Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are women that support mgm more shallow?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are women that support mgm more shallow?

    Something that i have been thinking of is that the women that i have known to voice support for this practice were all very shallow in regards to all aspects of relationships with men i.e just using abusing them for everything theyre worth. I was wondering if this was what any of you guys have noticed as well.

  • #2
    Well, I was coerced into getting cut by a woman who turned out to be a serious manipulator. I was blinded by pussy. Needless to say, I severed ties with her shortly afterward. BITCH!

    Comment


    • #3
      That is a story that a lot of men have. I can not understand the mindset of someone wanting their partner to do something like that to themselves. I wonder if a fair amount of women like that are psychopaths/ sociopaths. Apparently those disorders are not as uncommon as most people believe.

      Comment


      • #4
        Rather than try to vilify an entire gender, and in the interests of effective intactivism, use the term "uneducated", rather than negative characterization, ie "shallow", or try to invade clinical concepts and use clinical terms like psychopaths/sociopaths. Sounds too much like misogyny. Education is everything; yours, and theirs.

        Comment


        • #5
          They are venomous poison.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mitchell7 View Post
            Something that i have been thinking of is that the women that i have known to voice support for this practice were all very shallow in regards to all aspects of relationships with men i.e just using abusing them for everything theyre worth. I was wondering if this was what any of you guys have noticed as well.
            Nope. And, I think your thesis is flawed. It ignores the fact that many women simply do not think about it a whole lot. It ignores the role that authority figures like doctors, as well as peer pressure exert on a persons thoughts. And it clearly suffers from major sampling bias.

            I have known a number of women that, once they found out that the foreskin actually was important, not some dirty worthless piece of flesh, changed their minds about supporting MGM. How do they fit into your "shallow women support MGM" hypothesis?

            Would you also contend that men who support MGM are shallow? Was there some reason you did not say "people who support MGM are shallow"?

            I think it is far better to consider a persons' views on MGM as an individual. Listen to what they say and ask them why. Seek to understand their point of view. Sure, they may be shallow. Or they may be misinformed. Or they may be any number of things, but you won't know the basis of their feelings about MGM unless you listen first, rather than writing them off as women who are shallow immediately, which is what it sounds like this post may be leading toward.

            Regards

            Comment


            • #7
              Among women that i have seen supporting it they are very clear and dont really care about any impacts on men. The question is are women like that more shallow generally and i say yes from all that i have seen.

              Comment


              • #8
                Accessibility bias, confirmation bias, and poor sampling would easily lead one to that erroneous conclusion. Better to leave it at the first sentence:

                Among women that i have seen supporting it they are very clear and dont really care about any impacts on men.

                If you just stick with what your observations are, and refrain from trying to expand that to all women, you will be on stronger ground.

                Maybe you should think about why you seem to want to paint all women who support MGM with this paintbrush? What is your goal? Suppose everyone agrees with you, then what have you gained? What is you next step? What will you do differently in the future, with this information in hand?

                Regards

                Comment


                • #9
                  I can read each post on this thread, and agree with what each poster has to say.

                  I remember once TV talk show Dick Cavett had two guests, diametrically opposed to each other, give their viewpoints, and he said, "I can listen to what the first one has to say, and agree with him, and then listen to what the second one has to say, and agree with him."

                  I have, in the years since, heard other people say the very same thing in all kinds of arguments about all kinds of things.

                  And, once, somebody said, that you cannot possibly agree with what two diametrically opposed people say. You have to take one side or the other.

                  What exactly does the word, "shallow" mean? Can we get into "semantics" over the use of that word?

                  I have seen this post title many times when visiting this message board, and finally decided to read all the posts and give my opinion.

                  The very first post made me think of Waylon Jennings and the song he sung, "The Belle of the Ball, "where he sings the lyrics, "like Scarlett O'Hara . . . " Can't remember the rest of it.

                  What was Scarlett O'Hara?

                  A Herionne?

                  A Villainess?

                  I think she definitely had some uh . . . how could I put it?

                  Character flaws?

                  In Scarlett O'Hara's day, the Social Disease of Male Foreskin Amputation had not taken over the USA, so I doubt she would have had any preference for cut men.

                  But, how many Present Day Scarlett O'Hara's are there, and what would their preference be in intact, or cut men?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X