The Simtropolis Closet Thread - deux!

[Duke87 1,070]

Your example is too specific. Yes, young women may pick fights with other women, but that's not the point. The point is that a man can walk around and not particularly have to worry about getting raped, mugged, etc. - but women are at considerably more risk for that sort of thing. A man can also know that if someone picks a physical fight with him he can reasonably expect to match them in strength. A woman, meanwhile, will be overpowered if a man decides he wants to hurt her.

All of this means that there will be times and places where a man can walk around by himself with no trouble, but a woman is best not traveling alone.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Your example is too specific. Yes, young women may pick fights with other women, but that's not the point. The point is that a man can walk around and not particularly have to worry about getting raped, mugged, etc. - but women are at considerably more risk for that sort of thing. A man can also know that if someone picks a physical fight with him he can reasonably expect to match them in strength. A woman, meanwhile, will be overpowered if a man decides he wants to hurt her.

All of this means that there will be times and places where a man can walk around by himself with no trouble, but a woman is best not traveling alone.

Yeah, a bit specific. But what about this example? Recently insurance premiums for young women drivers went up because they were found to be almost as bad as young men when it came to risky behaviours on the road [source here] and it's not just limited to the US - the same thing is happening in Australia and Europe. Anecdotally, I've noticed them more likely to multi-task behind the wheel (with mobile phones, applying lipstick, etc) or do dangerous manoeuvres (such as weaving through traffic in a SUV, fitting into shoe-box sized gaps in traffic while talking on the phone to her girlfriend and applying lipstick at the same time ) just like men.

They're just like men, really

Anyway, about your second point: yes, I do fully agree. But women have a chance to fight back now, instead of just bowing to the whims of the man that just accosted her in an alleyway, which is only a good thing.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Double post, but relevant to gay marriage.

Allowing a conscience vote on gay marriage was narrowly defeated at the Nationals party conference. For people not living in Australia, the Nationals are part of a group called the Coalition, which is made up of both Nationals, representing largely rural electorates, and Liberals, representing cities and big business (generally). They are, together, the most conservative party in Australia's political landscape. I don't like the fact that the party leaders said that it would "break an election promise", and trivialising an issue like this, is quite frankly, offensive to those who have been fighting for equal marriage rights for years.

I hate how we have such idiots in power...

  Edited June 24, 2012 by Shadow Assassin  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I hate how we have such idiots in power...

To get non-idiots in power in a Parliamentary democracy, good men have to come forward. So where are they?

[Wakita_OK_Boy 0]

If you guys weren't aware, my girlfriend and I broke up. Well we didn't break up because I was moving. I told her I was gay and that I wasn't really attracted to her. I had started thinking about my sexuality after some things went on, so yeah.

Also, I finally learnt what the Closet thread was for!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Welcome to the out of the closet thread. I hope you are old enough to be sure.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Here's a Howdy-Do.

Some courts are absolutely without any human consideration at all. The Jews and Muslims are right for more than traditional reasons. It is a health issue that helps to prevent the spread of STDs.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is simply mutilation. Those societies that practice it are the same ones that don't believe females are human beings.

In this particular case, age 4 is rather late. And if some mutilation beyond the usual removal of the useless skin occurred the doctor should be censured. In Judaism the Bris is usually performed on the eighth day of life. It is even celebrated in Catholicism -- The Feast of the Circumcision. I guarantee you that Jesus was a Jew.

[Duke87 1,070]

San Francisco tried the same thing. The state of California stopped them.

I get that some people find the practice strange and disturbing. I'm one of them. But that some people actually see fit to ban it by some means or other is also disturbing. Nanny state much?

[s.i.X 13]

You could make the "it's religion" argument in favour of female circumcision as well, though. Slippery slope.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Was it Germany or France (or both) that banned people from wearing crosses, hijabs, stars, and other religious items in public buildings?

By the way, I am Catholic and I am circumcised (I am also rather progressive for a Catholic...) and I know that male circumcision is good hygiene (if done right). By the way, "slippery slopes" tend to be involved in the fallacies that attempted to prevent homosexuals from getting married and from a paralyzed Australian man from denying food and water when he wanted to die. Both of those usage of the slippery slope fallacies have failed. Circumcisions should not only be protected because of religion but also because of hygiene. Male circumcision lowers the rate of infection of HIV to women in coitus.

