[ SECRET POST #2122 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2122 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #303.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

Didn't you hear? Rep. Joe Walsh says no pregnancy ever threatens the mother's life because of medical advancements so abortions are totes unnecessary for life-saving!

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

FFS can we just make it a rule that you can only police body parts you physically possess?

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

lol good luck telling women they cant be involved in the decision of whether to circumcise.

bodily autonomy only matters if its teh womynz

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

eh, not true. totes my brothers call on his baby boy and his lady agreed. a lot of couples I know call it that way.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

when dicks and vaginas are equally represented, then and only then can you snark about how unfair it is to be a man.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Have you considered actually responding to what people say instead of what you imagined they did.

I mean a lot of feminists are pretty hypocritical about that, pointing this out doesn't suddenly make one an MRA. We have this amazing power as a society to deal with multiple things at once.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Have you considered shutting the fuck up?

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Lol what. My boyfriend wants our son to be cut, I have no comment on that issue.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

How do you get that from the above comment?

If anything the above comment could be interpreted to mean parents shouldn't have a say in circumcision and it should be left to the child to make the decision in adulthood but not "Only menz should decide what to do with baby penis".

And really parents making a decision about their child =/= government making medical decisions for all women.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[ill_omened]

The government is making the decision in the case of circumcision though.

Just in the opposite direction.

Because you could be damn sure they'd have something to say if you started tattooing or ritual scarification of your kid.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

I'm sorry?

Are you saying the government is leaving the choice up to parents and not intervening so they are directly involved?

And I fail to see how preventing parents from tattooing a child is equivalent to legislation preventing women from having access to safe abortions.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your positions but I can totally see how someone could get that from the comment above- that was actually how I read it the first time around, and I probably would have gone off snarking at them if I hadn't had the foresight to read the rest of the thread first.

Basically, the hiccup is whether you're reading "body parts you physically possess" individually (no policing other people's parts) or categorically (stay out of the discussion if you're not a stakeholder).

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

Again, little off tonight but... I don't know anyone who would claim they "physically posses" their child's foreskin.

And the second comment explicitly says "bodily autonomy". Which, unless I'm missing something, doesn't cover someone else's foreskin. I'm failing to see how bodily autonomy for an infant means the father can make a decision about circumcision but the mother can't. And the stakeholder thing doesn't adequately explain to me how a father would have more of a stake in circumcising a child than the mother.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

wtf is this comment?

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Circumcision wank.

It's, surprisingly, a thing.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Wank. Circumcision. Wank. Circumcision.

/not sure whether to laugh or not

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[tyger66]

If I were having a son, it would absolutely be the father's call whether or not to circumcise. See, I don't think I am in any way qualified to make a decision like that, because I don't have a penis. So, yeah, sometimes women are totally willing to take a step back when it comes to stuff like that.

IMO, the big problem here is that pretty much the ones with power over abortion laws and similar legislation are almost all men. The issue isn't men vs. women, it's that women aren't even getting CHANCE to have a say in laws that affect them directly.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[ill_omened]

You totally have a right to be involved in that decision.

In my positions as a man, I am officially deputising you as an honoury penis haver.

Because having or not having a penis has about zero percent influence on whether you're capable of understanding the debate. If anything it makes you better positioned, because you don't have your ego involved.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[fenm]

If I were having a son, it would absolutely be the father's call whether or not to circumcise.

Shouldn't it be your son's decision, when he's old enough to make it?

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know. My bofriend says our son has to be cut, because "It will make it look bigger and he'll be depressed later in life if he doesn't get it"

I don't men issues, lol.

Internet you so cray.

[anonymouslyyours]

Wow. I can't believe my comment about some dumb shit a politician said about abortion became circumcision wank and I got sucked in even. Derail effective.

Re: Internet you so cray.

[fingalsanteater]

This thread is kind of awesome in its what-the-fuckery.

I say bravo to the derail troll. Good show.

Re: Internet you so cray.

[(Anonymous)]

Circumcision chat is just never, ever, ever good.

I feel kind of proud of myself, actually, because there's been like 3 or 4 times I've wanted to respond to this thread and get involved in an argument, and I've been able to force myself to Just Say No and hit the back button and not get involved. Because I know it's a pointless, wanky argument that's not going to have any good results, but it's still so hard.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Way to derail.

If you want a law against circumcision without the consent of the one being circumcised, then go work on that and stop worrying about people having other problems that they care about.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

wtf. what the actual everloving fuck.