutral or positive towards porn, started pushing the alarm bells because of the trend towards violence and degradation of women...especially ones featuring actresses who are small and slightly built..looking much younger than 18 years. And that's where this insistence on shaving seems to have gotten started. It seems to be part of a desperate industry's grasping for anything and everything sensational and aberrant to try to motivate potential consumers to buy it instead of waiting for it to show up free on numerous filesharing sites.
ANAL SEX: I've been married a long time now, and haven't been with other women, and although I do have some female friends, I never get personal enough to ask questions on this sort of topic....so I can't claim first hand experience one way or another....I know my wife wouldn't go for it...because she's already reacted with disgust when some of her friends tell her about their experiences...it seems that they claim to have given to accepting anal sex because of husband's or boyfriend's pressing them to try it out.
LarsMac;1461082 wrote: I was including "every major monotheistic religion" in my comment. This kind of thing has been going on since at least the fall of the Roman Empire, if not long before, and I am not sure it was even limited to monotheistic religions.And, BTW, even the Mormons had their moments.
It will go further and further off-topic, but from the anthropological perspective, the problem with the monotheisms is that they reflected the shift in thinking as societies moved from being hunter/gatherer and horticultural - towards farming that incorporated livestock. Something changed in thinking that marked a dramatic overhaul in organizing family life - from matrilocal to patriarchal, and an attitude of controlling nature...having dominion over other animals and produce from the fields, that led to the hubristic attitude of being in dominion over creation.
The early monotheisms left a transcendent God in charge of the Creation....giving man the keys to the car essentially. In previous theologies....that still exist in some cultures today, is a Creator who is immanent or inseparable from Creation. So, the pantheistic religions have had a hard time adjusting to the kind of civilization that began 5000 years ago and has become increasingly ruthless in its destruction of nature to acquire useable products.
I get a little weary of the evils-of-religion debates, because the religious views only reflect the inner motives and desires of the people who adhere to them! No surprise that as white Europeans conquered and plundered and ethnically cleansed America, they erased every vestige from their Christian teachings that would limit capitalism and exploitation of nature and other humans....blessed are the rich...according to the prosperity gospel!
Along this theme, I'll leave it with an article on "Oneness" religions I found at the Science & Religion Today website:
A Belief in ‘Oneness’ Is Equated With Pro-Environment Behavior
By Tom Jacobs • July 28, 2014
We noted recently that the phenomenon of “green Christianity†is largely a myth, as Christians still lag behind members of other faiths in terms of eco-friendly behavior. But newly published research finds a different foundational spiritual belief is associated with environmentally friendly attitudes and actions: The notion of interconnectedness, or the essential “oneness†of creation.
This idea, usually associated with Buddhism but attractive to the growing number of Americans who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious,†was linked to concern for the environment in a new study. What’s more, this attitude drove behavior: In one survey, people attracted to the “oneness†idea were more likely to give money to a pro-environment cause.
“Spiritual oneness was a better predictor of pro-environmental attitudes than was religiousness,†a research team led by psychologist Andrew Garfield of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s moral evaluation research lab writes in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion................................
The efforts of some environmentalists like E.O. Wilson to try to reach evangelical christians and alert them to the looming disaster of climate change, seem to fall on deaf ears, because most of Christian tradition is framed around God giving Man dominion etc. People living in an increasingly ruthless capitalistic economic system that believe in a transcendent tinkerer sort of god, are going to be almost unreachable with environmental messages. But, I would caution that the "Green Buddhists" who are...let's say Wall Street traders, won't be a whole lot better when it comes to fixing and changing the system; because their faith will likely only motivate them to do a few 'green capitalist' moves dealing with global warming...like typical big city liberals. It's not likely that they are going to make substantive changes, because they way they live and the way they earn their money is not really compatible with actually trying to live in harmony with nature.
So, this veers off the violence-caused-by-religion theme here, but I don't believe that any of the harms caused or made worse by modern religious dogmas can be completely dealt with without addressing the fact that the monotheisms began as a departure from the long-standing attitude of depending on and living in harmony with nature/ rather than trying to subdue it! When we get a little closer to an imminent extinction, sociologists, anthropologists and historians may start recognizing that beginning of the Agricultural Revolution as a curse that sealed the fate of this world, rather than the great breakthrough for humanity that we have been taught since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.
Maybe you or other female members need to chime in here; because I'm trying to discuss these issues as best I can, but I am feeling a little uncomfortable discussing vaginas among an all-male cast! Maybe you can start an all-female thread discussing the virtues and vices of male penis issues!
recovering conservative;1461140 wrote: Maybe you or other female members need to chime in here; because I'm trying to discuss these issues as best I can, but I am feeling a little uncomfortable discussing vaginas among an all-male cast! Maybe you can start an all-female thread discussing the virtues and vices of male penis issues!
recovering conservative;1461131 wrote: I can't watch the video because it has an age restriction ...
I am just dying to ask but I think I'll wait for you to volunteer.
recovering conservative;1461131 wrote: ... vaginas are usually smooth, even and appear virginal...which rarely happens in real life after women have sex..
I don't believe this is true.
recovering conservative;1461131 wrote: Playboy was always a little more conservative than the other men's magazines ....
Playboy was THE ONLY such magazine “back thenâ€.
:):)