Thus, I conclude my argument in favor of Nonny Moose's opinion against the ruling of the Germans oppression of Jews (and Moslems, and Catholics...)

[Duke87 1,070]

You could make the "it's religion" argument in favour of female circumcision as well, though. Slippery slope.

Just like if we allow same sex couples to get married it will lead to men being allowed to marry their pet ferrets. Hey, slippery slope!

Female circumcision, despite using the same word, is not an analogous practice. It actually causes harm. There is an easy line to draw between the two.

[s.i.X 13]

Male circumcision causes harm too. I am so desensitized down there that condoms turn my penis into a numb stick.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

According to "Understanding Human Sexuality," most of the sensitivity in the penis is in the corona and frenulum. Imperfect circumcisions can remove part of the frenulum.

[Meg 368]

Male Circumcision Cuts Women’s Cervical Cancer Risk

[hym 358]

Aside from the fact that this is entirely more information than I think anyone wanted to know, there is the very real fact that the medical community is hard pressed to provide any definitive proof that male circumcision decreases sensitivity. Some say that circumcision has negative impacts, others say it improves things, and others report that there is no significant difference.

Male Circumcision Cuts Women’s Cervical Cancer Risk

I'm going to ask the same question I have before.

"Individuals have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit (within certain limits). Does this really justify expecting people to undergo surgery?"

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The fact that male circumcision lowers the rate of infection of diseases sexually to women should be enough not to ban it anywhere and allow men and the families of boys to allow for male circumcision. The government should not force male circumcision, or allow female circumcision but the government should not forbid religious people from getting their sons circumcised. There are radical progressives in California and Europe that have forced many religious people to vote with their feet. I am a Mexican-American Catholic and I was circumcised as an infant and my sister's ears were pierced as an infant. No infections, loss of sensation, or other noticeable side effects.

I know that I am enacting Pathos but I have already backed my argument with Logos and I am not alone.

[Meg 368]

I'm going to ask the same question I have before.

"Individuals have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit (within certain limits). Does this really justify expecting people to undergo surgery?"

I had healthy tonsils removed when I was 6 years old because my sister needed to have hers removed and the doctor figured Mom should get it over with and do mine at the same time. I do know that no one asked me and it took 6 people to hold me down to give me ether because I was convinced they were trying to kill me.

No doctor would do that today. but I can't say that I've missed them.

It bothers me to see pierced ears on a baby. That wasn't something the baby got to decide. and earrings aren't particularly safe things to have around babies.

From that, it would follow that circumcision should be a choice of the adult, not something forced upon a baby. Recent news has pointed out one action that is sometimes part of the ritual: sucking the blood away from the wound. My initial reaction was "You're doing WHAT to that baby?" This is not a safe and healthy practice. Several infants have recently died from contracting herpes that way.

One of my co-workers was circumcised as an adult. He said it kept tearing during inopportune moments. That sounds very painful to me.

[Duke87 1,070]

In the US circumcision has become a matter of conformity. It's simply what's done, and it isn't frequently questioned. Look at the graffiti on any bathroom wall, or any rendition of the male appendage drawn anywhere for for that matter, and notice that nobody ever draws one that's uncircumcised. It's what we as a society have been trained to expect it should look like. People consider it weird if you're not.

I don't know whether I buy that circumcision reduces the risk of spreading STDs (if anything, one would logically expect the opposite). But really, it shouldn't matter since there's a better way of preventing that: it's called using condoms and not having a zillion different sex partners.

As for piercings, I agree that that should never be none in infancy - for safety reasons. The issue of making the decision for someone too young to make it themselves isn't really an issue since piercings heal back to more or less normal if simply left unused. So, unlike circumcisions, they can be undone once done if the bearer so wishes.

I would also add that it's ugly when the piercing is in anything other than a woman's ears, but that's just personal cosmetic preference.

Likewise, though, there is no cause for legislation here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Considering the pain and inconvenience that circumcision causes after infancy, I think the earlier the better, and because of the health implications for AIDS (HIV), genital herpes, and yeast infections, I believe it should be mandatory except for religious objections.

