Originally posted by La Dolce Vita:
Do you think that if society dictates that small breasts are unattractive we (women) should all undergo surgery and get implants?
No, but many women do, don't they?
And implants have proven to be considerably more medically dangerous than circumcisions, haven't they?
Here's the difference, I think: I would suggest that if there were a way of predicting in infancy which women would have abnormally small breasts in adulthood and there were a simple operation to change that and make the developed breats fall within the statistical norm later - one that was simpler and less dangerous than breast implants in adulthood - many parents would opt for it for their daughters.
Just as they would opt for reducing the size of abnormally large ear lobes..
And I used the foot binding example to drive the point home that is it really worth risking the health of infants and young girls to conform to a ridiculous societal norm?
Ridiculous as it may be that's the reality of the situation - our society, unfortunately judges people on their looks to a great extent, and people take all kinds of steps to make themselves look more attractive for that very reason (nose jobs, breast implants, contact lenses and lasar surgery for the eyes) - and especially considering that circimcision poses no significant health risks that I am aware of, people will continue to adhere to the "norm" as long as circumcision continues to be the norm.
Define "attractive". We are not comparing an uncircumcised penis to a deformity are we? Like I said, if a woman is looking for the perfectly smooth shafted rod, then that is her call based on her expectations and taste and she should pick her men accordingly if it means that much to her.
No, I certainly don't consider it a "deformity". Nor do i consider women with small breats, or people who wear glasses, or people with big noses to be deformed.
[quote]Im just saying I wouldn't (and haven't
)kick a man I am attracted to out of bed because of it, as when he is fully aroused it is kind of mute point anyway! [QUOTE]
It may very well be a moot point when the penis is fully aroused, I suppose (I'll have to take your word for that, never having seen one), and I respect the fact that you wouldn't let something so superficial as circimcision determine whether or not you wished to have sexual relations with a particular man.
But relationships frequently involve the woman getting the penis to the point of arousal, and if she's turned off by the sight to begin with, it might be hard (no pun intended) to proceed from there, so the point may not be moot to everyone.
As I said, if you surveyed all American women and they answered honestly, I don't believe that the majority would share your point of view.