[s.i.X 13]

In Canada it varies by region. When I was very young I thought every single one was unqie and very different from another, so in my mind, they came in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Hey Simtropolis, I was just wondering:

What are your thoughts on long-distance relationships?

[Duke87 1,070]

Depends on what kind of relationship you're talking about. Long distance friendships are, in this day and age, quite easy. Facebook, skype, cellphones... you can keep in touch with anyone anywhere no sweat.

If you're talking about a romantic relationship, though, there is just no way that can work without regular physical presence. Especially early on. Once a relationship is well-established it can survive a temporary physical separation, but you can't develop chemistry and fall in love with someone who you actually see in person rarely to never.

Of course, there's long distance and then there's long distance. I used to date a girl who lived about an hour and a half away. Some people I talked to seemed to think this qualified as "long distance" and would ask me how I was handling that. Between my working hours and hers, it meant we only got to see each other on the weekend, but we were still seeing each other pretty much every weekend (and talking on the phone more frequently than that), so I didn't consider it a big deal. Of course, I love driving, so an hour and a half away by car to me is just fine whereas for a lot of people it would kill them to be making that drive all the time. Even still, it's perfectly manageable for the right person.

On the other hand, if someone is a thousand miles away, you're not going to be seeing them every weekend and the relationship is impossible. That's more what I would call "long distance".

  Edited July 29, 2012 by Duke87  

[s.i.X 13]

Don't get your hopes up, especially when you're still just a teenager. Unless one of you has the ability to travel to the other, nothing will come out of it. But that doesn't mean you can't have fun or be friends; just don't limit yourself to someone you can't actually have or you'll be lonely.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Here's a howdy-do.

What is not understood here is that gays are not sex offenders. However, this kind of prohibition is silly since many gays remain in the closet very carefully and so what can they do about it? There are no tests.

[Duke87 1,070]

BSA is not going to ditch this policy until a law or court decision forces them to. They have already proven sufficient stubbornness for that.

On the note of organizations promoting homophobia, surprised no one has brought up Chik-Fil-A.

I must say, I've never eaten there, so it is trivial for me to continue to not do so (they don't really exist in this part of the country, anyway). And I've never really been particularly inclined to want to since the name "Chik-Fil-A", to me sounds more like it should belong to some wimpy health food restaurant, not a fast food joint. But I do find the backlash that has been directed at them to be encouraging.

  Edited August 5, 2012 by Duke87  

[s.i.X 13]

The issue isn't so much that the president of the company is anti-gay, the issue is that the company uses its profits to fund anti-gay organizations, which for us means that eating there is financing "the enemy".

This is an aspect of the whole thing that I think has been under-discussed in American media. We aren't boycotting because of a board member's opinion, we are boycotting because of the company's policies toward anti-gay organizations.

  Edited August 5, 2012 by s.i.X  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think this is just a ripple in the storm. Historically, the last time gays had complete freedom was in the Roman Empire circa 79 A.D as evidenced by more recent discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum. The Romans had a complete life-style blindness.

One could call the current dichotomy in the U.S. just social growing pains. You could also call it snooping where the people should not.

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Prime Minister of Canada)

  Edited August 6, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A nor do I ever plan on going (the nearest one is in the next state over) there. Bringing up the Romans was interesting, seeing as their government was collapsing at the time and their societal values were very "loose" and there was no easy way to enforce any societal values anyway... Also, I don't remember a point where the boyscouts were not bigoted; I don't know why, though.

[Meg 368]

Can I say something about gender stereotypes here? or, to be more specific, society's perception of gender.

On the news, they showed this picture:

The general tone was "Yeah! Ryan Lochte is partying with hotties after winning a few Olympic medals".

Excuse me but what I see is a zonked out human being who probably doesn't know where he is or what he is doing.

Suppose, for a moment, that it was a woman his age with that expression on her face, surrounded by men with those expressions on their faces. Someone would call the police.

Is it just me?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Ever heard the phrase 'predatory female'? That pretty much sums up that picture, and whoever published it did it for his/her advantage. Some one should have called the cops. The gentleman in question is in great danger.